Skip to comments.National Popular Vote: Making Every Vote Unequal
Posted on 02/18/2019 6:14:05 PM PST by george76
Electoral College advocates see a window of opportunity to eliminate Americas unique presidential election system. They are seizing the moment, working to implement change before anyone realizes what happened.
They even think they can do it without a constitutional amendment.
National Popular Vote (NPV) is a California-based effort that has been running under the radar. Its proponents ask state legislatures to agree to an interstate compact. By the terms of that simple contract, each participating state would agree to allocate its entire slate of electors to the winner of the national popular vote. This is a change from the current system in which states award electors based on the internal state popular vote.
NPV claims it is simply using constitutional provisions in a unique way. In reality, the compact would effectively eliminate the Electoral College.
NPVs plan goes into effect when states representing 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to the compact. To date, 11 states plus D.C. have approved the measure. Those states hold 172 electoral votes among them. NPV hopes to reach 250 electors by the end of the year. They would need just 20 more during the early months of 2020 to put their plan into action before the presidential election.
The idea is gaining steam. The Colorado Senate recently approved the idea, and a House committee is considering the matter this morning. Similarly, the New Mexico House recently approved NPV, and a Senate committee is expected to take up the matter soon. More efforts can soon be expected in places like New Hampshire, Oregon, Minnesota, and Virginia, where the legislation is pending.
NPV proponents rely heavily on simple sound bites such as every vote equal or one person, one vote. The sound bites are certainly appealing: They sound fair-minded and democratic. Ironically, though, NPV would ensure the precise opposite of its stated goal. If its compact goes into effect, NPV would guarantee unequal treatment of voters.
Some of the reasons are obvious. Others less so.
First, small to mid-sized states can never receive equal treatment under a national popular vote system. How can they? Candidates have limited time and resources. They will not work to build support across state and regional lines without an Electoral College to force the subject. Consider that Hillary Clinton won fully 20 percent of her individual votes from only two states: New York and California. The mistake cost her the election. But without the Electoral College, she would be rewarded for such behavior, and candidates would be sure to double down on the strategy. New Hampshire, Wyoming, and other small states would easily be lost in the shuffle.
NPV guarantees unequal treatment of voters for a second, less obvious reason: NPV is state legislation, not a constitutional amendment. States participating in NPV cannot tell non-NPV states what to do. Thus, NPV cannot authorize creation of a single, national election code to govern everyone nationwide. Instead, some people will be given more time to vote, simply because of their state of residence. Others might have an easier time getting an absentee ballot than those in neighboring states. Some people might have ballots that contain more third-party options.
Today, no one cares if Texans have more time to early vote than voters in Colorado. A ballot cast in Texas cant change the identity of Colorados electors. But with NPV in place, a ballot cast in Texas could dictate the outcome in Colorado. Suddenly, it matters a great deal that Texans had more opportunities to vote.
If the most basic rule of democracy is that the same set of laws should apply equally to everyone in the same election pool, then NPV will violate this rule egregiously, every presidential election year, without fail.
Dont worry. Someone, somewhere will file an Equal Protection claim. The litigation will make Florida 2000 look easy.
NPV guarantees unfair treatment of voters in one final way: It acts as if consent of the governed is unimportant, pretending that a simple interstate compact can be used in lieu of the constitutional amendment process. We the People of the United States consented to a Constitution that creates a state-by-state presidential election system. The Electoral College is just one of many checks and balances in our constitutional republic, preventing a bare, emotional, or tyrannical majority from running roughshod over the rest of the country. We the People agreed that this process can be changed only if three-quarters of the states agree. Yet NPV attempts to skirt this process entirely. It is prepared to radically change the presidential election system, whether We the People consent or not.
Apparently, NPV doesnt care so much about fairness after all.
NPV sounds like an STI, figures it would emanate from California. :^)
No Red State will agree to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Also, it’s a proposed compact and so would need Congress to agree to it. Good luck getting it through the Senate.
There is an "Anti-" that should be before "Electoral College advocates".
Yeah, I stopped reading at that.
Yeah...that lede made no sense to me either.
I wondered about that, too. If you go to the actual article, the ‘anti’ is in there.
We have a perfectly good Constitution, which has served us well for over two centuries; and no other nation has ever accomplished the good in the world that The United States of America have done.
LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE!
If California doesn’t submit their votes as mandated by the Constitution their votes will not be counted.
oh for crying out loud. Majority votes eliminate the minority voice. And majority votes has caused more hatred in the world as the disenfranchised always resort to violence. Which is why our ancestors created the Electoral College - so the voices of overpopulated city-states could never drown out the voices of the less populated non-urban areas.
The voters in Colorado have already been diluted by commiefornia escapees who brought the bad ideas with them. I do not want my vote decided by those who stayed in commiefornia or new York.
There is also the Delaware River Port Authority in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Sean Hannity just said Rod Rosenstein is to leave his post in mid-March.
10 Feb: CNN: Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein expected to leave Justice Department in mid-March
By Laura Jarrett
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is expected to leave the Justice Department in mid-March, according to a Justice Department official who spoke to CNN Monday.
The official disputed the idea that the timing of Rosenstein’s departure has anything to do with the latest revelations from former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, emphasizing that the plan was always that Rosenstein would help with the transition for his successor and then leave.
CNN has previously reported that Rosenstein was planning to leave his post after Barr was confirmed.
The new deputy attorney general could be announced as early as this week. As CNN has reported, Attorney General Bill Barr has selected Jeffrey Rosen as his deputy.
So no matter how your state votes, the lin=berals get the EC votes.
So no matter how your state votes, the liberals get the EC votes.
Why, exactly, would people in a state want to have their own Electors decided by people in OTHER states?
More importantly, states participating in NPV cannot tell NPV states what to do, either. This idiocy is an unenforceable agreement.
Election Day is in early November. The Electoral College vote is held in mid-December. That gives any NPV state 5-6 weeks to have its state legislature change its mind and drop out of the NPV. And that is exactly what will happen in any state where a Republican presidential candidate wins the national popular vote but loses an NPV state.
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.