Posted on 02/18/2019 6:14:05 PM PST by george76
Electoral College advocates see a window of opportunity to eliminate America’s 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.
NPV’s 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 can’t change the identity of Colorado’s 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.
Don’t 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 doesn’t care so much about fairness after all.
This is not even remotely Constitutional. The College of Electors is the electoral process for a Presidential election. Each State has a general election— to select the electors pledged to their candidates, and the total votes are counted to decide those electors.
This was by design-— to prevent the possibility of FACTIONS,
a very real problem at different times in US History.
Mathematical proof of the merits of the Electoral College:
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny
The EC is a firewall limiting fraudulent ballots - they claim they want “one person, one vote”, what they really want is “one person, 100 votes”. With the EC, no matter how many fraudulent ballots a precinct manufacturers, that state gets no more electoral votes. With NPV, there’s infinite incentive to manufacture ballots by the truckload.
Whenever I hear someone bring up this nonsense I just pose a simple question to them.
“What if President Trump wins the popular vote in 2020?”
If they’re a thinking person, they might say “You know, that’s a good point. This isn’t a good idea.”
Sadly I think it’s mostly non-thinking NPC types pushing this, so I might as well be arguing with the wind.
I'll be LMAO when California or Illinois has to award their EVs to a Republican!
Not surprising. The only reason I know anything about the PANYNJ is because I get to NYC on a semi regular basis and see references to it whenever I'm there.
Comparisons with Rome are generally invalid, but I'll cut him some slack, because Heinlein wrote fiction. The Roman republic never had an elected legislative body. The bread dole supported as many as 400,000 in the city of Rome and lasted for centuries. The Empire itself began with its first conquest -- Ostia -- and continued through highs and lows into the mid-15th century. Astonishing how close that is to our own time, really.
>>There is an “Anti-” that should be before “Electoral College advocates”. <<
Correct .. My mistake.
What all the "Muh popular vote!" people forget is that Donald Trump wasn't campaigning to win the national popular vote. If he was, he would have ran his campaign much differently.
Hillary won a game that nobody was playing.
Does anyone of this forum actually believe that if the NPV compact were somehow in place and Trump won the popular vote, that California would have actually abided by it’s purported obligations? Of course not, they would litigate every state, every ballot, harvest what they had to in lib districts to overturn the election results while the establishment Republicans sat on their hands and howled about respecting the process in the name of civility or fairness or comity, or whatever fig leaf they chose that week.
The number of eligible voters who choose not to vote in presidential elections have outnumbered the turnout of either political party for 100+ years.
The real way to ensure victory of the bread and circus party would to be require voter participation in order to receive any bread and circuses.
Freegards
No, they can't. Interstate compacts can not supercede the constitution.
If California doesn’t submit their votes as mandated by the Constitution their votes will not be counted.
I believe that Massachusetts did something similar about appointing replacement Senators when Ted, the Swimmer, died.
If they change it to a direct vote then it will be important to audit each state’s vote count to make sure they aren’t juicing the vote.
The Electoral College is one of the federal governments enumerated powers in the Constitution, therefore the power is not reserved to the states or to the people as per the 9th and 10th amendments.
It would fail in the Supreme Court unless John Roberts is having another delusional day, which seem to be occurring with greater frequency.
And who will count and certify such a vote?
What is this “national popular vote” of which you speak?
Who tallies it? Who certifies it? How is it to be recounted?
But that is by custom, and it is not required by the Constitution.
In fact, a State Legislature would be completely within its rights to appoint Electors by flipping a coin instead of allowing idiots to vote for them.
It is not by “custom” FRiend— it is specific in the Constitution, and delegates to the states the process of delegates to the Electors.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires each state legislature to determine how electors for the state are to be chosen, but it disqualifies any person holding a federal office, either elected or appointed, from being an elector. And, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment,and specific to that time- any person who swore an oath to support the United States Constitution in order to hold either a state or federal office, and who later rebelled against the United States directly or by giving assistance to those doing so, is disqualified from being an elector. However, the Congress may remove this disqualification by a two-thirds vote in each House.
Basically, since the Civil War, all states have chosen presidential electors by popular vote— the “District Plan” that both Madison and Hamilton wanted an Amendment made to provide the process. The Civil War gave impetus to States to do so:
. This process has been normalized to the point the names of the electors appear on the ballot in only eight states: Rhode Island, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Idaho, Oklahoma, North Dakota and South Dakota.
Since 1996, all but two states have followed the winner takes all method of allocating electors by which every person named on the slate for the ticket winning the statewide popular vote are named as presidential electors. Maine and Nebraska. From there the process gets quite specific and cross-checked. Faithless electors may be (and are) discarded, and because this dilutes a State’s power they are rare, indeed— the real political pressure keeps them in line, or— removes them. We saw this in Trump I.
Each state’s electors must complete six Certificates of Vote. Each Certificate of Vote must be signed by all of the electors and a Certificate of Ascertainment must be attached to each of the Certificates of Vote. Each Certificate of Vote must include the names of those who received an electoral vote for either the office of president or of vice president. The electors certify the Certificates of Vote and copies of the Certificates are then sent in:
One is sent by registered mail to the President of the Senate (who usually is the incumbent Vice President of the United States);
Two are sent by registered mail to the Archivist of the United States;
Two are sent to the state’s Secretary of State; and
One is sent to the chief judge of the United States district court where those electors met.
A staff member of the President of the Senate collects the Certificates of Vote as they arrive and prepares them for the joint session of the Congress. The Certificates are arranged – unopened – in alphabetical order and placed in two special mahogany boxes. Alabama through Missouri (including the District of Columbia) are placed in one box and Montana through Wyoming are placed in the other box. Before 1950, the Secretary of State’s office oversaw the certifications, but since then the Office of Federal Register in the Archivist’s office reviews them to make sure the documents sent to the archive and Congress match and that all formalities have been followed, sometimes requiring states to correct the documents.
It is the screaming, losing MOB that is the democrat party that wants NO electoral college. The prevention of such Factions is precisely the reason for the Electoral College. To prevent what disasters happened in pre-Revolution Europe, we escaped from.
You can check your state.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States (in part)
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
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.