Posted on 04/01/2019 5:24:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ronald Reagan was reportedly fond of referencing the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Monahan’s admonition, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Today, that would most particularly include opponents of the growing drive to enact the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award 270 electoral votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Of all the myths conjured up by naysayers to try and torpedo the compact, perhaps the most egregious portray the measure as either unconstitutional or an effort to eliminate the Electoral College. Both are patently false.
The compact isn’t the same thing as the national popular vote that the 2020 presidential candidates are calling for. The compact is 100 percent constitutional and consistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers, who explicitly gave states the authority under the Constitution to form agreements among themselves for any number of reasons. There is no issue with the states usurping the power of the federal government.
Moreover, while some reform advocates argue for elimination of the Electoral College through a long and cumbersome effort to amend the Constitution, the compact preserves the Electoral College intact, exactly as the Constitution specifies. In fact, the compact states that if the Electoral College is done away with, the compact goes away.
Under the Constitution, states are free to award their electors in any way they see fit. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution either mentioning or mandating the current winner-take-all system by which most states award their electoral votes. The Founding Fathers never approved it. By entering the compact, the states agree to direct their Electoral College votes through a popular vote.
The myths and falsehoods aren’t limited to the Constitution and the Electoral College. Another falsehood imagines the votes of large, populous states running roughshod over smaller, less populated states. This is patently untrue. More people live in rural areas and small towns than in the big cities. If Republicans direct their campaign efforts in the former areas, they should be able to win the popular vote, since they dominate those areas. Right now, they direct their energy at the swing states instead.
Under the current system, we don’t so much elect the president of the United States as we do the president of the battleground states. The 12 states where the candidates spend virtually all of their time — and money — chasing blocks of electoral votes that can swing back and forth every four years. The other 38 states and the District of Columbia — encompassing roughly 70 percent of the population — are ignored because they are so faithful in voting either Republican or Democrat every four years.
In an election fought under the compact, the 12-state election model becomes a 50-state contest in which candidates are compelled to chase down every single voter in every nook and cranny of the nation. The states are essentially working with other states to make their votes more relevant.
Oregon is a great example of why the compact is needed. Over the last eight presidential elections from 1988 to 2016, a total of 5,429,496 Oregonians cast their popular votes for the Republican ticket. And in all of that time, their efforts have failed to produce one single GOP electoral vote. Because eight out of eight times, the Democratic ticket won Oregon’s popular vote and all of its electoral votes.
Under the compact, voters gain a direct voice over the disposition of the 270 electoral votes. No voter in any state would have their vote cancelled out because they didn’t go along with the majority of others in their state. Every voter would have their vote counted directly toward their choice for president. And the presidential candidate who gets the most popular votes would become president.
Florida is gradually becoming more Democratic, as Puerto Ricans move into the state and overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Republicans are going to lose this swing state and will be unable to win presidential elections through the existing system much longer. It’s a good time to switch. The movement in support of the compact is gaining momentum with Delaware and New Mexico having just passed bills joining it for a projected total of 189 of the 270 electoral votes necessary to switch to the compact (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). It has bipartisan support because Democrats erroneously think large cities will end up deciding elections. Republicans need to do their homework on this issue before blindly repeating falsehoods.
SCOTUS has since narrowed that restriction (Virginia v. Tennessee) to only those interstate compacts which would increase state power while decreasing federal power --- But clearly that would be the case for a compact that would bypass the federal Constitution's required amendment process to change presidential elections from one of independent groups of electors from individual states to one of a nation popular vote.
Yes, Article II, Section 1 ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...") does allow states to choose electors pretty much however they like. But the words "Each state," and not "States"/Every state"/Etc., shows they did not intent to allow interstate compacts to determine electors - even if the states agree - without the consent of Congress as required in the Compact Clause.
Why would a state would give up their electoral vote to the whim of the entire US population?
The reason for the electoral college is better representation - citizens in sparsely populated areas should not be governed by the decisions of densely populated urban groups.
While these state moves are constitutional, the outcome would be to change the US from a republic to a democracy.
The founders knew what they were doing and put the electoral college in place to prevent just that.
