Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IT PASSED: Swing State Votes to Give Electoral Votes to Winner of Popular Vote
Young Conservatives ^ | May 22, 2019 | Editorial Staff

Posted on 05/22/2019 10:20:46 AM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com

In order to do anything they can to stop President Trump from winning in 2020, Democrats in the Nevada Senate approved a National Popular Vote bill on a party-line vote, which will get rid of the Electoral College.

From the Washington Times:

Assembly Bill 186, which passed the Senate on a 12-8 vote, would bring Nevada into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement between participating states to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote.

If signed as expected by Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak, Nevada would become the 16th jurisdiction to join the compact, along with 14 states and the District of Columbia. The compact would take effect after states totaling 270 electoral votes, and with Nevada, the total would reach 195.

While the effort has been billed by organizers as bipartisan, Democrats have embraced the NPV in the aftermath of President Trump’s 2016 victory, which saw the Republican win the electoral vote but not the popular vote.

Leftist groups like Common Cause, Indivisible and Public Citizen cheered the Nevada vote.

“The movement to abolish the electoral college is winning,” tweeted Public Citizen.

The NPV would not eliminate the Electoral College, but would render it irrelevant by requiring electors to vote for the national vote-winner instead of the candidate capturing the most votes in their states.

Supporters argue that it would shift the focus of presidential elections away from a handful of swing states, while critics say it would concentrate power in states like California and New York with the largest population centers.

Colorado, Delaware and New Mexico joined the compact in the 2019 legislative session, and other Democrat-controlled states are poised to follow.

Last week, the Maine Senate approved an NPV bill, sending it to the House. The Oregon bill has been approved by the Senate, and a House committee held a hearing Monday on the measure.

Here’s a great take on why this would be so damaging and not work like Democrats think it will. Special interests will take over this country.

From Real Clear Politics:

Unfortunately, like most of the ideas to improve our election system, this one will not accomplish what its sponsors intend, will result in the election of presidents who only get a fraction of the popular vote, and will likely enrage the voters of the very states that have already voted to join the system. The sponsors of this plan have not thought it through.

The first thing to understand about the American voting system is that it is the Electoral College that assures the continued existence of the two-party system. Because the winner of the presidency must get a majority of the electoral votes, the candidates of splinter or special interest parties have no chance to win—and for that reason they cannot get sufficient financing and other support to mount a serious campaign.

We have certainly had third and fourth parties in presidential elections, but their most effective role has been to bring ideas into the debate that might never otherwise receive attention, and they generally don’t survive to the next election. Nevertheless, when they have been in the field, they have deprived the candidates of the major parties of a national popular majority even though they have not interfered with the choice of the president through the Electoral College. Modern examples are the two Clinton elections in 1992 and 1996, and George W. Bush’s election in 2000.

The NPV plan would vastly improve the chances of a splinter or special interest candidate to win the presidency. In a wide enough field, a special interest candidate could easily win with less than a quarter of the national popular vote, and for this reason there will inevitably be a large number of splinter or special interest candidates running for president if the plan goes into effect.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: 2020election; commoncause; constitution; electoralcollege; faithlesselectors; indivisible; nationalpopularvote; nevada; npv; nv2020; publiccitizen; seestory1240pm; trump2020
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-185 next last
To: Not A Snowbird

They will be sorry they opened this can of worms. It will be delicious when Trump wins the 2020 popular vote and all these blue/purple states go to him. Doh!

- -

And after a tantrum and meltdown, the same idiots will repeal the law and want it retroactive.


121 posted on 05/22/2019 2:35:08 PM PDT by Flick Lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Unique

“How so?”

Your state just went to Trump but Trump loses the popular. So your state awards its EC votes to the person who lost your state. You have just disenfranchised the voters of your state in a National election How the hell is it not unconstitutional?


122 posted on 05/22/2019 3:07:50 PM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: UMCRevMom@aol.com

So in 2020 all California has to do is stuff that ballot box with all of the phony ballots that can muster up as they did in 2016, and all these stupid people just gave up their voting rights. Smart.


123 posted on 05/22/2019 5:20:21 PM PDT by dirtymac (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country! Now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gibsonguy

You answered a question with a question.

You said is was unconstitutional. Tell me how. What part of the Constitution, specifically, does it violate?


124 posted on 05/22/2019 5:24:00 PM PDT by Mr.Unique (The government, by its very nature, cannot give except what it first takes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Unique

“You answered a question with a question.”

It was a rhetorical question, but I’ll defer to your expertise in constitutional law.


125 posted on 05/22/2019 5:42:17 PM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: gibsonguy
I don't know anything.

