Is there a conservative case for National Popular Vote?

posted at 4:30 pm on August 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

A few days ago, I got an invitation from my friend Laura Brod to discuss the National Popular Vote initiative.  Laura served several terms in the Minnesota legislature, rising to assistant GOP leader in her last two sessions (majority, then minority), and she has organized and served conservatives for her entire public career.  Given that, I was a little surprised to hear that Laura backed the NPV.  The proposal gets a lot of mischaracterizations; it doesn’t bypass the Electoral College, for instance, and since it relies on states voluntarily deciding to change how they allocate their Electoral College votes, it doesn’t violate the Constitution, either.  My skepticism rests mainly on my perception that an NPV arrangement would mainly serve the interests of high-population, mainly coastal states — and solve a problem that has only arisen twice in the preceding 134 years.

After meeting with Laura and Pat Rosenstiel from Red Cap Strategy, I was still skeptical, but at least intrigued by their argument that NPV would benefit smaller-population states and limit the kind of pandering that helped create Medicare Part D, for instance, and other big-ticket federal programs.  Laura wrote a brief essay for Hot Air introducing their case that conservatives should support NPV, and I’m curious to see how Hot Air readers respond.  I’ll have more to say at the end of the essay.

======

Don’t Rush to Judgment: There is a Conservative Story to be told about the National Popular Vote

Recently there has been a lot of discussion in the news and blogosphere about the National Popular Vote Plan to guarantee the awarding of state electors to the candidate who wins the National Popular Vote in all 50 states.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of misstatements and rhetoric surrounding the issue.

I have recently read, due to passing of the bill in Massachusetts, that this is a “partisan” or even “liberal” effort.  This could not be further from the truth.  Just look at the experience and support of this legislation throughout the country with over 1935 supporting legislators from all political points of view across the political spectrum. In my home state of Minnesota, some of the most conservative members of our legislature are co-authors of the National Popular Vote Bill.  In the recent New York Senate vote on the legislation; Conservative Party endorsed Republicans favored the bill by a 20-3 margin.

The National Popular Vote Bill is not a Democrat or Republican bill.  It is not even a liberal or conservative bill.  The National Popular Vote Bill is a bill for Americans interested in both preserving our Electoral College and reforming the shortcomings of our current “winner-take-all” system that awards all the electors of one state to the candidate who wins in that particular state and which has led to a concentration of efforts in few states at the expense of many.

Like many conservatives, I view most ‘election reforms’ through a skeptical eye.  I share a reverence for the Constitution and our founding documents. In fact, when I first saw the National Popular Vote Plan, I defaulted to a “No” position on the concept.  But, I was curious enough to read the legislation, re-read the Constitution, and re-read some relevant Federalist Papers.  After evaluating the pros and cons of the current winner-take-all approach, I moved toward a position of support of both the concept and the legislation.  This plan rightfully utilizes the states’ rights, as explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, for full authority to award their electoral votes as they see fit.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors… “

These words in the Constitution point out an important states’ right that the National Popular Vote Plan recognizes and, as a conservative, a right which I support.

Let’s be clear.  The National Popular Vote legislation being voted on and supported by legislators across this great nation does NOT abolish the Electoral College that is crucial to the stability of our republic – it preserves the Electoral College and each state’s right to award their electors.

I am one of a growing number of conservatives who support the National Popular Vote legislation because, contrary to what some folks suggest in rhetorical opposition, the many conservative supporters of the idea know that the National Popular Vote Plan is not in conflict with the Constitution and not an end run around the Constitution.  In actuality, the legislation is an exercise of power by the states that is explicitly granted through the Constitution.

Legislators across this great country—in red states and blue states, large states and small states— support this legislation because they are bound by one thing: the fact that their states are ‘flyover’ states.  When 98% of all presidential campaign spending and visits occur in only 15 states, the great majority of states are effectively ignored in presidential elections.  Legislators know this is not good for their state, their citizens, or their entire slate of candidates.  Many conservative legislators from across the country have recognized that policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.  And, over time we have seen too much profligate spending based on what moves electoral votes, rather than a real focus on holding spending and debt in check to ensure economic security and real economic opportunity for Americans.

I believe this is a center-right country and that our conservative ideas and ideals will win the day if we take the argument to all people, not just those in battleground states.  We leave many conservative votes on the table in red and blue states because candidates are not competing for those votes.  We allow greater opportunity for fraud because the cheaters know how and where to cheat to make one illegal vote equal many electoral votes.

I am one of the growing number of conservatives who support the concept of reforming our system through an agreement of the states for a National Popular Vote Plan that keeps the stability of our Republican form of government by preserving our Electoral College, keeps the checks and balances in place to ensure the protection against so-called mob rule, and keeps the states’ rights intended by the Founder’s securely intact.

The National Popular vote plan being discussed by legislatures across the country does exactly that.