Just because great minds think alike doesn’t mean their fingers move the at the same speed.
The candidate who wins the popular vote in a congressional district gets on Electoral vote, and the voter who wins the overall popular vote in the state gets one electoral vote.
This would put states such as California and New York more into play, as it would swing states such as Florida.
Wow, Townhall has really fallen.
That defeats the point of maintaining a republic. If you want milquetoast GOP candidates that get trounced in the general the by all then go that way.
Rachel and her ilk should be among the first of those against the wall.
Come to think of it, that’d be a great way to bait a Democrat.
“Are you against The Wall?”
“Of course.”
“Well, you ought to be.”
Seems that the very last casualty of the first Civil War may be the electoral college.
Our current system has each state’s Secretary of State heavily involved in the election process, and I believe, certifying the result. However, it is well known that these results can be challenged in court, and often for a long time.
So, on Election Day, even if the various unofficial tallies show a winner, state irregularities could yield uncertified vote totals in a significant number of states... a half dozen to a dozen, I’d say.
So, what happens... the electors cast their votes for the candidate who is probably president, but while the vote total is still unofficial?
The opportunities for third-world shenanigans boggle the mind.
Fortunately, I too believe that the ban on interstate compacts should hold and make this proposal unconstitutional. But, the legal system has degenerated in the sense of becoming politicized that you can never be certain of any outcome.
Yes, though I think the proponents presuppose they will be able to secure the consent of Congress.
-PJ
Who is this dumbass?
Yep.
You understand the problem!
And hillary clinton would be president.
So, take this article with a boatload of skepticism.
Despite this author’s contention that this is not a constitutional issue, there are real constitutional questions.
1. Since the electoral college is not abolished, the citizens of the state are still voting for electors. If the winning side has its elected electors denied and the losing electors sent to Washington, then those voters’ votes have been overturned. That hardly seems to be what the Founders intened: winners are losers and losers are winners.
2. The 14th amendment clarifies that electors cannot be arbitrarily assigned, but are intended to be assigned based on a RIGHT to vote of citizens:
***A14, S2 - But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,***
3. That means that A2, S2 means “after a vote of citizens has taken place in that state”.
***A2, S2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct***
Therefore, it cannot be an arbitrary decision and it must involve the state “thereof” that is in question.
4. The assignment of electors, therefore, must be based on the vote of citizens of THAT state “thereof”, and not on the votes of citizens of other states. This is their RIGHT.
5. A14, S2 says any effort by a legislature to subvert the right to vote results in their losing about half of their electoral votes in that election.
6. Finally, What about recounts? What about majority versus plurality? Imagine a Ross Perot and no candidate achieves a majority. So, if a national candidate is not really preferred by a majority of Americans, why should my right to vote be refused and my electors be denied to my candidate in a 3, 4, or 5 way contest?
The constitution doesn’t begin to address a national recount, so that must not have been the intent.
“Yes, though I think the proponents presuppose they will be able to secure the consent of Congress.”
It wouldn’t surprise me if a quarter of the Republicans voted for it. They’re just stupid or evil enough to do it.
L
How quickly people forget how the “resistance” tried to get electors to change their votes after the 2016 election. Back then, the electoral college was a good thing.
Two points: First: Yes, writing this as a 'compact' makes enforcement of it unconstitutional unless Congress has agreed to it. As "democracy" sweeps the land, it is by no means uncertain that Congress will refuse.
Second: Without the 'compact' feature, State Legislatures are perfectly free to assign their EVs however they choose.
One stupid opinion doesn’t make it right.
Let’s look at what would REALLY happen if this were in effect, using 2016: the votes comes down as it actually did. No problem, Hillary is elected. But if Trump had won the popular vote narrowly, the next day a lawsuit gets filed in federal court in San Francisco claiming the compact is unconstitutional because it wasn’t approved by Congress. The judge promptly ruled in favor. The California legislature goes into session and exercises their constitutional authority to allocate the electors as they see fit and, presto change-o, Hillary is elected. I mean really, does anyone really think this wouldn’t happen?
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.