I mentioned that California could give a Republican a presidential victory. That may not be as remote as thought. Consider:
In 2012 President Obama received 61 percent of the electoral votes, while garnering 52 percent of the popular vote. The actual vote differential amounted to only 3.5 million out of more than 120 million cast, less than 3 percent.
Other recent elections have been either close, or won, not with a majority, but with a plurality, as Clinton did twice. The obvious conclusion must be that it is not always how many votes a candidate gets, but in which states those votes are attained.
That being the case, the possibility of a Republican getting 50.1 percent of the national popular vote total — but losing in California — may not be far-fetched. If the popular vote winner did not have the required 270 electoral votes, California, as a result of joining the NPV, would have to cast its 55 votes for a Republican, which would likely tip the scale in favor of the Republican. Would the 60 percent of California voters who vote Democrat tolerate that occurrence?
If it appeared that California was in fact the determinate in a Republican victory despite having voted for the Democrat candidate, would the state’s residents demand a withdrawal from the agreement? Doing so could set up a very ugly legal fight, but considering the visceral reaction to 2000, would anyone expect less?
There is a constitutional alternative to the NPV plan: Congressional District Distribution.
Taking California as an example, if fairness and attracting presidential campaign dollars to the state are the true reasons for favoring the NPV pact, then distributing the EV’s to the winner of each district would accomplish both goals.
In the 2000 election 19 of California’s 52 Congressional districts voted for George Bush. Those 19 EV’s would have ranked California’s Republican districts between Michigan (18) and Ohio (21) in terms of value toward the final goal of 270. This would then greatly increase California’s importance as a target for presidential campaigning.
However, if preventing a reoccurrence of 2000 is the primary goal, that too might be accomplished, yet the result may very well not be in alignment with a majority of California voters, as demonstrated above.
The men who wrote the Constitution did not pretend to think they were writing a perfect document, indeed they laid out methodologies to modify the document to reflect changing needs or existent weaknesses. Thwarting the Constitution, via the NPV, an agreement made between a minority of states based on either desire for campaign spending or retribution, was not one of them.
Let’s hope common sense prevails and the National Popular Vote movement comes to a slow and well deserved end.
That being the case, the possibility of a Republican getting 50.1 percent of the national popular vote total — but losing in California — may not be far-fetched. If the popular vote winner did not have the required 270 electoral votes, California, as a result of joining the NPV, would have to cast its 55 votes for a Republican, which would likely tip the scale in favor of the Republican. Would the 60 percent of California voters who vote Democrat tolerate that occurrence?
That's really the point -- no matter how the Electoral College is altered, or even if it is eliminated, the Snowflakes won't accept the outcome. WE are the Resistance, not them.
The NPV would push up Red voter turnout in Blue states, because a couple of percent difference in turnout in, say, California, could flip ALL of the NPV states to the Republican candidate. The Snowflakes would be cring their stupid little eyes out, then their op-ed enablers would be ranting for electors to be faiithless, for the election to be thrown into the House, rant rant rant.