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.
This won’t hold up in the courts.
This is outrageous usurpation of my vote.
So if 100% of Nevadans vote for Trump it doesn’t matter if 60% of Californians for vote for the Democrats. It’s Bernie /Hillary redux. People wanted Bernie but the electors wanted Hillary.
I don’t think you can rule on it until it takes effect which would be after the 2020 election.
“this is constitutional” rationale is spelled out
**************
I guess the opposite is “show where it is banned”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The U.S. Constitution defines the criteria for federal offices. States cannot add to, or subtract from these criteria.
“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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
The Constitution does not establish how Electors may vote as a criteria. Rather, parties nominate persons whom they trust. Of course, from time to time, we wind up with “faithless electors,” but no contest has ever been affected by them.
Obviously, if Nevada appoints Republican electors subsequent to the Republicans winning the popular vote of that state, those electors could vote their conscious and undermine the unconstitutional state law.
Alternately, the legislature of Nevada could appoint electors based on the party that wins the nationwide popular vote. To me, this means that if the nationwide popular vote isn’t certified - and who does that? - the state of Nevada cannot appoint any electors. Does the Nevada Secretary of State certify the nationwide popular vote? I doubt it. Furthermore, such an appointment, contrary to the in-state vote, would seem to be a violation of the right to vote. That is, the majority within the state would be disenfranchised by voters outside the state.
In any judicial determination of an election the outcome of which hinged on the difference between the national popular vote, and the electoral college, it would seem to me that the possibility of amending the Constitution would be informative. Why didn’t those seeking to shift to the nationwide popular vote change the Constitution? The obvious reason is that they couldn’t.
Therefore, an end run around the Constitution would seem unfair to the states that joined into the Constitution based on their powers, and the checks and balances within the Constitution. A mere majority of the voters should not be enough to upset the Constitutional order.
Finally, I will note that until 10 PM on election night, 2016, Democrats loved the electoral college. They thought they had an impregnable “blue wall.” Then, the irresistible force met the immovable object, and we know what happened.
Thank you for posting that link to the legal opinion.
This must be how the USA of ‘Idiocracy’ elected the gangster president.
All the progs know is how to subvert and destroy.
Democrat Thug Party invalidating the vote.
Vile scum.
It is a very bad idea but I doubt it is unconstitutional.
**************
You maybe correct. People need to read the 12th Amendment.
The states receive votes based upon US Congressional members
but I don’t see anywhere that it specifies how each state shall vote.
I believe that is left up to each state.
It will be an interesting discussion and legal process if it
gets that far along.
Lets say Trump wins Nevada and yet if he loses the popular vote those Electoral College votes are awarded to whoever.
Now the Electors regardless could still vote for Trump and I guess that will set up a huge Legal Challenge. Precedent though would be on the side of the Electoral College and the Electors I would think. Probably would set up a huge USSC case and ruling.
This certainly is not in the spirit of the Constitution and what the founders intention was.
I’m going to laugh my ass off when Trump wins the pop vote.
The Constitution only specifies how many electors a state is allocated, it does not say how the states are supposed to select them. States can select their electors any way they choose.
The states receive votes based upon US Congressional members
______________________
This why there is such a fierce fight over the 2020 Census. From what I can tell, it is entirely possible several currently Blue states will lose Congressional seats, while a few Red States will gain, thus changing the balance of power.
We are witnessing the end of the Republic, folks.
I can’t help wondering if:
THE VOTERS OF THESE MISGUIDED STATES ARE AWARE OF WHAT THEIR LEADERS ARE DOING.
Their votes will all be added to Los Angeles and New York City, regardless of how they vote.
Strange, considering how much value they place on their precious votes.
Bookmark
Could the Supreme Court rule on a case forthcoming from this, that by forcing electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote, it violates the intent of the Constitution??
I think electors do vote the way of the popular vote of their State.
But the national popular vote, I don’t think SCOTUS will buy it.
Trump won’t win the blue states because they will have the illegals voting twice and even three times. At least the EC helps prevent some fraud.
This certainly is not in the spirit of the Constitution and what the
founders intention was.
*********
Things change for sure. Back in the day Women and other ethnic
groups couldn’t vote. Things change and that will continue whether
for good or bad.
Speaking of Ginsberg, anyone seen or heard a peep out of her coffin?
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.