Liberals' National Popular Vote Scheme Is Unconstitutional and Dangerous

American Thinker.com ^ | June 21 2019 | Brian S. Messenger

[Kaslin]

As of now, fourteen states have passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which attempts to eliminate the Electoral College as set forth in the United States Constitution. There have been many good articles written about the legality of interstate compacts to achieve the desired National Popular Vote goals. The author does not need to rehash all of those problems but believes that there are three additional ways that the NPVIC is both unconstitutional and dangerous.

Constitutional Flaw #1: Non-Republican Form of Government

Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution says in part that "[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." The United States is a constitutional republic, where people elect their senators and representatives at the national level. At the state level, this is copied by every state except for Nebraska, which has a unique unicameral Legislature. A Republican form of government, by its definition, means that people elect representatives to represent them in running the government. This is done so that the people are not encumbered with the daily operations and voting to run the state or federal government.

A fundamental problem with the NPVIC is that it is inherently not a republican form of government for a specific state to select that state's Electors. Once a state Legislature decides to ask its citizens their preference through a popular vote, there must be a rational basis as to how the vote of the state's citizens is used to select that state's electors. It is not rational that the people's decision could be overruled by the votes of citizens of unrelated states. The following comparison is between two states in the NPVIC who are at the extremes of the Popular Vote Range for the 2016 election.

[taxcontrol]

I am of the opinion that the District system electoral college disenfranchises the fewest possible voters. Whoever wins a congressional district by 50% +1 vote gets that electoral vote. I there is not such a winner, a run off election between the top to vote recipients is held. No write-ins, no other candidates, period.

One electoral vote is awarded to the candidate that receives the most districts. The last electoral vote for the state is awarded to the candidate that received the most votes in the state.

[Hang'emAll]

It is not rational that the people’s decision could be overruled by the votes of citizens of unrelated states...

The Dems may figure out that they made a mistake when Pres. Trumps wins the popular US vote, Bigly and their people will be instructed to vote for him.

[savedbygrace]

Finally, somebody publishes the reason for its Constitutional violation that I have been saying since I first heard about this legislation years ago. The Constitution’s republican guarantee to the States.

YAY!

[Vermont Lt]

I would be fine by that.

But that’s never going to happen either.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Dangerous? You betcha.

Unconstitutional? Don’t be so sure. The Constitution delegates wide latitude to the States in determining how their EVs are cast.

I am not sure which side of that SCOTUS would come down on.

[rhombus10]

We are the United States, not the United State. Electing a president takes 50 elections, not 1 election.

[tet68]

Our form of government was set up by the founders
BECAUSE they understood the dangers inherent in
a total democracy. It’s worked for hundreds of years
which is why some people are working to change it.

[Buckeye McFrog]

The Dems may figure out that they made a mistake when Pres. Trumps wins the popular US vote

Jimmy Carter stormed into office wanting to do away with the EC, but them promptly shut-up about it when it became clear that not every such scenario was going to rebound in the Democrats' favor.

[Democrats hate too much]

Let’s let voter fraud in LA County decide?

[stan_sipple]

Then we get to give the District of Columbia back to Maryland and Maine back to Massachusetts

[justa-hairyape]

Yep. We are the United States, not the United Idiots. What that really says is 2/3 of the states are against this and we will fight for that constitution.

[dljordan]

“The Dems may figure out that they made a mistake when Pres. Trumps wins the popular US vote, Bigly and their people will be instructed to vote for him.”

Guy called in to AM 600 here in Northern, Co. and said he’d just taken a poll in Laramie (a hippie town like Boulder, Co.) and the poll was well over 60 percent for Trump.

[momincombatboots]

Precisely why they are cloaking it under states rights... which is Constitutional. Thwy are 10 steps ahead. We can just hang on and do what we can. This is now one Nation out from under God. He was our national Sustainer.

[Fellow Traveler]

There is an easy way to end this once and for all. Simply have a state like TX pass a law saying something like this. "Due to the prevalence of un-prosecuted vote fraud in some states of the country and that such fraud will disenfranchise Texas voters in a National Popular Vote scheme the Texas Secretary of State is require to take the following actions. 1. Determine the popular vote winner within Texas using existing law. 2. Add the required number of votes to Texas' reported vote count to ensure that whomever the Texas voters selected for president wins the national popular vote.

The beauty of this system is that it only takes one state to blow this thing apart. Since it is a state law no one has broken any law in adjusting the reported total. It highlights the lack of a uniform nationwide standard for holding elections and counting votes. And that a national popular vote movement would have to have those standards before proceeding. Sure some states are going to howl. But what are they going to do, sue? That would open discovery on their electoral systems and standard for holding elections. They don't want to go there.

[BigEdLB]

I don’t know exactly how it is stated, but, there is a provision that says one state cannot base their electors on how a different state voted

[Yo-Yo]

I am of the opinion that the District system electoral college disenfranchises the fewest possible voters. Whoever wins a congressional district by 50% +1 vote gets that electoral vote. I there is not such a winner, a run off election between the top to vote recipients is held. No write-ins, no other candidates, period.

I agree with the method that Nebraska and Maine use: The candidate who gets the most popular votes in each Congressional District receives 1 electoral vote, plus 2 electoral votes for the candidate that gets the most popular votes in the state as a whole.

Going for the 50%+1 popular vote and requiring a runoff will unnecessarily delay the outcome of the election. When do you schedule the runoff election? The next day? The next week? The next month? How do you budget for the extra election? How do you print ballots?

[Buckeye McFrog]

They are 10 steps ahead.

They always are. Leftists do not have lives as you and I understand that term. They eat, sleep and breathe politics. They lay awake in bed all night thinking up new little demented was to gain the advantage over us.

[bantam]

“I am of the opinion that the District system electoral college disenfranchises the fewest possible voters. Whoever wins a congressional district by 50% +1 vote gets that electoral vote. I there is not such a winner, a run off election between the top to vote recipients is held. No write-ins, no other candidates, period.

One electoral vote is awarded to the candidate that receives the most districts. The last electoral vote for the state is awarded to the candidate that received the most votes in the state.”

This, or something close to this is what I’d like to see occur!!!!

[llevrok]

I am not sure which side of that SCOTUS would come down on.

I am not sure either other than to say I am sure 2020 will be one huge mess because of this. It will make Gore v US look like a ladies' tea.