Posted on 04/21/2014 8:22:59 AM PDT by Cheerio
Conservatives and leading liberals slammed the campaign to effectively end the Electoral College's role in presidential elections, saying that the National Popular Vote Compact Law circumvents the Constitution, saying it resembled President Barack Obama's abuse of the law through his extensive use of executive orders.
"It is pretty startling," Bill Kristol, founder and editor of The Weekly Standard, told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV this week. "If they want to make the case for the popular election of presidents and a Constitutional amendment, they should make the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Many took an oath that said, I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion....
It is good for a lifetime. It will guide you through rough philosophical questions you face as a voter, too.
What the Democrats count on...is that urban areas will deliver the massive votes of the future. So, this would virtually guarantee only Democratic contenders from 2020 on. Then, you could forget about North Dakota, Idaho, and twenty odd states....just focus big money on urban areas.
The logic has one flaw. As these new Latino voters get integrated into the system....they will eventually start to flip around fifty percent of their vote toward the Republicans. It might take another decade, or even two decades...but half of all Latino voters will eventually vote Republican. So, this crafted vehicle is not that stable or effective in the long-run....if you ask me.
Given that there is plenty of damage in just the last 5 years, 10-20 years of ‘Rat control until there is 50% Latino vote for Republicans is asking for quite a bit of damage.
I think it would because the trigger for the law to go into effect is for a majority of states to agree to the scam. In other words, they have entered into an agreement with the other states.
“If they want to make the case for the popular election of presidents and a Constitutional amendment, they should make the case.
They don’t want to make the case.
They prefer working in the dark.
Some people enjoy winning by manipulation and deceit and, after decades or centuries (or, at a personal level, years) of this sub-surface behavior, they aren’t capable of functioning, and have no desire to act, in light.
Not a majority of states, states with a majority in the Electoral College.
Not true. Only electors from those states that joined the Compact would cast their votes in lockstep for the popular vote winner. The electors from other states would continue to cast their votes as directed by their state’s laws.
They got a big boost recently when NY decided to go along.
There's a poll to FReep on the right hand side of the page. Scroll down.
That's true. But a legislature cannot choose a method that undermines the intent of the Constitution. For example, a legislature can't decide to put its electoral votes up for sale to the highest bidder.
It was also because in places like Texas, the turnout was relatively low since the state was overwhelmingly for Bush. Bush could well have put campaign funds into running up the totals there, but didn’t bother.
An objection I haven’t seen laid out is that this law would provide massive incentive for voter fraud.
In today’s CA, for the Democrats, or Texas, for the GOP, there’s no real incentive for fraud. Doesn’t matter the margin by which they win the state, they still get only the same number of EC votes.
With the Compact in place, “safe” states will have massive incentives to run up their vote totals via fraud, if necessary. Under the present system, these incentives exist only in swing states like Florida.
Not all that different from the present system. Only swing states really matter in the EC vote at the moment, so CA, TX, and MA are ignored while FL and OH are politicked to death.
I don’t think their doing so would be unconstitutional, though it would no doubt be illegal by state and possibly federal law.
Look, it’s very simple. The Constitution unambiguously gives the power to determine how electors are chosen to state legislatures.
For us to decide that “intent of the Constitution” overrides this power, we have to give a Court the power to decide what the “intent of the Constitution” is.
Either we believe in the Constitution as written, and in states’ rights to do even stupid things, or we don’t. Personally I think federal courts have far too much power now. I oppose any expansion of it.
No doubt. As might have happened in Florida in 2000. I was pretty angry with the whole circus.
See Post #16. Replace “California” with “New York” and repeat as necessary.
They are never going to be in a position where they change the state's electoral votes from a Republican candidate who won the state's popular vote to a Democratic candidate who lost the state's popular vote but won the national popular vote.
Not only is there no national popular vote, as such, there is also no trusted enumerator.
What are these states going to do to determine the “winner”? Check with PBS?
The website of the sponsoring entity features the following words: ‘”The State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary” - U.S. Supreme Court’
If so, how can they be barred from leaving the compact (and choosing another means of appointing electors) within six months of a presidential election?
In case of a disputed popular vote total, the votes of each participating state would be in limbo.
Shhhh... you’ve discovered their secret.
If they do a majority of EVs, the slog through the courts will be interesting.
Good post.
I have read that there are 242 electoral votes that make up the so-called “blue wall” ie they have voted Democrat 6 times or more consecutively for Democrat POTUS candidates. None of those are going to change anytime soon.
The reality is that the 2016 POTUS election will be held in Florida and Ohio. Pretty much everything else is fluff.
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.