The National Popular Vote always seems to gain traction whenever Democrats lose, or whenever they are losing.
I haven’t read the article but I’m simply agreeing with the headline.
If this country wants the 10 or 12 largest cities to decide who all future presidents will be then electing the president by National Popular Vote would be perfect. Everybody else can just stay home.
And on top of that, even if the above scenario was in place, Massachusetts has a nice habit of enacting ex post facto laws, similar to what they did after Ted Kennedy died. The law would be changed right after the election to ensure that “the will of the people of Massachusetts” was “respected.”
Eliminate the unit rule whereby the winner of the popular vote gets ALL of the state’s electoral votes.
Obama and the Dems trying to pull a Honduran Zelaya (aka Hugo Chavez). Then they will use the “popular vote” to eliminate the 22nd Amendment on POTUS term limits.
Americans elections have far more problems than how we vote..
Voting fraud is a political art among democrats..
Other than that republicans need to be able determine what a RINO looks like..
The move to caste electoral votes for the national vote leader is a double duty weapon. If the democrat wins the popular vote, they win no matter how few states they win. If the democrat loses, but would have won under the regular electoral system, then they start filing law suits against all the states that passed the measure. There would be electoral chaos, much worse than 2000. The election of 2012 would be tied up in court and Obama’s term would continue until SCOTUS decided it.
This measure is bad news and needs to be challenged before there is an election.
I don't believe that this falls under "States Rights" in the US Constitution.