Posted on 10/25/2012 4:35:12 PM PDT by socialism_stinX
Abstract: The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
Win for us, loss for them.
We are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.
To bad we don’t know our own history.
Let all the blue states do this, and all the red states not do it.
Win for us, loss for them.
Yup.
The Electoral College must be left in place, but we need to develop a strategy as to what to do if in 2012 or another year that the Republican wins the popular vote while losing the Electoral College vote.
The best strategy may be to encourage enough electors from states that go Democratic to switch their votes to the Republican candidate.
Or, make sure that the GOP always controls Congress so that when the vote of the Electoral College is certified that they take into account the popular vote.
While keeping the Electoral College is vital, there needs to be a mechanism to keep the presidency from being stolen by a current and perhaps future Democratic advantages in larger states.
The NPV scheme is a series of cleverly written state laws that are only activated when enough states participate to guarantee an electoral victory for the winner of the popular vote. So the schemers would probably need at least a few red states to participate. Even if the vast majority of the participating states were blue states, the scheme would still work for the schemers, who want the big states to dominate the Presidential elections. This scheme is extremely dangerous and would encourage corruption and large-scale vote fraud, and would give a clear advantage to the most dishonest, fraudulent political parties (...such as that party whose name starts with a “d”).
The United States is a Federal Republic. E Pluribus unum means, of many republics, one union.
I would like to see California go to a split electoral vote by Congressional district and break the Dems 55-0 lock every election.
But I agree with you about fighting vote fraud and stolen elections. That's the right way to make sure we don't lose any of the swing states to vote fraud, and that will help us win more presidential elections in the future.
Most people would agree that the best voting system is one that maximizes the likelihood that their single vote can, by itself, turn the course of the election one way or another.
The Electoral College does that.
Proof:
I would like to break that 55-0 lock too, but the CA legislature is never going to do that unless the bigger red states (TX,VA,NC,AZ, etc) also do the same thing. If that happens then you turn the presidential election into a series of mini-elections where each party tries to win each congressional district, and that’s when the vote fraud starts as people start stuffing the ballot boxes to win the competitive congressional districts. I think we’re better off with the current winner-take-all system in the states.
Your argument makes no sense. On the one hand you want to maintain the Electoral College, but on the other hand “only if my guy wins.
If Romney wins the popular vote, but loses in the EC, this “National Popular Vote” nonsense will fade to oblivion at light speed. No way are libs from California and New York going to support a scheme that could potentially put a Republican in over a Democrat.
Actually, maybe having the electoral votes re-structured in such a way where, you would devide up a states Electoral Vote by....
- Half would be allocated per Congressional District in that state.
- Half of the states votes would go to the winner of the popular vote in the entire State.
So a Presidential candidate could acquire Electoral Votes by winning Congressional Districts (up to Half of that State’s total Electoral Votes), and also by winning the majority of the total popular vote for the State (up to Half of that States total Electoral Votes).
Some states already do this....
In Maine and Nebraska one elector is awarded to the candidate receiving the most votes in each of the congressional districts, and the remaining two electoral votes are awarded to whoever gets the most votes statewide.
This would dilute the disproportionate ‘urban’ strength like Philadelphia on the entire state of Pennsylvania, where Democrats will normally come away with a plurality of over 350,000 to 600,000 +votes from Philadelphia alone, where the margin of victory in the entire state has been anywhere from 60,000 to 260,000 for Democrats in the past 2 decades.
The states can choose to award votes based on a proportion of the popular vote and the electoral college will still survive.
But this won’t happen because then the liberals would lose their EV stranglehold on states like California.
Thanks for the picture and numbers.
I’ve been discussing the Electoral College with my fellow veterans at the local VA hospital where I volunteer, but this will make it easier for some to comprehend.
It really illustrates the differences between us. I think w/o the EC the urban areas vote would overwhelm the rural vote and their concerns would cease being represented.
Exactly!
This pops up every election cycle about the EC. If the NPV were to ever get big enough, there will be a court challenge.
In the meanwhile, work with your legislatures to reverse states who have the NPV legislation or prevent it from coming to your state.
Also, read this....
http://www.lwvvc.org/NPVArgument_con.pdf
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.