Replies

Thanks EternalVigilance.

Under the idea introduced in 2006 by Stanford University consulting professor John Koza, states that join the NPV compact pledge to give all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote -- even if a majority of the state's voters supported another candidate.

This will finish off the Demwit competitiveness -- unless they manufacture even more votes somehow. California's electoral votes will have to go to the Pubbie if the Pubbie wins the popular vote, and that means California is up for grabs. Turnout in the red states will go up in order to grab those extra electoral college votes.

My view is, either eliminate the Electoral College altogether and elect the president at-large from the entire country, or set up specific rules on how Electoral College votes *must* be cast.

This National Popular Vote initiative can only help the 'Rats and encourage them to engage in even more widespread and extensive fraud, as 'Rat-infested big cities become the obvious focal points for fraud with their large concentrations of popular votes. No Republican should be pushing this! If this popular vote system were in effect in 2000, Al Gore would have cheated his way to the White House and we'd probably still be taking man-made global warming as a serious threat and have even more dumb environmental regulation than we do now.

I can't believe that they are trying to eliminate the Electoral College, practically speaking, without going through the necessary procedure to amend the Constitution to achieve it.

I don't like interstate compacts in general, because they take away from the autonomy of the individual states, and states involved could collude against the rights of their citizens. That's why there is a little known "interstate compact" (as distinguished from "interstate commerce" ) clause in the Constitution which requires congressional approval for interstate compacts. In this case, however, the specific compact is so repugnant to the existing Constitution that a constitutional amendment is obviously required to achieve such a radical (and foolish) change.