The Plot to Undermine the Electoral College

[Peter1469]

The Plot to Undermine the Electoral College (https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/07/18/the-plot-to-undermine-the-electoral-college/)

Since the electoral college can't be eliminated without a constitutional amendment, the hard left is trying to make it useless. By way of interstate compacts. The idea is that the states who join will pledge their electors to the winner of the national popular vote - this provision kicks in once a candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. So far 15 states and DC have agreed. That = 196 electoral votes.

I imagine it will be challenged and the constitutional issues will be many and difficult. The constitution notwithstanding, the concept of a majority in Colorado voting X, but their electoral votes going to Y sounds decidedly un-American.


Seeking to exploit this Constitutional provision, proponents of Electoral College reform have submitted to the states the National Popular Vote (NPV) interstate compact. The NPV plan proposes to award states’ electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. In practice this means a state abiding by the NPV would award electoral votes to a national vote-winner, even if the majority within the state did not prefer that national winner. Currently, all but two states award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote within the state. As we shall see, this is a largely silent, invidious, and unconstitutional plan to abolish the Electoral College.

The effort is silent because it is being enacted on a state-by-state basis and has received only sporadic local media coverage, with very little national attention. Once the plan has been enacted in a number of states equal to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, then the NPV plan will go into effect in each enacting state. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted the plan, totaling 196 electoral votes. As of this writing, Oregon is the latest addition to the roster of states that have enacted the NPV. On June 12, 2019, Governor Kate Brown signed SB 870 into law. The remaining 74 electoral votes could be obtained if only a handful of states enact the compact.


When the Framers created the Electoral College, they thought the choice of executive would be made by a group of well-informed, prudent electors, who would be familiar with the character of those running for president.

Historically, however, the Electoral College has ratified the popular vote preferences in the states, within the context of the two-party system. Nevertheless, the historical function of the Electoral College has served the nation better than the Framers envisioned. Candidates must compete on a national scale within the two-party system, often in “battleground states,” where it is uncertain how the majority in that state will vote. Battlegrounds shift over time, so each candidate must take into account the large national framework and campaign in states that would be ignored if the national popular vote were the basis for selection.


The NPV plan seeks to replace the Electoral College without amending the Constitution. NPV proponents contend no constitutional amendment is needed because the Constitution leaves the appointment of electors to the states and an interstate compact can reflect the will of the states. Although under Article II, Section 1 states can appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” there is no constitutional basis for abolishing the state-based electoral system in agreement with other states. Proponents agree the plan is subject to the Compact Clause. However, they claim Congress is not required to consent to the NPV. The Supreme Court has upheld a few compacts that lacked congressional approval, but only those that do not disadvantage states that have not joined the agreement and do not interfere with federal purposes. For instance, the Court has upheld agreements on state boundaries that lacked Congress’s imprimatur. However, state boundaries or regional commissions are a far cry from altering the federal system created especially for choosing the President.

Read the rest of the article at the link.

[alexa]

The idea has been around for at least a decade and to call it a product of the alleged *hard left* is disingenuous at best.

There's nothing un-American about working within the law or changing the law legally.

[Captain Obvious]

It is disingenuous when snowflakes who suddenly discovered how it works want it changed because it didn't work in their favor.

[alexa]

It is disingenuous when snowflakes who suddenly discovered how it works want it changed because it didn't work in their favor.

Good, albeit completely based on a false premise, point.

The interstate compact got started long, long before the Dear Leader was elected, and the people that started it weren't snowflakes nor were they exclusively from one party.

https://ballotpedia.org/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Interstat e_compact_plan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inc.

[Tahuyaman]

Abolish the electoral college and we will experience true tyranny.

[Captain Obvious]

Good, albeit completely based on a false premise, point.

The interstate compact got started long, long before the Dear Leader was elected, and the people that started it weren't snowflakes nor were they exclusively from one party.

https://ballotpedia.org/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Interstat e_compact_plan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inc.

That it wasn't a mainstream talking point until 2.5 years ago is a pure coincidence.

No doubt.

[Peter1469]

The idea has been around for at least a decade and to call it a product of the alleged *hard left* is disingenuous at best.

