Posted on 04/27/2014 12:20:23 PM PDT by SMGFan
They just don’t want another 2000 where Gore “clearly’ had more votes, so for them it is well worth it. But the closeness of 2000 is the reason to oppose their plan.
Since when does anything the liberals want to do require changing the constitution? The king’s word is law.
Under the current system the Democrats only need to win in 14 states (all won by Obama in 2012) plus the District of Columbia to get to the required 270 electoral votes.
California: 55 Electoral votes (60% Obama in 2012)
New York: 29 (63% Obama)
Florida: 29 (50% Obama)
Illinois: 20 (58% Obama)
Pennsylvania: 20 (52% Obama)
Ohio: 18 (51% Obama)
Michigan: 16 (54% Obama)
New Jersey: 14 (58% Obama)
Virginia: 13 (51% Obama)
Washington: 12 (53% Obama)
Massachusetts: 11 (61% Obama)
Maryland: 10 (62% Obama)
Minnesota: 10 (53% Obama)
Wisconsin: 10 (53% Obama)
District of Columbia: 3 (91% Obama)
Total: 270 via 14 states & D.C.
Under the current system the Democrats only need to win in 14 states (all won by Obama in 2012) plus the District of Columbia to get to the required 270 electoral votes.
California: 55 Electoral votes (60% Obama in 2012)
New York: 29 (63% Obama)
Florida: 29 (50% Obama)
Illinois: 20 (58% Obama)
Pennsylvania: 20 (52% Obama)
Ohio: 18 (51% Obama)
Michigan: 16 (54% Obama)
New Jersey: 14 (58% Obama)
Virginia: 13 (51% Obama)
Washington: 12 (53% Obama)
Massachusetts: 11 (61% Obama)
Maryland: 10 (62% Obama)
Minnesota: 10 (53% Obama)
Wisconsin: 10 (53% Obama)
District of Columbia: 3 (91% Obama)
Total: 270 via 14 states & D.C.
Sorry for the double post.
So democrats ARE planning illegals granted amnesty to get the vote even if they aren’t granted full citizenship right off the bat. Illegals granted amnesty will be given the right to vote, legal or not, then rushed through before anytime to recount or verify actual legal votes. The country is toast. Ride the wave and stay under the radar.
“It will require a constitutional amendment, of course, which isn’t easy. Liberals will, naturally (or otherwise), support anything which brings us one step closer to socialism and tyranny.”
Republicans should counter with my idea. Vote by county. Every county gets one point. Most points win the states electoral votes. And you do not have to change the constitution because it it a states issue.
It also puts up a firewall in that if one county has 150% of the vote like Cuyohoga county, then who cares? It’s only 1 point. No one is disenfranchised.
Best part about this is the majority of States are run by Republican governors and in competing methods of voting, this will win the publics trust.
This will work until a republican gets a majority.
It will be hilarious to see how fast they change the laws back.
We have become more interested in what the owner of a sports team thinks of their customers than we do about securing ourselves from the tyranny of the majority.
This “reform” is going to blow up in the faces of the Demagogic Party, because California alone has unexpressed Pubbie votes, due to the fact that the state is heavily blue. Turnout in CA is also lower because they vote later, after the election may appear to have been decided.
The result of the change will be increased Pubbie turnout, and given the sheer size of the state, a boost in Pubbie vote will tip the POTUS to the Republican candidate. Partly this applies to NY state as well.
The Demwits are pushing this change because they think it will benefit their party — but once it tips the election toward the Republican Party, they’ll be screaming to overturn the results that they engineered.
This change to the way the Electoral College awards votes is entirely legal and Constitutional, and it is coming.
Thanks SMGFan.
to add some detail to Nero Germanicus’ post:
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html
10 million eligible didn’t show up in California in 2012; 6 million eligible didn’t show up in New York; 90 million eligible nationwide didn’t show.
Not so fast - in the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000, SCOTUS cited ample SCOTUS precedence that you cannot value one voter's vote over another.
The NPV law will allow the majority's votes within a state to stand and the state's electoral votes are awarded to him, but only if that candidate wins the NPV. If the candidate loses the NPV, the will of the state's voters is overturned and the electoral vote is awarded to the other candidate.
From the Bush v. Gore decision:
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College ... History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter ... "
"... The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964)."
This would inevitably be litigated at SCOTUS and two questions come to mind:
1. Can a state allow an outside influence to affect its elections [ie: allowing the NPV to affect its selection of the electoral votes]?
2. Can a state take away its citizen's majority votes to after they have selected the candidate of their choice?
Many constitutional scholars believe that the NPV will be declared to be unconstitutional.
Well, at least they did come up with Vermont carry. Nice!
No, but it sure would piss off the left! Oh, boy! Whoo!
Almost there since the 2010 census. Once Texas turns blue due to immigration (illegal or otherwise), flyover country will no longer matter except for the primaries.
Yes, but IMO what the are doing is unconstitutional because it violates the spirit and intent of the Constitution.
And the butt-[censored] of our Constitution continues . . .
Combined General and Maryland “Freak State” PING!
Nope.
Only solid rat states have passed that stupid pact.
I challenge them to change it and have it go in effect in 2016 rather than whenever enough states pass it (which will be never).
I’d love to see Hawaii and Vermont forced to cast their electoral votes for a Republican, should one win the 2016 popular vote.
Don’t know why they need to go to the trouble of pushing this through, as 2012 showed that they have already perfected their voting fraud operations.
Note: this topic is from 4/27/2014. Thanks SMGFan.National Popular Vote / NPV:
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.