IT PASSED: Swing State Votes to Give Electoral Votes to Winner of Popular Vote

Young Conservatives ^ | May 22, 2019 | Editorial Staff

[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.

[Mr.Unique]

You can’t point to it?

[TakebackGOP]

“Kudos to you for actually providing some text though.

Better than a few of the trolls here.”

You’re trolling others, and not explaining how it’s Constitutional.

[TakebackGOP]

The 12th Amendment. You can’t show how it’s Constitutional.

[Mr.Unique]

You still haven’t even looked for an answer.

[Mr.Unique]

OK. What words have YOU read that make you think this so?

[TakebackGOP]

The 12th Amendment is the Electoral College. You can’t explain how it’s Constitutional.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“Article IV is a reach. A long one.“

Hardly. It would be exactly as I wrote, allowing citizens of other states to decide how their electors would vote. That’s not how federalism works.

[SoCal Pubbie]

May I add that Article 2, Section 1 says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..” It does not authorize states to instruct their electors who to vote for.

[Mr.Unique]

It does not authorize states to instruct their electors who to vote for.

But they can appoint electors who will vote the way they want them to.

Like they have for every election for...how long?

[Mr.Unique]

Go back to your room.

The adults are having a conversation now.

[TakebackGOP]

You can’t show how it’s Constitutional idiot. We’ve had the Electoral College for over two hundred years. It’s unConstitutional for a state to give its Electoral points to the popular vote winner and not the state’s winner.

[Mr.Unique]

Like this…

[SoCal Pubbie]

It’s being challenged, isn’t it?

You asked for specific sections of the Constitution. Now you show me the one that says state legislatures can tell electors how to vote.

[Mr.Unique]

It’s being challenged, isn’t it?

Yep, so we shall see.

Up to this point, though, states have been able to control how electors vote.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Control, but not dictate. In the case you cited, the state was mandating that electors follow the will of the voters of their state, not the aggregate of voters nationwide. In the case of the compact, state legislators are telling electors WHO to vote for, even if a candidate got zero votes in that state.

[klsparrow]

Giveing your states electoral votes to the one who won the popular vote. What if Candidate X win the state but candidate Y wins the popular vote. That would disenfranchise X voters Also there is the matter of the A II sec1 and A12 wonder what the SCOTUS will think? Wonder how the X voters will react in those states toward the politicians?

[cherry]

this is unconstiutional isn’t it?....I’m sure our pub representatives will fight this tooth and nail...... :(

[mlo]

"This scheme subverts the original rationale behind the electoral college; prevent the populous states from dominating the smaller ones. That rationale is well known and was made explicit in the Federalist Papers, IIRC. There are a lot of other aspects of the Constitution were the underlying rationale for one provision or the other is not explicitly stated. This is because the Constitution implements decisions already argued over and resolved in the proceedings of the Constitutional Convetion. Could or, rather, will such an argument support a challenge to this agreement before the Supreme Court?"

Opinions about unstated rationales for constitutional provisions are not law. What matters is what the constitution says.

This plan still doesn't undermine that rationale anyway. Each state gets a certain number of electors, per the constitution. This is how the big state/small state issue was resolved. The number is determined by representation in both the House and Senate, where the Senate doesn't depend on population.

This does not change. Only how the state chooses its electors changes, not the number of them. States are free to establish any method they like.

[Captain Rhino]

Yes. But doesn’t agreeing to award all your electors to the national popular vote winner (regardless of how the state actually voted) effectively negate the votes of the state’s citizens?

Crap! This scheme is way worse than awarding a state’s electors based on the candidate’s proportion of the vote. Under that scheme, it was worth fighting for every vote in every state because the winner takes all practice of awarding the state’s electors had been scrapped.

I am not a lawyer, but from the law classes I have taken and reading about law over the years, I seem to recall that a technically legal act (statute, law, etc.) can still be held to be illegal if, in operation, it yields a manifestly unjust result. Isn’t this the basis for lawsuits over the years on voting rights and state redistricting cases?

BTW, thanks for taking time to dialogue on this topic. I do appreciate it.

[Lazamataz]

States are free to establish any method they like.

Well then! I suppose that Mississippi could dictate "No electors shall vote for a black or female candidate".

Or California and New York could dictate "All Electors must vote for the Democrat candidate".