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."
You are Right. I guess we should contact Mr Ramirez and tell him of the omission. He’d probably like to know about that oversight.
Click-bait headline. Read the article.
‘Even if it does take effect will it really matter if all the red states continue to vote by electors?’
since the compact takes effect upon an aggregation of 270 electoral votes, the red state electors have no effect whatsoever...
States wanting to preserve the EC need to pass counter laws stating that their state’s EC votes always go to who the EC winner would have been if the national popular vote was not a factor used by any other state.
This way even if 270 EC votes can be corralled by the Anti-EC states, it only takes one pro-EC purple state to undo that if their state went for the original EC loser but popular vote winner.
This Rat knows damn well what this endeavor is all about...it is the graphic of posted by Fiddlstix at #16:
And as cableguymn says at post #19, yeah, it would be funny when Trump wins the popular vote in 2020, but the point is, as worth it as it would be to see their heads explode when that happens... 
...I don't want to do that for the worthwhile laughs it would provide. This is violating the well founded spirit of what the Electoral College was put in place to prevent.
But Indiana (IN) is listed twice.
> The Left-controlled states would escalate their vote fraud. California alone would easily manufacture millions of extra votes. <
That’s exactly right. If this scheme ever takes hold in a majority of the states, the Democrat primary will determine who the president will be.
Say hello to one-party rule.
Ramirez is a darn good cartoonist.
Good conservative cartoonist.
Reminds me a lot like Jeff MacNelly
It is weak in that the description of what it is like to be caught inside a house on fire is weak unless you happen to be the one caught inside the house on fire.
The states may craft their own laws that require their electoral college voters to vote a certain way. See above, and below for more info.
Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.
The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) has compiled a brief summary of state laws about the various procedures, which vary from state to state, for selecting slates of potential electors and for conducting the meeting of the electors. The document, Summary: State Laws Regarding Presidential Electors, can be downloaded from the resources/elections menu on the NASS website.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions
I wonder what would happen if a state passed a law stating that the vote in their state shall be certified only for the purpose of choosing that state's Electoral College delegation, and may not be used for any national purpose.
This would invalidate the counting of that state's so-called popular vote for use outside the state, and render a national popular vote an inaccurate measure for selecting a President.
-PJ
Somebody else the press and media made fun of his hair.
So true. I talked to a guy not long ago that moved to Austin, Texas from Los Angeles. He moved because of stupid laws, high taxes, illegals and a crazy Governor. Now he’s fallen in with the Nut Job Liberals that infest Austin and will vote alongside Beto types and any other Rat that comes along. He will help make Texas just like what he ran from in California. 2018 was the last time we’ll have two Republican Senators, although a semi-trained monkey might be an improvement over Cornyn who will lose in 2020 to a Cortez look alike. 2024 will be bye-bye to Cruz. Texas will be a blue State.
I LOVE this.... Dems cannot benefit from this Pact at all... either the Blue states give their EVs to the Dem candidate that unsurprisingly earned them... or else they give their EVs to the GOP candidate who didn’t earn them. Not one EV will be taken from the GOP candidate in this system, but the Dem candidate stands to lose hundreds of EVs.
IF they ever do away with the EC then our Republic is lost!
The left wants the Hunger Games. Large elite cities ruling over the rural and suburban areas.
Yeah, Indiana is. Probably the lower one meant to be TN but an error, obviously.
‘My opposition is based on the fact that my vote will now be the equivalent of having to jump off a bridge because a large number of stupid people jumped off a bridge.’
this happens now to every voter whose state allots winner take all electors to that voter’s opposing party...in a typical presidential election, 80% of the counties in PA vote republican, and Philly and Pittsburgh override the votes of those red counties...
“It’ll be interesting if Trump wins the popular vote and they have to give their states votes to him!”
Wouldn’t happen. They’d ignore the pact and refuse to cast their votes for Trump anyway.
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.