But it's more than you, apparently.

Chicken Shit.

126 posted on 05/22/2019 5:44:49 PM PDT by Mr.Unique (The government, by its very nature, cannot give except what it first takes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Unique

The Electoral College part of the Constitution. That is what it violates.


127 posted on 05/22/2019 6:17:10 PM PDT by TakebackGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Unique; gibsonguy

“You said is was unconstitutional. Tell me how. What part of the Constitution, specifically, does it violate?”

Section 2 of the 14th amendment?

“But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged”


128 posted on 05/22/2019 8:25:37 PM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: UMCRevMom@aol.com
One item that is not mentioned and what I heard on talk radio yesterday, States doing this will basically give up their voice in the executive branch. This could be very bad on them if the President declares a national emergency or something of that magnitude and leaves them out.

Their voice would only be their reps and senators who have no say in the matter. Lets suppose a tornado ripped through the State devastating it. No federal relief funds would be routed if no emergency is declared by the President. The Governor could do it all day long but it would not help.

This is just what I heard and not sure. Welcomed to comments.

129 posted on 05/23/2019 3:58:57 AM PDT by eartick (Stupidity is expecting the government that broke itself to go out and fix itself. Texan for TEXIT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

You are correct but our republic has been gone for a while now.


130 posted on 05/23/2019 4:00:12 AM PDT by eartick (Stupidity is expecting the government that broke itself to go out and fix itself. Texan for TEXIT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mabarker1; Pilgrim's Progress; All

>
>>So,they can just vote away the Constitution.

NO,There will have to be a Constitutional Convention
>

Maybe I missed where, currently, ANY level of govt adheres to the Constitution; esp. over the last century, at least.

From Deep State, to $21T+debt/$140+ in “unfunded liabilities”, “gun control”...down to NY State just passed a “let’s see Trump’s tax returns”, most States having some form of ‘guilty until proven innocent’\anti-5th\”Asset Forfeiture”, Sanctuary Cities\Counties\towns...

Judges “decree” w/ ZERO basis on the Law of the Land == ZERO done by Congress\State legis. to impeach\disbar.

It’s a 3-co-equal-circle-jerk and We the People don’t even get a reach-around.


131 posted on 05/23/2019 5:09:05 AM PDT by i_robot73 (One could not count the number of *solutions*, if only govt followed\enforced the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Unique

Article IV, section 4. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Contrary to what some posters have suggested, states cannot pick electors in any way they want. They cannot choose electors on the basis of race, for example. By allowing the voters of every state to choose their electors the electors are no longer representing the citizens of their state, rather the citizens of all the states.

Article I, section 10. “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.” Shouldn’t have to explain that one.


132 posted on 05/23/2019 5:25:11 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie (Ca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: UMCRevMom@aol.com
12th Amendment: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President

IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES - not at the national level. This shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

133 posted on 05/23/2019 5:35:18 AM PDT by ScottinVA (The most urgent gathering threat to America: the Democrat Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Unique

The former is true but the latter is not..apparently.


134 posted on 05/23/2019 6:32:05 AM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: TakebackGOP

Point me to “Electoral College” in the Contitution.

You’ve got balls to answer without even looking.


135 posted on 05/23/2019 7:55:23 AM PDT by Mr.Unique (The government, by its very nature, cannot give except what it first takes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: gibsonguy
Why not find the part of the Constitution that it violates and point me to it? It's more honorable than being a troll.
136 posted on 05/23/2019 7:56:51 AM PDT by Mr.Unique (The government, by its very nature, cannot give except what it first takes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Unique

Where it talks about Electors idiot. This is unConstitutional.


137 posted on 05/23/2019 7:58:53 AM PDT by TakebackGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
Article IV is a reach. A long one.

Article I could stop this. But it won't.

Kudos to you for actually providing some text though.

Better than a few of the trolls here.

138 posted on 05/23/2019 7:59:28 AM PDT by Mr.Unique (The government, by its very nature, cannot give except what it first takes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ; gibsonguy
gibsonguy: Please see Scott's post. This is an example of how to have a discussion.


Scott: This is a more compelling argument than others I've seen, but everyone gets to vote in this scenario. It's what they do with the vote outcome that is at issue.

139 posted on 05/23/2019 8:03:53 AM PDT by Mr.Unique (The government, by its very nature, cannot give except what it first takes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Unique

Descending into name calling does not help your case. In my opinion this should be deemed unconstitutional but I not about to present an Amicus brief to a news forum. You have your opinion I have mine. We shall see.


140 posted on 05/23/2019 8:07:41 AM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-185 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson