Posted on 04/01/2019 5:24:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ronald Reagan was reportedly fond of referencing the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Monahan’s admonition, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Today, that would most particularly include opponents of the growing drive to enact the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award 270 electoral votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Of all the myths conjured up by naysayers to try and torpedo the compact, perhaps the most egregious portray the measure as either unconstitutional or an effort to eliminate the Electoral College. Both are patently false.
The compact isn’t the same thing as the national popular vote that the 2020 presidential candidates are calling for. The compact is 100 percent constitutional and consistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers, who explicitly gave states the authority under the Constitution to form agreements among themselves for any number of reasons. There is no issue with the states usurping the power of the federal government.
Moreover, while some reform advocates argue for elimination of the Electoral College through a long and cumbersome effort to amend the Constitution, the compact preserves the Electoral College intact, exactly as the Constitution specifies. In fact, the compact states that if the Electoral College is done away with, the compact goes away.
Under the Constitution, states are free to award their electors in any way they see fit. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution either mentioning or mandating the current winner-take-all system by which most states award their electoral votes. The Founding Fathers never approved it. By entering the compact, the states agree to direct their Electoral College votes through a popular vote.
The myths and falsehoods aren’t limited to the Constitution and the Electoral College. Another falsehood imagines the votes of large, populous states running roughshod over smaller, less populated states. This is patently untrue. More people live in rural areas and small towns than in the big cities. If Republicans direct their campaign efforts in the former areas, they should be able to win the popular vote, since they dominate those areas. Right now, they direct their energy at the swing states instead.
Under the current system, we don’t so much elect the president of the United States as we do the president of the battleground states. The 12 states where the candidates spend virtually all of their time — and money — chasing blocks of electoral votes that can swing back and forth every four years. The other 38 states and the District of Columbia — encompassing roughly 70 percent of the population — are ignored because they are so faithful in voting either Republican or Democrat every four years.
In an election fought under the compact, the 12-state election model becomes a 50-state contest in which candidates are compelled to chase down every single voter in every nook and cranny of the nation. The states are essentially working with other states to make their votes more relevant.
Oregon is a great example of why the compact is needed. Over the last eight presidential elections from 1988 to 2016, a total of 5,429,496 Oregonians cast their popular votes for the Republican ticket. And in all of that time, their efforts have failed to produce one single GOP electoral vote. Because eight out of eight times, the Democratic ticket won Oregon’s popular vote and all of its electoral votes.
Under the compact, voters gain a direct voice over the disposition of the 270 electoral votes. No voter in any state would have their vote cancelled out because they didn’t go along with the majority of others in their state. Every voter would have their vote counted directly toward their choice for president. And the presidential candidate who gets the most popular votes would become president.
Florida is gradually becoming more Democratic, as Puerto Ricans move into the state and overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Republicans are going to lose this swing state and will be unable to win presidential elections through the existing system much longer. It’s a good time to switch. The movement in support of the compact is gaining momentum with Delaware and New Mexico having just passed bills joining it for a projected total of 189 of the 270 electoral votes necessary to switch to the compact (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). It has bipartisan support because Democrats erroneously think large cities will end up deciding elections. Republicans need to do their homework on this issue before blindly repeating falsehoods.
States don’t get to decide how the national election works.
U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
.... This sounds like Liberal Fractured Logic to me .... Like the old saying goes .... "You can Vote yourself into Socialism .... BUT .... You will have to fight a War to get out of it ..."
And who enforces it if someone Unpopular to the state politicians
..wins the popular vote
You really think that if Trump wins the popular vote nationally in 2020
California is gonna give its electoral votes Trump?
Hell no
This is just a scam by the left again
If their favorite candidates win the popular vote will throw their electoral votes to them
if thier unfavorite candidate wins the popular vote though all of sudden they will find some reason not follow through with this ..and who will stop them..
Who’s gonna enforce they follow through with their “compact” ....nobody
Its rigging the election upfront
How does it get around states “ Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution “ states are not allowed to enter into a compact without Congress’s permission?
Also doesn’t disenfranchise voters in said state by allowing other states to be the deciding factor in the election?
The dipshit typing this article can pound the table and yell "wrong" to every objection, but what she cites as facts are only her opinions and the opinions of all who support this effort to steal the next election.
If popular vote goes through cities states “WILL DICTATE OVER” entire country.
This entire loony idea will work fine...
...until Trump wins the popular vote in 2020 and all those blue states where he lost will need to turn their votes over to him.
Watch how fast they get repealed then.
We’re not a true democracy and we should stop letting them try to tell us we are. The same reasons they rejected that in favor of the electoral college hold today.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
Electors are to deliberate and make their choice for President and Vice President. These laws binding the electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote render the term Electors a nullity. Article II Section I give the states the authority to determine the "manner" in which Electors are "appoint[ed]". It doesn't give states the authority to direct how Electors are to vote.
ClownHall can stuff it.
I’ll bet she soiled her Depends when President Trump was elected, and hasn’t changed them for two and a half years...
The fundamental issue is whether a state can give up its rights in favor of a political mandate. If, as is the case in the current election, the majority of states’ citizens vote for a candidate in a close election and one large state overwhelmingly supports a manifestly unpopular candidate can that unpopular candidate be given the win based solely on the national popular vote. The Constitution says no. Democrats, frustrated with the Electoral College say yes.
Democracy is anathema to our form of government. Any attempt to shift our government from a Republic to a Democracy will result in a socialist government and the end of personal freedom.
Illegals vote in Oregon...
Trump has often stated that he is capable of winning the popular vote.
Since he didn’t have to he did not expend time or resources campaigning in places like California. Since he would not have to win them but merely peel enough votes away from the Democrat to put him on top in the aggregate national total, it is possible.
And yes, Democrat heads would start exploding.
Citation please.
There is nothing in the Constitution which prescribes or limits the manner in which States can award their electoral votes. They could do all of the actions that you mentioned.
The New Jersey Senate has already passed a law which would effectively forbid electors from voting for Donald Trump in the 2020 election (it hasn't passed the House or been signed by the Governor). Similar efforts are underway in Maine and California.
The only reason these measures won't become law is because they might apply to Democrats as well as Republicans. But if they could pass a law in California specifically excluding Donald Trump by name as an eligible candidate for President, they would. And that legislative body is so deranged that they just might.
You can bet the farm that the Ninth Circus Court would uphold such a "law".
Only their State Constitution can prevent exactly that.
I have long wondered why electoral votes are not split according to the states vote. (I believe some states do this now?)
For instance, in CA, during the last presidential race, roughly 34 electoral votes would have went to Clinton, and 17 would have went to Trump. (Clinton 61.73% to Trump 31.62%)
Seems to me, if these people truly want votes to matter, this is the best way. We need the electoral college, for all the protections it provides, but maybe not having all 55 from CA to go to an individual candidate would be a good idea.
Facts, Not Myths, Back National Popular Vote’s Surge in Popularity
**************************************
Massive organized voter fraud, not legitimate concerns, back national popular vote’s surge in popularity.
I agree with you Durbin. See my post 98.
In our scenario, Trump would have gotten about 17 EC votes, and Hillary would have gotten about 34.
That seems reasonable, considering the demographics in our state. Again the big cities end up ruling, but at least the rest of the land mass of CA gets a say equal to their number.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.