There's nothing un-American about working within the law or changing the law legally.
Hard left. And un-American.

[Peter1469]

Again if Colorado votes 80% for X, but the national popular vote is for Y, can anyone in Colorado be happy if their votes are reversed?

[Tahuyaman]

Again if Colorado votes 80% for X, but the national popular vote is for Y, can anyone in Colorado be happy if their votes are reversed?
20% will.

[Peter1469]

20% will.
Will the courts?

[alexa]

That it wasn't a mainstream talking point until 2.5 years ago is a pure coincidence.

No doubt.

It's not a mainstream talking point now, unless you think this bin is mainstream.

[Tahuyaman]

Will the courts?
I think some will.

[alexa]

Again if Colorado votes 80% for X, but the national popular vote is for Y, can anyone in Colorado be happy if their votes are reversed?
The purpose of elections isn't to make people happy.

You may want to write that down for future reference.

[Captdon]

The Plot to Undermine the Electoral College (https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/07/18/the-plot-to-undermine-the-electoral-college/)

Since the electoral college can't be eliminated without a constitutional amendment, the hard left is trying to make it useless. By way of interstate compacts. The idea is that the states who join will pledge their electors to the winner of the national popular vote - this provision kicks in once a candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. So far 15 states and DC have agreed. That = 196 electoral votes.

I imagine it will be challenged and the constitutional issues will be many and difficult. The constitution notwithstanding, the concept of a majority in Colorado voting X, but their electoral votes going to Y sounds decidedly un-American.



Read the rest of the article at the link.

This will last until the first time it is used.

[Captdon]

The idea has been around for at least a decade and to call it a product of the alleged *hard left* is disingenuous at best.

There's nothing un-American about working within the law or changing the law legally.

The Constitution doesn't allow the states to have compacts without the permission of Congress.

Article I, Section 10

[Tahuyaman]

It's never going to happen anyway.

[Captdon]

The purpose of elections isn't to make people happy.

You may want to write that down for future reference.

Then why all the bitching about Trump winning with less votes than HRC?

[Peter1469]

The purpose of elections isn't to make people happy.

You may want to write that down for future reference.
That is nonsense.

[Captain Obvious]

The purpose of elections isn't to make people happy.

You may want to write that down for future reference.

Akumba matada

[donttread]

The Plot to Undermine the Electoral College (https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/07/18/the-plot-to-undermine-the-electoral-college/)

Since the electoral college can't be eliminated without a constitutional amendment, the hard left is trying to make it useless. By way of interstate compacts. The idea is that the states who join will pledge their electors to the winner of the national popular vote - this provision kicks in once a candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. So far 15 states and DC have agreed. That = 196 electoral votes.

I imagine it will be challenged and the constitutional issues will be many and difficult. The constitution notwithstanding, the concept of a majority in Colorado voting X, but their electoral votes going to Y sounds decidedly un-American.



Read the rest of the article at the link.

Is that legal? because if it is it should not be. Those states would not be acting in the wishes or best interest of their citizens. Another 1913 where the states give away their people's power

[Cletus]

We shouldn't even be having this discussion. As I pointed out last time this subject came up and Captdon has already pointed out in this thread, Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution specifies that... 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.

[Peter1469]

Is that legal? because if it is it should not be. Those states would not be acting in the wishes or best interest of their citizens. Another 1913 where the states give away their people's power
It is another attack against federalism.

The hard left loves centralized power. And that is anti-American.

[stjames1_53]

The idea has been around for at least a decade and to call it a product of the alleged *hard left* is disingenuous at best.

There's nothing un-American about working within the law or changing the law legally.

one wonders how anxious you would be to change that law if Hillary had gotten into office.

[DGUtley]

It is unconstitutional, in my opinion. We covered this shortly before or after the election.

[texan]

The Plot to Undermine the Electoral College (https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/07/18/the-plot-to-undermine-the-electoral-college/)

Since the electoral college can't be eliminated without a constitutional amendment, the hard left is trying to make it useless. By way of interstate compacts. The idea is that the states who join will pledge their electors to the winner of the national popular vote - this provision kicks in once a candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. So far 15 states and DC have agreed. That = 196 electoral votes.

