Posted on 04/01/2019 5:24:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ronald Reagan was reportedly fond of referencing the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Monahan’s admonition, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Today, that would most particularly include opponents of the growing drive to enact the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award 270 electoral votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Of all the myths conjured up by naysayers to try and torpedo the compact, perhaps the most egregious portray the measure as either unconstitutional or an effort to eliminate the Electoral College. Both are patently false.
The compact isn’t the same thing as the national popular vote that the 2020 presidential candidates are calling for. The compact is 100 percent constitutional and consistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers, who explicitly gave states the authority under the Constitution to form agreements among themselves for any number of reasons. There is no issue with the states usurping the power of the federal government.
Moreover, while some reform advocates argue for elimination of the Electoral College through a long and cumbersome effort to amend the Constitution, the compact preserves the Electoral College intact, exactly as the Constitution specifies. In fact, the compact states that if the Electoral College is done away with, the compact goes away.
Under the Constitution, states are free to award their electors in any way they see fit. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution either mentioning or mandating the current winner-take-all system by which most states award their electoral votes. The Founding Fathers never approved it. By entering the compact, the states agree to direct their Electoral College votes through a popular vote.
The myths and falsehoods aren’t limited to the Constitution and the Electoral College. Another falsehood imagines the votes of large, populous states running roughshod over smaller, less populated states. This is patently untrue. More people live in rural areas and small towns than in the big cities. If Republicans direct their campaign efforts in the former areas, they should be able to win the popular vote, since they dominate those areas. Right now, they direct their energy at the swing states instead.
Under the current system, we don’t so much elect the president of the United States as we do the president of the battleground states. The 12 states where the candidates spend virtually all of their time — and money — chasing blocks of electoral votes that can swing back and forth every four years. The other 38 states and the District of Columbia — encompassing roughly 70 percent of the population — are ignored because they are so faithful in voting either Republican or Democrat every four years.
In an election fought under the compact, the 12-state election model becomes a 50-state contest in which candidates are compelled to chase down every single voter in every nook and cranny of the nation. The states are essentially working with other states to make their votes more relevant.
Oregon is a great example of why the compact is needed. Over the last eight presidential elections from 1988 to 2016, a total of 5,429,496 Oregonians cast their popular votes for the Republican ticket. And in all of that time, their efforts have failed to produce one single GOP electoral vote. Because eight out of eight times, the Democratic ticket won Oregon’s popular vote and all of its electoral votes.
Under the compact, voters gain a direct voice over the disposition of the 270 electoral votes. No voter in any state would have their vote cancelled out because they didn’t go along with the majority of others in their state. Every voter would have their vote counted directly toward their choice for president. And the presidential candidate who gets the most popular votes would become president.
Florida is gradually becoming more Democratic, as Puerto Ricans move into the state and overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Republicans are going to lose this swing state and will be unable to win presidential elections through the existing system much longer. It’s a good time to switch. The movement in support of the compact is gaining momentum with Delaware and New Mexico having just passed bills joining it for a projected total of 189 of the 270 electoral votes necessary to switch to the compact (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). It has bipartisan support because Democrats erroneously think large cities will end up deciding elections. Republicans need to do their homework on this issue before blindly repeating falsehoods.
Sounds like collusion to me...
It’s absolutely unconstitutional and an end-around the amendment process. Imagine how undemocratic it is for a state to award its electoral votes to a candidate who lost the popular vote in that state.
The Constitution was designed to do exactly what it did in the last election - stop a regional candidate from controlling the government. Hillary was a NY / CAL candidate.
The article is correct unfortunately that eventually the leftist vote will spread to other regions and democrats will win. It’s all about immigration.
“The compact is 100 percent constitutional and consistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers, who explicitly gave states the authority under the Constitution to form agreements among themselves for any number of reasons.”
Um, no they didn’t. In fact they explicitly forbade it:
Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”
Another Fredocon speaks. Ignore her.
L
This ignores the open borders and its millions of foreign nationals voting in our elections.
My take on this, once I researched it, is that it is one of those “be careful what you wish for things. That is, a state that votes overwhelmingly for candidate A, gives all their votes to candidate B, because B won California and NY and got the majority of popular vote.
This would, IMO, kinda tick off the voters in that first state. It also demonstrates why this whole thing makes no sense, unless your goal is to steal elections by going for voter fraud only in those states where you get more bang for the buck with illegals, etc.
And as I’ve said many times, WHENVER trump leaves, we will be on the cusp of the equivalent of the Russian and French revolutions - it will be nothing like the American revolution.
For an explanation of the differences:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dwz_Z62e0s
How about this: States that want to give up the Electoral College would stop electing Representatives, give up all of their seats in the House and give Nancy all of their votes.
Yes this author is sure full of smartitude!
And thanks for the sad story about the GOP losing in Oregon- it made no sense, but it’s nice to know how much you care that the GOP gets to win.
We’re sure you have our best interests at heart.
The states countervailing the Constitutional requirement for an Electoral College are entering into a “compact”, which is prohibited by the US Constitution.
Article 1, Section 10, US Constitution
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any
Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of
Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another
State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless
actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not
admit of delay.”
In an election fought under the compact, the 12-state election model becomes a 50-state contest in which candidates are compelled to chase down every single voter in every nook and cranny of the nation. The states are essentially working with other states to make their votes more relevant.
———
This shows a complete lack of understanding of the effect of the Electoral College on campaigns.
"Intact" is an odd word with regard to this compact.
My dog has been neutered but I wouldn't call him "intact".
It’s definitely unconstitutional. People in those states would be denied their vote under he current constitutional framework if the State decided to ignore the electoral college and give their EC votes to the popular winner in the other candidate won the state.
republic -> democracy -> socialism -> Communism -> anarchy -> lather -> rinse -> repeat.
No one has mentioned that under such a system, it will matter more than ever who counts the votes, as Stalin famously said.
Precinct level cheating in 100% turnout deep-city Dem pits will be the norm. Ballot boxes will be found for weeks. The fight to harvest the last vote will go on forever. Recounts will last years.
This is the big lie. The problem with the compact is that it would cancel out voters from Kansas, as an example, with voters from NY or CA. These two states, and any irregularities in their voter lists, voter fraud, vote harvesting, etc. would eliminate an opposing vote in East Bumrush, anywhere, USA.
I strongly disagree with the author's premise that the compact is being promoted with facts and honesty.
So what?
"Democracy" is killing this nation, we shouldn't be advocating for more of it.
Exactly
The enemies of the republic are going to have to put it all on the line to make this 330 million zoo a pure democracy.
No one has a constitutional right to cast a vote for President (except for an Elector appointed by his State Legislature).
My, that's some breathtaking "logic" there. "No voter in any state would have their vote cancelled out because they didn’t go along with the majority of others in their state"... but it is okay if their vote is cancelled out because they didn't go along with the majority of others in the nation.
We is smart!!
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.