The National Popular Vote Bandwagon
American Thinker,
by
Anthony C. Patton
Original Article
Posted By: ladydawgfan,
8/23/2019 5:39:58 AM
The national popular vote bandwagon continues to attract anxious passengers before the 2020 election. Fifteen states plus D.C. with 196 electoral votes have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which would obligate the participating states to cast their electoral votes for the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, not the candidate who wins the state's popular vote, but only after states with 270 or more electoral votes join the compact. Most recently, Nevada's governor had the good sense to veto the measure.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Rinktum 8/23/2019 6:50:42 AM (No. 159729)
Agree with OP. This is fundamentally wrong and goes against the very principles the Founding Fathers created for the Republic. They were wise enough to see into the future where big cities and populous states may lord it over the rest of the citizenry. Each passing day, the democrats unwittingly reveal the wisdom of our Founders when they go off on these ignorant and partisan rants. What they forget is that we the people are not as ignorant as they, and we will push back against their insane ideas and this is one of the more crazed ones.
33 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
LC Chihuahua 8/23/2019 7:24:25 AM (No. 159749)
I can see this scheme blowing up in their faces. Most people do not agree with the left's platform. What would the left do next if they lost the popular vote? Resort to violence? They are already there with Antifa.
20 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
udanja99 8/23/2019 7:56:05 AM (No. 159771)
Constitution? We don’t need no stinking Constitution!
10 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 8/23/2019 8:36:42 AM (No. 159797)
In the People's Republic of Colorado, a push to recall our newly elected gay governor Polis is in full swing for signing on to the compact. Shame on him for throwing away our nine electoral votes this way. What he did was wrong.
27 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
bpl40 8/23/2019 9:02:01 AM (No. 159822)
Republican siding states are not on this bandwagon, but the Blue States are. When they lose the Red States anyway and New York and Kalifornia to a Republican popular vote winning candidate, the law of unintended consequences will hit them in the face (I actually mean the other side!).
5 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
planetgeo 8/23/2019 9:20:13 AM (No. 159844)
The bandwagon is desiged only to put pressure on a few red states to join in this foolish, illegal compact. I would bet anything that if Trump ends up winning the popular vote that some of these blue states (California in particular) will renege and make up some excuse to avoid giving Trump all their votes. I know these neo-communists. There is no way they would ever follow through and give Trump all their votes. No way.
15 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 8/23/2019 10:29:00 AM (No. 159924)
#2, it was not big cities that the founders feared would overwhelm a popular vote, it was Virginia. Virginia was the powerhouse then and the reason for the fear of virginias popular vote might was expressed in a single word. Slavery.
Ironic isnt it. The lefts complete disinterest in history makes fools of them again.
13 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Starboard_side 8/23/2019 11:16:38 AM (No. 159973)
Wonder how many people might not vote, who are now coerced to vote, and those who haven't voted, but would if they felt it meant something would start to vote, and change the whole concept the Democrats are trying to achieve.
What truly, IMO, needs to happen, and to stop having 5-6 "swing" states from deciding the Presidential elections, is to go to proportional allocation. The winner of the popular vote of each EC (House seat) district would be allocated accordingly. Then, have each Senator vote as they deem appropriate, likely partisan.
I believe there are millions of eligible voters in both BLUE and RED states, that don't vote simply because they don't see it making any difference. Partly because their votes are disenfranchised by having them allocated to the winner of the state's popular vote.
2 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
planetgeo 8/23/2019 11:43:18 AM (No. 160005)
#10, your "proportional allocation" of each state's vote is just another form of "popular vote". It misses the fundamental concept of a republic. Namely, that it require's that each state is a separate legal entity and whoever wins the majority of that state's popular vote gets the state's entire electoral votes. It is essentially a vote of the state entities that says, "we're in" as an entire state.
10 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
jacksin5 8/23/2019 1:10:32 PM (No. 160110)
This has been on the radar for some time. Can anyone who understands Constitutional Law tell me why this has not already been shot down, or challenged in the SCOTUS already? Can the States continue to pass legislation that violates Federal Law to their heart's content ? The cultivation, sale and possession of Marijuana is already legal in a number of States, where does this all end? Will we dissolve the Federal Government, and be ruled by a number of city-states like Europe in the 1500's?
8 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Butch 8/23/2019 1:46:18 PM (No. 160138)
Let them pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitution, if they dare even try. There have been hundreds of bills introduced in the Congress to abolish the Electoral College, and all have crashed and burned. Thirty-eight states legislatures would be required to approve it, and yet, eight states have three electoral votes; their legislatures would never pass such a bill. There are a bunch of states with 4 or 5 electoral votes, and they won´t either.
You´ll never see 38 states approve such a stupid and unnecessary amendment. The Electoral College works! Do we really want California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania choosing our presidents?!? That is exactly what would happen, and Wyoming, Deleware, Alaska, New Hampshire (!!), the Dakotas, and Montana would have seen their last presidential candidates -- ever.
9 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
msjena 8/23/2019 2:33:26 PM (No. 160183)
Put another way, 13 states can stop a Constitutional amendment. It's not hard to think of 13 states that would vote against abolishing the Electoral College.
6 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
web 8/23/2019 6:00:25 PM (No. 160352)
Why on earth should they cast their votes for the candidate who wins the national popular vote? They are supposed to be representing their own state, and should vote for whoever wins the popular vote in their state. If we can manage to stop the demoncrats from cheating massively, as they have done for the past elections, and President Trump wins the popular vote, they will be singing the praises of the Electoral College again.
3 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "ladydawgfan"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
The pact absolutely violates the Constitution and should be shot down by the Supreme Court ASAP!!