Posted on 03/03/2019 5:38:03 PM PST by yesthatjallen
A plan to circumvent the Electoral College is gaining momentum among blue states after Democrats suffered two crushing defeats in presidential elections over the past two decades.
The plan has been given new impetus after Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) said this week that he will sign a bill to have his state become the 12th state along with the District of Columbia to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
The states making up the compact, which already includes New York, Illinois and all the New England states except for New Hampshire, would commit to awarding their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of the results in the Electoral College.
So far, these states, with Colorado, add up to 181 electoral votes, well short of the 270 needed to ascend to the White House.
Advocates are doubtful that enough states can join the compact for it to take effect by 2020, but hold hope of garnering enough support by 2024, as a handful of states like New Mexico also consider the measure, though proponents acknowledge the path to get to 270 will be far from easy.
Colorado state Rep. Emily Sirota (D), one of the sponsors of that state’s legislation, said she sees the compact “as a way to ensure that every vote is counted equally” and force candidates to campaign nationwide instead of targeting a few battleground states that can deliver success in the electoral math.
“If we had presidential candidates campaigning across the country, instead of a handful of swing states, you'd see a lot more participation from across the country and I think that is good and healthy for our electoral process,” Sirota told The Hill.
The renewed push comes after 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton lost the election that year despite winning the popular vote, the second time it has happened since the turn of the century.
The defeat was especially crushing to Democrats after a similar loss suffered by former Vice President Al Gore in 2000.
All states that are now part of the compact voted for Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016.
Colorado voted for Clinton last time but picked former President George W. Bush in 2000.
Critics of the Electoral College system have long argued it incentivizes candidates to target swing states with a bounty of electoral votes, while discouraging turnout by voters in states that are reliably red or blue.
Opponents of the current electoral system also say that electing a president through a popular vote could improve how presidents govern in office.
John Koza, the chairman of the National Popular Vote, a group that advocates for the compact, said the Electoral College “distorts” public policy by incentivizing presidents to cater to key swing states while in office, particularly in their first term.
"It's not only unfair that the second place candidate can win, it's also not good for the office of president or the country,” he said.
“When you're sitting in the White House … you say, ‘What states do I have to win and what do I have to do to win them?' That's just not a good way for public policy to be set,” Koza added.
Advocates of the compact are holding up hope that more steps will follow Colorado in joining the compact, which was first introduced in academic research papers as a way to effectively get rid of the electoral college system without going through the daunting process of a constitutional amendment.
The most promising is New Mexico, which has already passed a popular vote bill through one chamber and has a Democratic Governor.
Should it pass, the state would add 5 electoral votes to the compact, bringing the total to 186.
Meanwhile, legislators in 16 states have introduced bills this session seeking to join the compact, according to National Popular Vote.
Of those, Democratically-controlled Delaware, Maine, Nevada and Oregon look the most promising, with a total tally of 20 additional votes that could bring the total to 206 – though even there, the prospects are far from guaranteed.
Oregon state Rep. Diego Hernandez (D), a sponsor of the state’s popular vote bill, said there may not be enough momentum in the current legislative session to pass.
“We have so many big issues we're tackling this session, when it comes to housing and the environment and education and revenue reform, that although the conversation's happening, I'm not sure that it's the top priority in terms of the collective agenda,” Hernandez said.
But the prospect of passage in some of the other 16 states where a popular vote bill has been introduced look far less certain given many have split powers or are deep-red, like South Carolina or Mississippi.
Republicans are mostly opposed to any measure to derail the Electoral College system, seeing as unconstitutional.
Opponents of using the popular vote to elect presidents have long argued it would result in candidates catering to large cities and large states to rack up votes, which tend to have a bigger share of Democratic voters, ignoring smaller or rural areas.
Rose Pugliese, a county commissioner in Colorado, said in a tweet she had petitioned the Secretary of State not to award the state’s votes to the winner of the popular vote, saying such a move “allows California and New York to decide Colorado’s votes for President.”
Nonetheless advocates of the compact remain hopeful.
Koza, the National Popular Vote chairman, said garnering the necessary support by 2020 was “theoretically” possible, but believed it was more likely by 2024.
"You never know how a bandwagon can get rolling,” he said. “So at the moment, I couldn't name states that would get us there in time for 2020, although there's theoretically ways to do it. It seems perfectly plausible that we should get there by 2024."
Unfortunately, nothing in the Constitution specifies HOW or for whom the Electors must vote. Occasionally one strays off the reservation and votes for someone to whom he was not committed but it is rare.
The motto of the Democratic party:
"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven".
We have expected this for years.
The only real constitutional way to oppose it appears to me to invoke Article I, Section 10, line 1.
They are following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler
OK....not a lawyer, BUT....my argument would be that the Constitution says that the states are sovereign.
Would not a compact whereas a state surrenders its sovereignty, disenfranchise that state's citizens?
The left is willing to sacrifice States for power. Another blow against Federalism.
I would pursue the argument that compact is unconstitutional because it denies the non-compacting states' equal protection that each state determines its electors independently from all the rest.
States cannot form compacts to gang up on other states. That's what the Confederacy was.
That's what the Compact of 270 will be.
-PJ
Cities have always ruled the less powerful areas of a civilization since they created it.
Republicans face extinction if they cannot get the city vote.
Sorry,not so.
COMPACT PRISON REGISTRY LIST
Any rural or suburban county, disenfranchised, shall demand that their Electoral vote be returned back to the certified vote, the signed vote, per the U.S. Constitution.
Added to the registry list, is the altering official, to be imprisoned.
Each County in the U.S., and there are 100s, can pursue imprisonment of each official, forfeiture of their property, and reversal back to the legitimate certified tally.
Things worked out for the Secessionists’ plans for a while but they did not count on a Lincoln opposing them
You are wrong. Learn to read the document and quit posting false nonsense.
I am exactly right about the States’ power wrt this as other posters have more exhaustively demonstrated.
You are clueless. Quit spouting nonsense.
It does not. Read the document.
You have no idea what you talk about.
Electors represent districts, not States.
Go back and do your homework.
texas goes blue it’s all over. The republic will die.
Can the SC support a denial of peoples’ votes?
Lot of problems with this.
Did you read the article? If enough states legislatures vote to give their electoral votes to the majority...that would effectively destroy the Electoral College without any Constitutional amendment.
Someone needs to go to court to get this stopped, pronto.
There is no guarantee in the constitution of an individual vote for the President but the states’ rights of choosing electors is specified.
Yeah, but there have been a few amendments since.
Fascinating to think what those who are “all in” on those amendments in other cases will do with this.
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.