I imagine it will be challenged and the constitutional issues will be many and difficult. The constitution notwithstanding, the concept of a majority in Colorado voting X, but their electoral votes going to Y sounds decidedly un-American.



Read the rest of the article at the link.
Won’t work.

Ask yourselves one reason certain states can opt out? Because of things like this one. If you are going to change the way we choose our leaders and let 2 Cities decide the elections, well, I can’t believe I am saying this but I would vote for Texas to opt out.

Get the point? It ain’t gonna work.

[FindersKeepers]

The purpose of elections isn't to make people happy.

You may want to write that down for future reference.

Oh ye who lacks insight -- the only reason anyone votes for any candidate is because they feel that candidate will implement policies and an agenda that makes them feel happier, whether those policies are conservative or liberal. No exceptions.

You may want to write that in crayon on your primary tablet.

[hanger4]

Good, albeit completely based on a false premise, point.The interstate compact got started long, long before the Dear Leader was elected, and the people that started it weren't snowflakes nor were they exclusively from one party.https://ballotpedia.org/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compacthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Interstat e_compact_planhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inc.It's not at all based on a false premise. The Interstate compact plan began in earnest in 2001 right after Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the EC. So yes, "It is disingenuous when snowflakes who suddenly discovered how it works want it changed because it didn't work in their favor." Hat tip to Captain Obvious

[Retirednsmilin308]

Won’t work.

Ask yourselves one reason certain states can opt out? Because of things like this one. If you are going to change the way we choose our leaders and let 2 Cities decide the elections, well, I can’t believe I am saying this but I would vote for Texas to opt out.

Get the point? It ain’t gonna work.



Texas will never live under the whims of SF, LA and NYC forever and open ended as this would make it.
The EC was created specifically to prevent major population centers from controlling the entire nation like they do certain states now.
NYC absolutely controls NY state
Chicago absolutely controls IL
LA/SF absolutely control CA
...the citizens living upstate have zero say-so in what happens because their vote counts for nothing in those states controlled by major cities.

There is no way in hell we are going to allow it to happen nationwide.

Hillary Clinton's "popular vote" numbers were all just five counties surrounding NYC.
If you take those away, she would have lost the popular vote.
Look it up if you don't believe me.

This is all about New York and Hillary Clinton not getting their way.

[DGUtley]

Texas will never live under the whims of SF, LA and NYC forever and open ended as this would make it.
The EC was created specifically to prevent major population centers from controlling the entire nation like they do certain states now.
NYC absolutely controls NY state
Chicago absolutely controls IL
LA/SF absolutely control CA
...the citizens living upstate have zero say-so in what happens because their vote counts for nothing in those states controlled by major cities.

There is no way in hell we are going to allow it to happen nationwide.

Hillary Clinton's "popular vote" numbers were all just five counties surrounding NYC.
If you take those away, she would have lost the popular vote.
Look it up if you don't believe me.

This is all about New York and Hillary Clinton not getting their way.

Correct. If they change the EC compromise, Ohio will opt out as well.

[MisterVeritis]

Texas will never live under the whims of SF, LA and NYC forever and open ended as this would make it.
The EC was created specifically to prevent major population centers from controlling the entire nation like they do certain states now.
NYC absolutely controls NY state
Chicago absolutely controls IL
LA/SF absolutely control CA
...the citizens living upstate have zero say-so in what happens because their vote counts for nothing in those states controlled by major cities.

There is no way in hell we are going to allow it to happen nationwide.

Hillary Clinton's "popular vote" numbers were all just five counties surrounding NYC.
If you take those away, she would have lost the popular vote.
Look it up if you don't believe me.

This is all about New York and Hillary Clinton not getting their way.
Texas will flip to blue in the next five years. So will Arizona.

[Rationalist]

The Plot to Undermine the Electoral College (https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/07/18/the-plot-to-undermine-the-electoral-college/)

Since the electoral college can't be eliminated without a constitutional amendment, the hard left is trying to make it useless. By way of interstate compacts. The idea is that the states who join will pledge their electors to the winner of the national popular vote - this provision kicks in once a candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. So far 15 states and DC have agreed. That = 196 electoral votes.

