Posted on 12/11/2017 10:14:06 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
Republicans are hesitant to switch from our winner-take-all state laws allocating electors to the electoral college to using the National Popular Vote. The National Popular Vote Plan would award all of a state’s electors to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all 50 states. There is a fear that such a move will benefit Democrats, since Democrats won the popular vote even though they lost the elections in 2000 and 2016. But the truth is, Republicans are likely going to lose their ability to win the necessary swing state of Florida in the future, and they can win the popular vote by campaigning differently.
The demographics of Florida are changing. More and more illegal immigrants are entering the country. Additionally, Puerto Ricans are flooding the country due to economic chaos and humanitarian crisis following Hurricane Maria at home. When they enter the U.S., because they are American citizens they can vote, and they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Hillary Clinton had an almost three-to-one edge among Puerto Ricans in Florida last year. Both illegal immigrants and legal Puerto Ricans are counted in the census which is used for determining how many congressional seats and electoral votes Florida receives. This will soon result in an increase in Florida’s electoral votes, which will lean more Democratic as increasing numbers of Puerto Ricans vote (this doesn’t even take into consideration possible illegal immigrant voter fraud).
It is true that Democrats Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the election. But those weren’t true popular vote elections. The Republican candidates they lost to put all their efforts into a handful of swing states, and did a better job campaigning there than the Democrats. In contrast, Clinton’s campaign unwisely campaigned in non-swing states such as Arizona, while ignoring the swing state of Wisconsin. If there was a true popular vote election, the Republican candidates would run a completely different type of campaign, likely focusing on mobilizing their base in rural areas and red states. Regardless, Republicans still won the popular vote in 2004.
A presidential election using the National Popular Vote is not a radical proposal. Critics contend there would need to be a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution in order to change the state-based, winner-take-all rule that most states use to send their electors to the electoral college. This isn’t necessary. The electoral college can remain. All the Constitution says about electing the president is in Article II, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” In order to change the system, individual states would merely need to revise state law to send their electors based on the National Popular Vote for the presidential candidates instead of winner-take-all. Currently, all states but two, Maine and Nebraska, have winner-take-all systems to send their electors to the electoral college.
Critics also claim that using the National Popular Vote in presidential elections would favor big cities over rural areas. This isn’t correct. Only one-sixth of Americans live in the 100 biggest cities. In contrast, in the current unfair winner-take-all system, only a handful of states decide presidential elections, the swing states. The 10 most rural states aren’t included, nor are 12 of the 13 smallest states. The winner-take-all system does not represent the vast majority of Americans. By the time voting results come in from key swing states, many voters on the West coast don’t bother voting because their votes essentially don’t count. This hurts minor candidates on the ballot in those states.
Under the current system, presidents shower pork on the swing states in order to get their votes. During the 2004 election, President Bush advocated for and got a trillion dollar expansion of Medicare in order to entice votes from the large population of senior citizens in Florida. Presidents take steps to help the coal industry in order to influence Pennsylvania, and the ethanol industry to help Iowa. Battleground states are twice as likely to receive exemptions from No Child Left Behind as fly-over states and twice as likely to have natural disasters declared.
There is another criticism that a rogue state secretary of state could frustrate the National Popular Vote Compact by refusing to certify the results. This is invalid, since plenty of federal and state laws prohibit that elected official from doing so.
Voter fraud will become more difficult under a National Popular Vote, because crooked party operatives will no longer be able to focus their efforts on just a handful of states, and the windfall of electoral votes for their illicit efforts will be smaller. For the same reason, it also reduces the possibility of recounts.
What did the Founding Fathers prefer? Not winner-take-all. The Founders debated various methods of the electoral college and almost adopted the proportional system at the Constitutional Convention. They never debated a winner-take-all system. As the states began to adopt winner-take-all, in order to ensure that their favorite sons like Thomas Jefferson won, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton warned in an 1824 Senate speech, “The general ticket system [winner-take-all], now existing in 10 States was … not [the offspring] of any disposition to give fair play to the will of the people. It was adopted by the leading men of those states, to enable them to consolidate the vote of the State.”
There are a significant number of prominent conservatives who understand what is taking place demographically so they support direct presidential elections. They include former congressmen Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Bob Barr (R-GA), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and eight former national chairs of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council.
So far, 11 states have passed laws implementing the National Popular Vote Compact, and it has passed in at least one chamber of 12 other state legislatures, four of which are red states. It will go into effect when enough states have passed it to total 270 electoral votes. When polled (by a left-leaning polling company), 74 percent of Americans support direct presidential elections. This breaks down to 75 percent among Republicans and 78 percent among Democrats. The left naively thinks direct presidential elections will benefit Democrats, assuming that large urban areas will decide elections. This bipartisan support means there is a good chance it will happen.
