Posted on 05/16/2019 6:15:12 AM PDT by Innovative
They are waiting for the total Electoral College votes of the states that enter the compact to be 270 or more.
That's right.
Consider the 2000 election. President Bush won with 271 EV to Gore's 266 (one wacky elector abstained, a DC elector who would have voted for Gore protested DC voting status). So, let's call it 271-267, where one state swings it. Colorado voted for Bush 883,754, Gore 738,227, Nader 91,434. Even if the Nader voters went to Gore, Bush would still have won Colorado.
Colorado recently passed the NPV compact. If it had been in place in 2000, Colorado would have voted for Gore despite the majority of the state voting for Bush. Gore would have won Colorado's electoral college votes and the Presidency, despite Colorado giving it to Bush.
The NPV Compact initiative was started in 2001 as a direct result of the outcome of the 2000 election.
-PJ
Pacts and coalitions of states are unconstitutional.
Imagine election night 2020 on TV if this were to take effect:
“We project Biden will easily win the states of Maine and Massachusetts.”
A few hours later: “Trump will apparently win the popular vote so we change the colors of these states from blue to red as they are part of the National Vote Compact.”
AL Gore; “the US Constitution is a living document”. Thus, it means what the democrats say it means.
That’s exactly what is coming. They’re idiots and their heads are going to go nuclear when their electoral votes go to Trump.
It’s such a great example of what happens when you think with emotion and don’t think logically and long term.
These are State’s that won’t vote for Trump anyway...it’s of no relevance of being positive for them but will be highly relevant if Trump gets the popular vote.
It’s just dumb. PDJT could be the first POTUS to be reelected with 100% of the electoral votes!
“Can they do this? The US constitution can be crumpled up like this?”
I would think any law that forces electors to vote against their will is unconstitutional.
Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump by 4,269,978 votes, which is more than the combined total votes cast in Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas (all Trump states).
In New York, Clinton's excess vote count was 1,736,590. Illinois excess Clinton votes were 944,714. Massachusetts was 907,303.
In California, in just Los Angeles alone Clinton's excess vote count was 838,575.
-PJ
Reversing the 2016 election would be poetic. Trump wins the 2020 majority vote and loses the electoral college by 5 votes. However, given the Democrat states’ decision to award their electoral votes to the majority vote winner, Trump wins in a landslide. Play that song for the imbeciles.
Welcome to the new democrat controlled C.C.C.P. only the east and west coasts votes count everyone grab ankles.
That's not how it works.
There isn't a single body of people called "electors." Each party forms their own slate of electors made up of state party members. Usually, these members are people who have been active in their state party, who attend conventions, who organize local events, etc.
Each slate is vetted by the campaign team and approved by the national campaign. When a state's election result is determined, it's the winning party's slate that is chosen to go to the Electoral College in December.
Therefore, the electors are already partisan party voters who will not be forced to vote against their will. They would, however, be voting against the will of the people of their state.
-PJ
“The Constitution gives the states great latitude in deciding how they will assign their electoral votes.”
As long as basic constitutional principles are followed. The primary constitutional issue here is forcing a slate of electors to vote against their will and as a result, disconnecting those electors from the voters of that state and therefore disenfranchising the state’s voters.
With the possibility of lawsuits over fraud between States an election result could drag on for months, maybe more.
States won’t be able to cast their electoral votes until suits against other States are settled.
Gonna be popcorn time.
I’ve got a better idea. Apportion electoral votes to counties. If we’d had that in 2016, Trump would have beaten Clinton by about five to one. Landslide!
“Therefore, the electors are already partisan party voters who will not be forced to vote against their will. They would, however, be voting against the will of the people of their state.”
If the slate of electors are forced by legislation to vote for the national popular vote winner instead of their party’s candidate, then I would think they’re being forced to vote against their will.
There is a Republican slate and a Democrat slate. If the state goes to the Republicans, then the Republican slate is sent to the Electoral College. If the state goes to the Democrats, then the Democrat slate is sent. The Republican slate will enthusiastically vote for the Republican candidate, and the Democrat slate will enthusiastically vote for the Democrat candidate.
It's not one single non-partisan slate that gets sent with orders on how to vote.
The candidates' names are just proxies on the ballot; the people are really voting for Electors. It's just a convenience to keep from having 110 electors on the ballot with instructions to vote for 55 (if you're in California).
-PJ
I just received this in an email from a friend. I have not researched the content, but it sure sounds good!
“The founders of this country were much smarter than and more
responsible than our current Congressional representatives.
Last week the newly convened Democratic controlled House of
Representatives introduced a bill to eliminate the electoral
college. It seems that, since they couldn’t win the last
presidential election under the rules that have existed for almost
250 years, they want to change the rules. Below is an excellent
explanation on why this is a very bad idea.
Subject: 319 Square Miles
In their infinite wisdom, the United States’ Founders created the
Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented.
Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the
whole of the nation?
The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on
the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to
why the Electoral College makes sense.
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them..
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn,
Manhattan, Richmond (or Staten Island) & Queens) Clinton
received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton
only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for
Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million
square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest
that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles
should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA,
etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our
country!
And...it’s been verified and documented that those
aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our
nation’s problems foment.”
Yea...I was researching that. You’re correct. Still not sure it would survive a constitutional challenge. I believe the intent of the electoral college was to apportion equal voting weight to the less populated areas of the country...otherwise, large population centers would ALWAYS elect our president.
We will see.
If DJT does not win Wisconsin in 2020 (popular vote or not), he loses ...
DJT must win the mid-west and Penn, for that to happen. Right now he loses Wisconsin (against Joe) and if that holds and the other states in the mid-west and Penn flip, he loses. He must win Wisconsin.
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.