As a conservative, I ask you to hold off on making a rush to judgment on this issue and hope you will consider all sides of the issue, judge for yourself, and not allow the rhetoric of the opposition too often lacking in hard facts to stand without question.  Whatever side you come down on, one thing is certain; there is a conservative story in favor of a National Popular Vote to be told.

Representative Laura Brod (R-Minnesota)

Representative Brod has been in the Minnesota House since 2002 and is the Ranking Republican member of Minnesota’s House Tax Committee.

=====

Laura points out a good article from Rich Bolen, a Constitutional law scholar and a member of the Federalist Society, rebutting arguments against NPV, such as the basis of my skepticism, the impact on smaller states in presidential elections:

Objection: Won’t small states be ignored if we eliminate winner-take-all rules and adopt the National Popular Vote?

Response: No, because even in states that are reliably red or blue a bigger margin of victory or smaller margin of defeat can offset losses in other states. Candidates will work hard in states they will definitely win so they can get out more of their supporters to influence the total number of votes cast for them nationally. In fact, in strongly supportive states, candidates can get a better return for their campaign investment.

During our meeting, we spent quite a bit of time on this question, and I’m still not entirely convinced it will have the intended effect — but I’m more open to the point than I was previously.  States like Utah, South and North Dakota, and Oklahoma are usually so overwhelmingly Republican that candidates don’t bother spending much time or effort there; the same is true for Democratic states like Vermont, Connecticut, and so on.  Their winner-take-all EC policy means that if a candidate is more or less guaranteed to win it all without lifting a finger, then they won’t — because the margin of overall victory doesn’t matter.  In an NPV system, every vote would count, and both parties will be forced to compete in smaller states to either maximize or minimize the eventual margin of victory — and that means every state will get attention.

Also, the NPV system would only “activate” under specific circumstances.  If the popular vote winner doesn’t get the EC victory, then each state would have to fulfill their requirement under the interstate compact to allocate their EC votes to the popular-vote winner, and only if enough states have joined the compact to get to 270 votes.  (Interstate compacts are perfectly legal, by the way, when they involve only powers properly held by the states — and allocation of Electoral College votes is completely a state’s decision.)  But the possibility that an election will hinge on these outcomes will force candidates to campaign in all 50 states, NPV advocates argue.

I’m still at least somewhat skeptical.  Adopting NPV essentially means that all presidential elections are popular-vote contests, which does make the EC less relevant while retaining its form and Constitutional finality.  I’m not sure at all that the NPV will actually get candidates to spend time in smaller states, especially Democrats, who will use their GOTV votes in urban areas to build huge popular-vote leads in New York, California, and other coastal states in a cost-efficient manner that may not be replicable in exurbs or rural areas.  However, the NPV advocates rightly note that the current system means fewer down-ticket resources applied in those areas in both parties because of the perceived lack of need for those votes now in national elections.

It’s worth debating, but given the relative lack of crises in the last 134 years, it will probably be difficult to move states into accepting such a change.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I suppose ‘The Race Card’ will breeze in from LGF and tell us why we are all racists for… something. He will of course have scientific proof for all of it!

sharrukin on August 15, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Brrreiitbarrrt!!!

MeatHeadinCA on August 15, 2010 at 6:48 PM

this is foolishness….many reasons to be against this.

but the root cause of this is the lack of adulthood. yes, Virginia, sometimes the electoral college doesn’t square with the popular vote.

that’s ok!!!! it lets the president know that s/he is leading a split country. That is important information.

don’t try to whitewash the differences between people.

r keller on August 15, 2010 at 6:48 PM

kind of encouraging.. I guess.

Though, more likely, it’s just because a conservative tends to want to conserve and preserve. We tend want to conserve our traditions and history, the electoral college is part of that. HA attracts conservatives, therefore, it makes sense we’d tend toward harmony on an issue like that. I suspect that on most bulletin boards there would be overwhelming support to getting rid of the ‘archaic system’

WashingtonsWake on August 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Perhaps I haven’t been keeping up on my HA-drama (though, I do know Ann stormed off yesterday), but where’s CK Mc? Surely, he/she could defend this…

MeatHeadinCA on August 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM

MeatHeadinCA on August 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM

I read where CK bailed too..

Dire Straits on August 15, 2010 at 7:01 PM

I read where CK bailed too..

Dire Straits on August 15, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Say what? I knew I must’ve missed something!!!!!

MeatHeadinCA on August 15, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Sorry, Ed. I fundamentally disagree with you.

Let’s take just one part of that – the fraud factor. Going back to the 2004 election, simply upping the turnout in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Diego, Detroit, San Jose and San Francisco (7 cities in 3 states that weren’t “in play”) to that here in Milwaukee would have netted John Kerry almost 2.2 million of the 3 million vote separation between him and George W. Bush. Give all the extra votes to Kerry instead of allocating them the same way the actual vote was, and the entirety of the 3 million vote Bush lead disappears.

As for the compact issue, it is one that necessarily affects federal political power; as such, it would require Congressional assent.

steveegg on August 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Say what? I knew I must’ve missed something!!!!!

