I am beginning to understand why these liberal states want to cede their electoral sovereignty to the popular vote....
Republicans have LOST 5 of the 6 elections via the popular vote.
Bush lost in 2000 but won in 2004. But that was it.
I would think this is unconstitutional, but that depends on which flavor judge hears the case.
The Republic is almost totally dismantled. Only Article V. can begin to save it.
As the article points out, New York isn’t ceding its electoral power of Presidential elections, it’s retaking it.
National Popular Vote isn’t a Republican or Democratic movement, it’s a movement of heavily partisan states against “swing states.” The current system disempowers Mississippi and Utah as much as it disempowers California and New York.
Yes, of course.
And, once again, our Founding Fathers prove how intelligent and wise they were.
They knew that city populations tend to attract the newly arrived and those who seek collectivist “protection” (liberals by the modern definition) and that those in the rural areas tend to be far more independent and self-reliant (conservative by the modern definition).
He also knew that the population densities in cities could easily outnumber the population of the rural areas.
They didn’t want a single big city in a state to dictate to the entire state.
So they installed two key rules: proportional representation and the electoral college.
The electoral college was designed to protect the minority from a purely pluralistic majority.
Of course, the left hates the idea of protecting conservatives, thus they are trying desperately to strike down the electoral college so that the country is essentially run by the major cities.
Actually, I believe that the numerous independent recounts in FLA showed that Bush would have won the NPV.