The purpose of the National Popular Vote bill is to make every voter in every state politically relevant in every presidential election. This is the only way to right size the political influence of battleground states. Clinging to the winner-take-all system is a losing strategy for Republicans. Under that system, they will likely lose Florida by 2020 or 2024 due to demographical changes. It is better to take our chances with a direct presidential election than suffer certain defeat with the unfair, outdated, flawed current system that can and should be reformed.
The electoral college was developed by some of the most intelligent political minds ever! Just because the commie/fascists think they’re smarter than everyone, just like every commie/fascist before them doesn’t mean they are. It’s in the constitution for a reason, thank God! This is the reason!
We took the squirrel rifles off the wall after our objections to being taxed without being represented were ignored.
And nothing mentioned in the article about widespread voter fraud, the president of the USA at the time urging such fraud, etc.
Now Townhall is suggesting that .. most of the country wouldn’t have a problem being disenfranchised in favor of urban lefties and foreigners here illegally?
Do these `reporters’ receive any education in history, politics or informal logic? (OK, that may be the problem.)
Rachel’s out of her everluvin mind!
National popular vote basically turns the nations fate over to the handful of the biggest cities that can amass the greatest vote piles, by hook or by crook. The penthouse archipelago rules as the ancient city states ruled their surrounding rural lands.
The biggest argument in favor of a national popular vote is that it eliminates the influence of immigrants (legal or illegal) in the electoral vote allocation among the states. California would have 50+ electoral votes even if there were only ten people in the entire state who are U.S. citizens and are registered to vote. A better approach to dealing with that issue is a constitutional amendment to eliminate non-citizens from the apportionment of House districts, combined with the large-scale deportation of illegals from every state.
When the 17th Amendment was debated in 1912, Senator Chandler from New Hampshire predicted the Progressives’ next move: calls for direct election of the President and a growing uniform net of smothering national laws.
Ever-more democracy isn’t perfume; it is poison.
This is such an absurd statement.
The Electoral College is a firewall that keeps vote fraud contained the state. By moving to a National Popular Vote, all the fraudulent votes will count nationwide.
In California alone, the fraudulent votes cast by non-citizens are likely to be more than all the votes cast in New Hampshire or Vermont or Rhode Island or Delaware, or any other small state. Instead of the "windfall of electoral votes" being smaller, it will be the entire Electoral Vote majority.
-PJ
A popular vote is unconstitutional. End of story.
Trump won the popular vote outside of California. He also won the popular vote outside of LA and NYC. We will become Panem from the Hunger Games.
More dilution of states rights.....
Get back to me when there is proof that EVERY Vote counted is confirmed to come from a LEGAL Voter, every one.
Get back to me when there is a guarantee of ZERO Voter Fraud.
Truth be known, even of you get back to me I will still be against Direct Democracy and I will continue to support the Electoral College.
One Word: Greece.
A lot of California Trump supporters didn’t even bother, because they knew it was a foregone conclusion.
I still say, if it were a true popular vote election, Trump wins anyway.
Hunger Games. Populous Capitol enslaves the Districts.
“The system isn’t broke so there’s no need to fix it other than to make it tamper and fraud proof. “
“Excatly ! How ‘bout we let the states decide how they want to manage this Rachel”
I think if you re-read that article, you may soften your take a bit. I definitely understand those remarks, as I’ve been a popular vote opponent from way back, seeing the Electoral College as the Constitutional mandate. This is the first time I’ve doubted my thoughts on it...
The author’s point is,
1) It may soon BE broken, and both parties have been working hard to break it (to their advantage) for over 200 years.
2) This is because the framers never wanted the “winner take all” Electoral College that it has become, with only a few swing states really making a difference.
and
3) Some states, even RED ones, are determining to go proportional even now, as allowed by the Constitution, and as soon as enough of them do it, the change is made. Since the right of the states to determine how to name electors is vague in the U.S. Constitution, there is no violation here.
Take another look, this could actually turn out well, as it makes rigging things more difficult.
It's got groove it's got meaning
” the framers never wanted the “winner take all” Electoral College that it has become,”
Can you provide any authority for this remarkable statement?
Hmmm...we live in a Republic.
I understand that we don’t want to replace our Republic with a Democracy. I get it, and I agree. But national vote for the President doesn’t make us a Democracy. That would only happen if we all voted on all of the Congressmen and Senators. How about we put the Senate selection back into the hands of the states? That would help a lot.
Nope. I merely stated that it was the point of the author. If she is wrong, OK. But there’s nothing in the Constitution prescribing the “winner take all” approach, either. It says the states can decide how they select them, correct?
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.