I imagine it will be challenged and the constitutional issues will be many and difficult. The constitution notwithstanding, the concept of a majority in Colorado voting X, but their electoral votes going to Y sounds decidedly un-American.



Read the rest of the article at the link.
The funny thing about this is that it's mostly blue states doing this. So, the practical effect of this is pretty amusing.

1) In most of the cases where a president won the Electoral College but not the popular vote, it was a Republican. So, if mostly blue states are agreeing to this, but not most red states, then it isn't likely to change the outcome of an election.

2) In the rare case where it would change the outcome, it would probably involve a Republican gaining the votes of blue states. For example, if this policy had been in place during 2004, Bush would have still won the election, since he got the popular vote, but his electoral votes would have been even higher than they were under the normal rules.

If Trump wins the popular vote in 2020 (which is a very real possibility), then it would be hilarious to watch people freaking out even more if this NPV system was put into place. Trump would get virtually all of the electoral votes as a result.

[Rationalist]

The idea has been around for at least a decade and to call it a product of the alleged *hard left* is disingenuous at best.

There's nothing un-American about working within the law or changing the law legally.

Sure, but as I've stated in my other post, I don't think Californians or New Yorkers would be too happy about their electoral votes going to Trump if he wins the popular vote next time around.

[Rationalist]

The purpose of elections isn't to make people happy.

You may want to write that down for future reference.
That's something Democrats should learn from Trump winning.

Instead, they've tried everything from impeachment, to indictment, to now NPV to remove him.

Yet, if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020, they're going to need yet another method.

[Peter1469]

The funny thing about this is that it's mostly blue states doing this. So, the practical effect of this is pretty amusing.

1) In most of the cases where a president won the Electoral College but not the popular vote, it was a Republican. So, if mostly blue states are agreeing to this, but not most red states, then it isn't likely to change the outcome of an election.

2) In the rare case where it would change the outcome, it would probably involve a Republican gaining the votes of blue states. For example, if this policy had been in place during 2004, Bush would have still won the election, since he got the popular vote, but his electoral votes would have been even higher than they were under the normal rules.

If Trump wins the popular vote in 2020 (which is a very real possibility), then it would be hilarious to watch people freaking out even more if this NPV system was put into place. Trump would get virtually all of the electoral votes as a result.
They would scream and cry so loud and not understand why their plot to destroy the Constitution didn't work. It would be funny.

[Tahuyaman]

It’s not going to happen. Most people know that it would result in total chaos.

[DGUtley]

Iowa hawk offers bernie sanders a suggestion in his quest to abolish the electoral college.

26406


https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2019/07/21/somebody-call-911-iowahawk-offers-bernie-sanders-a-suggestion-in-his-quest-to-abolish-the-electoral-college/

[Jeb!]

Good, albeit completely based on a false premise, point.

The interstate compact got started long, long before the Dear Leader was elected, and the people that started it weren't snowflakes nor were they exclusively from one party.

https://ballotpedia.org/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Interstat e_compact_plan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inc.
"The interstate compact was not a reaction to Trump winning. It was a reaction to Bush winning instead."

:laugh:

[Hoosier8]

The idea has been around for at least a decade and to call it a product of the alleged *hard left* is disingenuous at best.

There's nothing un-American about working within the law or changing the law legally.



Changing the law legally would be a constitutional amendment. This is a bypass of the constitution. Until enough state implement this run around then it will be challenged in court.

[Hoosier8]

It is disingenuous when snowflakes who suddenly discovered how it works want it changed because it didn't work in their favor.

Democrats specifically.

[AZ Jim]

Abolish the electoral college and we will experience true tyranny.

[Retirednsmilin308]

Texas will flip to blue in the next five years. So will Arizona.



...and my blood pressure will not go up even one tick.
That is how much I let the political scene bother me.

[Captdon]

Texas will flip to blue in the next five years. So will Arizona.

PA, WI, MI and MN are going to turn Red.