MeatHeadinCA on August 15, 2010 at 7:02 PM

I don’t know too many details..But C K is no longer in the green room..

Dire Straits on August 15, 2010 at 7:12 PM

I don’t know too many details..But C K is no longer in the green room..

Dire Straits on August 15, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Any details you do know would be fascinating to hear.

MeatHeadinCA on August 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

I suspect that on most bulletin boards there would be overwhelming support to getting rid of the ‘archaic system’

WashingtonsWake on August 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Archaic?
Really?
In case it’s not been noticed, our ‘archaic’ Electoral College sets us apart and above every other nation in the socialist world. Which, I might add, is the last bastion of what little liberty is left. It is one of the pillars of ‘representation’ and ‘states power’ that has made it so very difficult to subdue America and drag her into marxism/communism.

When george SOROS is desperate to destroy that which sets America apart from the rest, one had better take notice.

lilspitfire on August 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

The whole idea is dumb but if the blue states want to move to an apportioned EV system instead of winner takes all I’d be all for it.

clement on August 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

WashingtonsWake on August 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Washington…..in case you thought I was directing the above post at you personally, I wasn’t. :)

lilspitfire on August 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Any details you do know would be fascinating to hear.

MeatHeadinCA on August 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Don’t know much but what little I gathered C K was not happy with the blow back from HA commenters..

PS..After the swipe C K took at Mark Steyn I did not think it would be long..:)

Dire Straits on August 15, 2010 at 7:31 PM

The whole point of NPV is that it stops the Left from just mass producing ballots in Chicago, Detriot, etc.

As things are now, Obama can get 10 million votes and Chicago and all he gets are IL’s electoral votes.

Go with any system that rests directly on the popular vote and the extra votes his partisans WILL produce will make a victory for anyone else impossible.

18-1 on August 15, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Don’t know much but what little I gathered C K was not happy with the blow back from HA commenters..

PS..After the swipe C K took at Mark Steyn I did not think it would be long..:)

Dire Straits on August 15, 2010 at 7:31 PM

I missed the swipe at MS … also, he/she should have grown a pair if he/she was really upset about what the commenters were (usually honestly) saying.

Oh, well… another progressive bites the dust. I’m out. Later.

MeatHeadinCA on August 15, 2010 at 7:34 PM

If a change to the U.S. Constitution, with large and, in some respects, unpredictable consequences for the United States, seems in some ways advantageous to Americans who call themselves conservative, does that mean there is “a conservative case” for such a constitutional change? If Americans who call themselves conservative attempt to make that change in their constitution, are they conservative? I think the answer to both questions is “No.”

If a man who calls himself conservative takes up such a subject publicly, even for the purpose of producing interesting controversy and “generating clicks,” is he really conservative? I won’t presume to say “No,” but I admit to being doubtful.

Kralizec on August 15, 2010 at 7:38 PM

NPV= National Public Vote

You can keep that in your backpack.

I you wish to discuss SPV= State Proportional Vote, then we can begin to have a discussion.

Only the SPV downplays the impact of the large Metro areas. For a simple example in CA LA/SF would no longer dominate the state!

CWforFreedom, your Mommy syas come out of the basement!

Old Dog on August 15, 2010 at 7:45 PM

I think that Eduardo has forgotten some basic facts:

1. The Boy Blunder is doing everything possible to insure that about 55–60 per cent of Americans are “on the dole”.
2. Folks on the dole vote Democrat — that’s why FDR instituted and maintained the WPA programs.

How dumb can you be?

Henry Bowman on August 15, 2010 at 7:46 PM

The original constitutional plan was enacted in order to keep interests in balance, so as not to allow a tyranny. Senators were elected by States as a check on the Federal government, presidents were elected by the electoral college as a check on popular demagoguery, Presidential appointments were checked by the Senate. Losing these checks and balances may look good in the short term, but leaves the Republic less stable overall.

cthulhu on August 15, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Give each state one vote, and then I’ll be convinced.

Saltysam on August 15, 2010 at 8:09 PM

What about all of the Military votes that the Democrats just can’t find it in themselves to count…?

Seven Percent Solution on August 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM

What I have yet to see in this debate is what happens if no candidate in reality doesn’t get enough electoral votes to win but ends up “with the most votes” at 38% of the country.

The Constitution was written with the idea that states would not be willing to just follow the majority rule.

cpaulus on August 15, 2010 at 8:19 PM

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors… “

And that’s cool so long as each elector represents a county, not a state.

Americans want their vote to count, its some source of anger to be represented for the benefit of a collective political purpose, a 35 million as one in the Ca. scenario, not the individual voter.

The American voter is by and large disenfranchised and rightly so, his or her voting consequence is stripped from them approximately half the time on national average and living in the oppositeness of tyranny, all of the time.

At least if each county were represented, separately, the vote would be, in California’s case, 52 times more articulate.

Speakup on August 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Seven Percent Solution on August 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM

I recently wrote my senator about that and the reply was bizarre. It didn’t even address it. They live in their own little world in D.C..

Cindy Munford on August 15, 2010 at 8:22 PM

I’m amazed at the people that think they are smarter, wiser, better educated, when it comes to reading books of history, economics, philosophy, ect…, than our founding fathers.

Just because a change (like this) might give conservatives an advantage does not mean it is beat for the Republic.

Watching_Cloward-Piven on August 15, 2010 at 8:26 PM

The Founding fathers did not have TV, Internet, smartphones, Xbox, and all the other distractions of today so all they had to do was read, invent new stuff, have intelligent conversations.

No blogger or anybody in DC today could hold their jockstrap.

Watching_Cloward-Piven on August 15, 2010 at 8:39 PM

It’s supported by a wide variety of politicians? good enough for me
/S
The last thing we need are politicians making the rules for elections

gstep58 on August 15, 2010 at 8:44 PM

Just another example of The Man keepin’ The Brothers down.

29Victor on August 15, 2010 at 8:44 PM

oops, wrong thread, heh.

29Victor on August 15, 2010 at 8:45 PM

I think I would rather go to the days where whoever got the most votes was president and whoever got the 2nd most was VP.

nazo311 on August 15, 2010 at 8:49 PM

“And that’s cool so long as each elector represents a county, not a state.”

I don’t see that. A state has one elector for each seat it has in Congress, one for each House and Senate member. Therefore the electors should be divvied up according to the representation of those members of Congress. Two for the at-large Senate seats, and one for each House district. The apportionment of the electoral votes should follow.

crosspatch on August 15, 2010 at 8:55 PM

George Soros backs NpV and is funding the marketing.

eaglesdontflock on August 15, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Has anyone mentioned this sounds like the 17th on steroids…

jerrytbg on August 15, 2010 at 9:07 PM

No… NPV is insane… this woman is an f’n moron and when she talks about the electoral college and how it won’t be destroyed she sounds oddly like a Johavah’s Witness… and the major backers of it are mostly far left liberals… like Common Cause…

what would happen if those who signed the NPV refused to stick the agreement… we could end up with something like the Pope and anti-Popes of the middle ages…

A better system is to have the electors divided by congressional districts and have the winner of the states get 2 electors…

ninjapirate on August 15, 2010 at 9:15 PM

You want conservative–then push for a county-by-county vote. That would drive Leftists even more whacko than they are now.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 15, 2010 at 9:20 PM

This idea has so much opposition I’m tempted to switch to supporting it out of pity.

exception on August 15, 2010 at 9:23 PM

I’m OK with a real popular vote, but there is no way to determine what the true popular vote is in a national election. If Illinois wants to have lax voter registration requirements and have massive voter fraud, that is there prerogative. Limiting the extent of voter fraud to a single state’s results is one outcome that would be lost by circumventing the EC.

A better solution would be a constitutional amendment prohibiting winner takes all. Either base it on the results on a district by district basis, plus two votes on statewide results, or just go with proportional to statewide results.

pedestrian on August 15, 2010 at 9:25 PM

A
C
O
R
N

Key West Reader on August 15, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Read last week that the former Acorn funtions are now incorporated into the welfare system, no kidding. Registering to vote is heavily mandated at the welfare office in some 40+ states, by law.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Bad idea. Those of us in Tennessee would lose our voice, our votes couldn’t compete with larger populated states. Next thing you know, they’ll take away our two senate seats…

P.S. In Tennessee, you must have proof (voter registration card/photo ID) you’re elgible to vote before you cast your ballot.

TN Mom on August 15, 2010 at 9:29 PM

George Soros backs NpV and is funding the marketing.

eaglesdontflock on August 15, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Well Jonathan Soros, son of George Soros wrote a column It’s Time to Junk the Electoral College in support of this nonsense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122930124441705413.html

sharrukin on August 15, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Two for the at-large Senate seats, and one for each House district. The apportionment of the electoral votes should follow.

That’s exactly how Maine and Nebraska handle it now.

The Monster on August 15, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Hmmmm.

Conservative case for NPV?

Total and utter nonsense. A complete case of utter bullshit.

Here’s the deal:

1. No math involved.

The touchy feely frankly bores me. How you approach it is worthless. The entire “essay” consisted of “It is Constitutional!” but not why it should be done at all.

A lot of things are Constitutional. That doesn’t make them a good idea.

2. Simple math.

I can spend money and time in Idaho.
Or I can spend money and time in Florida.

How many Idaho equivalent states do I need to run advertisements in to offset losing Florida? How much will that cost?

It’s a bad idea and the thought that conservatives should support it is completely idiotic.

memomachine on August 15, 2010 at 9:38 PM

I have not read through the comments, but does this mean 1 person = 1 vote? And it doesn’t matter how big or small the state is? I often asked Mr. PPF why things run different in the US, whereas in PR, no matter how large or small the town/city is, there’s no “size” arrangement or legalese.

Every vote is counted (aside from the Mickey Mouses, blanks-dangerous for non-smart b/c it can be altered), and everything is tallied at the end.

Results are given pretty much the same here which is puzzling me the same. I believe things would be much better if it does not matter how big or small a state is.

Those are my 2 cents. I am on mom duty so I will follow up on this. Oh and the amount of seats in the House and Senate is ridiculous. That’s another topic that is touchy to me, since it does involve US Territories-with voice but no vote.

ProudPalinFan on August 15, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Nope…
The argument that this “popular vote” initiate would make those running for President pay attention to smaller, reliable blue/red states is a straw man argument. A popular vote for President would allow the largest dozen or so population centers in the U.S. to effectively elect our President. Those population centers are, by and large, controlled by dems. For dems it’s all about CONTROL and they’ll take all the help they can get from the ‘useful idiots’ promoting this blow to the Republic.

MN has given us HHumphrey, Mondale and Franken…
MA has given us the Kennedy’s, Kerry and Bawney Fwank…

The U.S. doesn’t need anything else from them…

Gohawgs on August 15, 2010 at 9:52 PM

If we had a National Popular Vote we would all be held hostage to the most corrupt city in the country. Just think of what would happen when in a tight election it was initially announced that the Republicans have won by, say, 2,000 votes throughout the entire country. Do you have any doubt that Chicago, or New Orleans or some city in Oregon or Washington state would announce that they needed a recount or another recount and yet another recount until that is, the Democrats where ahead by one vote and then they would say it’s time to stop.

Why I wouldn’t be surprised if Chicago announced the Democrats won the city by a margin of 10 million votes, as thing stand now there really isn’t much point in electoral fraud when the state is going your way honestly. As there is nothing to be gained why take even a small risk? The National Popular Vote just won’t work in a Federal system.

Fred 2 on August 15, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Can a state challenge the results of the other 49 states? If not, forget it.

Ronnie on August 15, 2010 at 9:54 PM

This would actually be far different than many people think.

California would become a ‘day of election’ place to be. In every close election, California is the last major state to vote. People would have a good handle on how the election is going all day and would decide to jam the polls late if they think it would help.

And do not forget, the large ‘blue’ states elect so many Democrats via gerrymandering that a lot of Republican and independant voters simply do not show up to toss in a useless vote. Suddenly, those votes would matter.

Freddy on August 15, 2010 at 10:03 PM

I haven’t read everyone’s comments, so I apologize in advance if I’ve noted something that others have.

The current Electoral College should stay intact IMHO, for two primary reasons:

1. As others I’ve skimmed have said, the current system is a strong check on massive voter fraud. You want to pack votes in a specific state? Great! Have your man win by a zillion votes…all he gets are those specific votes from that state.

2. This issue of Proportional Representation of Electoral College Votes from States (instead of Winner Take All) is also fraught with problems. Do we want a system like Israel? Where you have to build coalitions, and pander to small fringe parties that will vote with you, only if you give them their fringe issue?

Not me. Our system has worked pretty well for the history of our country. Leave it alone.

Also, a very interesting scenario I’ve given to people I know…I wonder how people on HA would feel about this.

Let’s say Candidate A wins 49 states by 100 votes. Candidate B wins California in a landslide…let’s say by a Million Votes.

Candidate B wins the popular vote big, but Candidate A wins the Electoral College vote by a landslide.

Who do you think DESERVES to win?

For me, I’d still give it to Candidate A. Primary reason: One state decides the election.

asc85 on August 15, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Let’s say Candidate A wins 49 states by 100 votes IN EACH STATE. Candidate B wins California in a landslide…let’s say by a Million Votes.

Candidate B wins the popular vote big, but Candidate A wins the Electoral College vote by a landslide.

Who do you think DESERVES to win?

For me, I’d still give it to Candidate A. Primary reason: One state decides the election.

asc85 on August 15, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Sorry…forgot to add the “IN EACH STATE” part to help avoid confusion in my question.

asc85 on August 15, 2010 at 10:21 PM

If state A has this Popular Vote law, and during a national election an overwhelming percentage of the voters of state A vote for candidate #1. However, the P.V. has candidate #2 as the majority percentage, thus all of the electoral votes of state A would then go towards candidate #2, thereby nullifying the overwhelming voters in said state. In other words, the outcome of the electoral votes of state A is entirely dependent on the outcome of the voters in other states. How is this a proper representative system? Where is the representation of those voters in state A?

This P.V. scheme is not in any way conducive to our traditional, constitutional electing of presidents. The popular vote, no matter how it’s disguised, is not a representative form of election, as the E.C. is. The latter is part and parcel of our form of government. The former is European and tyrannical.

If the advocates of P.V. want to do it the right way and get their direct democracy way of electing presidents enacted, they should call a Constitutional Convention and amend the Constitution to reflect their voting desires. They should do it the right way, instead of this runaround attempt.

Weebork on August 15, 2010 at 10:24 PM

NPV sounds like BS to me.

DDT on August 15, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Weebork on August 15, 2010 at 10:24 PM

I agree. Too much ‘legislation’ has been passed, especially over the last sixty years as an end-around the Constitution while specifically being advoicated as simply an ‘enhancement’ of the Constitution.

Frankly, in reading the essay from the contributor I was struck by the fact that you could replace NPV with Obamacare and replace a few other terms and the essay sounds exactly like standard liberal boilerplate extolling the virtues of government run healthcare.

If it’s that important then amend the Constitution.

catmman on August 15, 2010 at 10:31 PM

The ‘America Idolization” of America?

catmman on August 15, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Is there a conservative case for National Popular Vote?

Conservatives believe in the Republic. Any “conservative” pushing for a “democracy” is not a conservative. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for lunch. If anything we have to repeal the amendment (17th?) that popularly elects senators and go back to the way the Founders intended. Look what electing senators has done to this country. It’s given us a House of Lords (or so they think they are).

peacenprosperity on August 15, 2010 at 10:48 PM

We need to do something about California. Ca has too many electoral votes and the “winner take all” insures that the 40-45% of Californians who vote Republican are automatically disenfranchised.
The Dems know that a proportional electoral vote distribution in Ca would doom their presidential chances for decades to come. This is why you hear crickets about “making every vote count” in this state.

mad scientist on August 15, 2010 at 11:09 PM

peacenprosperity on August 15, 2010 at 10:48 PM

I agree with you.

The last thing we need it to replace our Republic with a Democracy. This idea would make the founders sick to their stomachs for a month. So far from what they envisioned.

Democracy fails every time it is tried. All communist Dictatorships call themselves Democracies that is what it is.

I also agree the 17′th Amendment should be repealed. It was a horrible mistake that has given us Senators that all represent Washington DC interest none of them represent us. McCain proves this completely changing during the last few months to get elected. No Governor would appoint him.

Steveangell on August 15, 2010 at 11:13 PM

CA should be broken into three states. Northern, Central and Southern. That would fix a lot of the problem.

WashingtonsWake on August 15, 2010 at 11:31 PM

As I see it, liberals are still upset Gore lost.

hadsil on August 15, 2010 at 11:58 PM

Hmmmm.

@ ProudPalinFan on August 15, 2010 at 9:42 PM

“Those are my 2 cents. I am on mom duty so I will follow up on this. Oh and the amount of seats in the House and Senate is ridiculous. That’s another topic that is touchy to me, since it does involve US Territories-with voice but no vote.”

And no federal income tax.

You want a vote? Become a state. Pay federal income tax. Suffer the bad parts along with the social welfare programs.

PR has had at least *3* opportunities to become a state or an independent nation. Each and every single time PR residents have chosen to continue as they are. Why? Because it’s a damn good deal. Most of the social welfare programs and no federal income tax.

No to offend but frankly this continuous refrain from PR is irritating. You got the cake already, stop bitching about the crumbs.

Or chose statehood.

memomachine on August 16, 2010 at 12:09 AM

Hmmmmm.

Ok. I left a comment but it disappeared. wtf?

memomachine on August 16, 2010 at 12:10 AM

We are all familiar with the popular vote system. We used it in high school to vote for the members of the student council and home comming queen and king. We all know how that went. No one really knew, understood or cared what the arguments were for the students to elect their canidate, they voted for the one they liked the most or their friends liked the most, or who ever was considered the most cool or popular and often enough, which ever one made the most outlandish promises that appealed to the student issue of the day.

A national popular vote would be much the same way of voting with the added element of self worthiness that they voted for the winning canidate. For the most part all a canidate has to do to win is get more facial recognition than his opponets and keep the promises vague enough that everyone thinks it means what ever the want it to mean. A catch phase rounds it out. If it sounds familiar it is because it is how Obama campaigned, and he assures us he will do it the same way again.

Democrates are not worried about a shortage of votes or the rules. They have plenty of voters manufactored or otherwise and if that is not enough, crying voter fraud will do it every time. Anyone who thinks the democrates will play fair on votes is a fool.

It is a lot easier to win a recount with a popular vote and lot more ways to game the system since they can demand recounts in states they can easily manipulate, control or as many states as needed to find the number of votes needed to win. Keep in mind the activist judges are rarely republicans.

That they have figured out how to get around the Republic’s constitution is a red flag in more ways than one. They clearly understand that the American people are not going to give up their constitution. Making it irrelevent works just as well and progresses the goals of socialism that much closer.

They play it now as an alternative that kicks in only under certian circumstances. It is the foot in the door as these certian circumstances rarely ever happen, maybe once in a hundred years. Why would we need to create this change except if it was the opening for replacing the Electorial College with a national popular vote?

The electorial college was created for a reason. It gave the states the power to elect the president. The voters in each state voted for the canidate of their choice. In this way they were not disinfranchise as the vote was for the state to vote for the majorities canidate. The state then cast the electorial votes for the canidate that won in their state.

For those not aware, the states had two sets of delegates, one set for each party. The winning delegates cast the vote. This inssured the delegates cast the vote for the right canidate. The delegates are still free to cast their vote for either canidate. If it has been missed or forgotten, when the democrats failed to win enough electorial votes in the Bush vs Gore election, they began trying to pursade the republican delegates to vote for the democrat canidate instead. Bottom line is they did not care if they stole the votes needed to win, as long as they won. If they would do that with the much harder to manipulate electorial college, what would they do with the popular vote, now being pushed by the democrats, that could easily be stolen, or later when they succeed in getting rid of the delegates and deal directly with the state officials. We already have situaion where they are getting people elected or appointed to the key positions in states that have control over the votes and certification of the winner. Why would they be doing that?

The democratic party is in its core now, a socialist party. Obama ran on a platform lifted almost word for word from the communist platform. If the democrats want it, it is to promot their progressive or socilist/communist goals, the main one of which is to change our country from a capitalist country to a controlled market economy. That is the change that Obama is talking about.

Franklyn on August 16, 2010 at 12:20 AM

The founders created the electoral college for many reasons. In short, if we were to eliminate the EC the votes of the midwestern states would be useless. Our country would be controlled by the more populous states and the big metropolitan areas. That big swath of conservative red across the mid-section of the country would no longer have a voice.
Obama, Gore, and the Dems would relish the elimination of the electoral college.
All of you idiots who aren’t familiar with the Federalist Papers and the reasoning behind the EC need to shut the hell up and study your history!!!!!!

Mark7788 on August 16, 2010 at 12:58 AM

Any details [re: CK MacLeod] you do know would be fascinating to hear.

MeatHeadinCA on August 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

While I doubt that he’s been officially stripped of his Green Room privileges (though if he has, I wouldn’t know), I believe what basically happened was that he decided everyone on this site who didn’t agree with him on the Cordoba Ultimosque (which was most of us) was an Islamophobic bigot, and now he posts all of his self-congratulatory pseudo-intellectual posturing on Zombie Contentions instead.

If I’m not mistaken.

Cylor on August 16, 2010 at 2:03 AM

Aside form the monkeying with a system that has served well for over 200 years, my biggest objection to the NPV is that it would allocate electors based on the votes in other states and not by the votes of the people of the state. To me, this is what makes it unconstitutional – it would overturn the majority vote in its own state.

I live in Washington. In 2000, the electoral votes woudl have gone to Gore, but they did anyway. However, in 2004, all of Washington’s electoral votes would have been switched from Kerry to Bush, despite what the majority vote was in our state. This is wrong.

States can, and should, make up their own rules for allocating electors, but the process should be based on only the votes from within the state. Period.

SouthernRoots on August 15, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Perfectly put, and well worth repeating.

Adopting NPV essentially means that all presidential elections are popular-vote contests, which does make the EC less relevant while retaining its form and Constitutional finality.

So basically, this is a move towards democracy and away from the Republic. I’m with @tim c on this… too many conservatives have forgotten that democracy isn’t a good thing.

MeatHeadinCA on August 15, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Exactly. I’m curious how a move to purer democracy is supposed to be conservative. Surely in reading the Federalist Papers you would find that the Founding Fathers were not big fans of pure democracy.

REJECT!!

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 16, 2010 at 2:18 AM

Terrible idea. The way to control socialism is to keep it local. Nationalizing the vote reduces the influence of the states and increases the influence of the federal government.

Socialism thrives on OTHER people’s money. Keeping things in states makes things as much “our” money as possible under our system. Nationalizing the vote will hurt us. Don’t look at a map and get crazy ideas.

Karmashock on August 16, 2010 at 2:30 AM

What I have yet to see in this debate is what happens if no candidate in reality doesn’t get enough electoral votes to win but ends up “with the most votes” at 38% of the country.

The Constitution was written with the idea that states would not be willing to just follow the majority rule.

cpaulus on August 15, 2010 at 8:19 PM

That’s not even majority rule, it’s plurality rule.

malclave on August 16, 2010 at 2:32 AM

No. We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. There is no excuse for a popular vote for POTUS – or the Senate. That latter represents a really bad decision this country made.

{^_^}

herself on August 16, 2010 at 3:10 AM

1 – the Electoral College is a feature, not a bug.

2 – don’t conservatives have enough on our plate not to get involved in this? Where’s the crisis?

3 – I do NOT trust the liberal states to follow through in the event the new system is implemented. As I understand it, it relies on agreements between the states. What exactly is to stop, say, Massachussets, from changing its mind and not tossing its EVs to a conservative candidate who won the popular vote? (This example is apt when we consider the history of MA law appointing Senatorial vacancies.) WHO IS GOING TO ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT?

This is even more troubling when we are told of the supremacy of the states in determining electoral procedures. Is the SCOTUS going to step in and declare that MA has to give up its EVs based on a prior agreement not enshrined explicitly in the Constitution? One which is left to the States? The cure here seems worse than the disease.

4 – the rest of the arguments… I’m not sure I buy the idea that this is going to empower flyover country. But I’ll rest my case on the first three for now.

DaMav on August 16, 2010 at 3:21 AM

It is reckless to change the system in this debased environment. The proposal assumes a problem with the current system while inviting conservatives to ignore systematic lawlessness of leftists and the ruling class. The border must be secured and vote-fraud machines dismantled. These are known problems with solutions, while changing the electoral system invites unintended consequences.

At the very least, any change of this kind needs to be examined from a mathematical perspective. Alan Natapoff wrote some intriguing things along this line. The thing I like the best is that gives power to people who withhold a vote out of disgust for a candidate.

Wouldn’t favor any changes right now, other than enforcing the laws we have and punishing the lawbreakers.

Feedie on August 16, 2010 at 3:29 AM

I misunderstood this initiative originally when it was posted here about Massachusetts thinking of adopting such a measure. I didn’t understand how it wouldn’t run afoul of the EC, but now I see how it would be perfectly within the parameters of the Constitution.

I have wasted enough votes in New York, Illinois and California that I’m open to the idea, frankly. I routinely voted Libertarian in these states b/c I knew there wasn’t a chance in he!! in most cases that the GOP candidate would win. For that matter, my vote here in Arkansas doesn’t count for much either. We’re so reliably red that my one little vote seems like a drop in the ocean.

I know the EC is meant to prevent big states from lording over smaller ones, but to my mind, by not deferring to the popular vote, we effectively give them that power anyway. I know that it’s rare that it happens where the popular vote winner is not the EC winner, but as things grow ever more polarized and as liberal strongholds become concentrated in the bigger cities in the more populous states, I can see how it might start happening with greater frequency.

Anyway, I’m not sold on the idea — we’re still a repubic after all, not a democracy — but I’d like to hear more. And esp. if true blue states like Massachusetts want to adopt this plan, I’d probably be on board. In most cases, it’s not likely to work out in their favor. ;o)

NoLeftTurn on August 16, 2010 at 3:49 AM

@feedie — I agree with your statement and it raises yet another concern with fraud. At least under the current system the damage caused by fraud in, say, Cook County, is “capped” by the total EVs of Illinois. Once you’ve rigged enough ballots to take the state there is no point in expanding the fraud. But changing to a national popular vote system means that every liberal big city machine will have an incentive to churn out additional bogus voters since they will count 1:1 against the popular vote elsewhere.

This proposal has red flags all over it.

DaMav on August 16, 2010 at 3:51 AM

and allocation of Electoral College votes is completely a state’s decision.

Electoral College gerrymandering, anyone? I can just see the rules getting changed, depending on who’s in power.

Scott P on August 16, 2010 at 4:37 AM

At least under the current system the damage caused by fraud in, say, Cook County, is “capped” by the total EVs of Illinois.
This proposal has red flags all over it.
DaMav on August 16, 2010 at 3:51 AM

So, the urban fraud vote is bound within one state (in the current system). This is a startling truth.

Some conservatives may be well-meaning, but are they prepared to say this generation can match the wisdom of the Founding Fathers? The genius and subtlety of the Electoral College is the most underestimated part of our system.

Power-obsessed liberals have an almost supernatural sense of how to gather more to themselves and a lot of decent people can get tricked. The fact that we are all standing in the stench of liberalism means a tendency to get numb to the smell.

Feedie on August 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM

The problem with the NPV idea is that the logistics of it are not viable. Any tally has a certain, intrinsic amount of error in it, and that error is typically a percent of the count. Now, in an election type tally, that error is only meaningful if it is larger than the difference between the two candidates. If you have a 0.5% count error, and the election is won by 5%, you really don’t care that the tally may be as much as much as 1% off, but if the difference is 0.1%, then it is a huge deal.

The stepped counting system we’ve got now, tends to confine the errors at low levels, and at each upper layer, the counts sizes are small enough that the margin of error is well smaller than a single counting unit, which makes upper level errors much easier to spot.

If the election ends up being very close, you can focus the recounts on only the sub-units that are within their margins of error. If you go to a National Popular Vote, suddenly the low level vote tally error is now a nation wide tally error, propagating up the the final vote count. In that case, if the election is close, you have to do the recounts on a National scale, which given the likely size of the error margin is not going to turn up enough votes to get it out of the error zone.

Basically, at best this will only increase the uncertainty of tightly contested elections.

Voyager on August 16, 2010 at 6:44 AM

So a conservative supports this bat shit crazy idea. Big deal. Plenty of Jews supported Hitler.

angryed on August 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM

Is there a conservative case for National Popular Vote?

How about…. NO?

44Magnum on August 16, 2010 at 9:18 AM

No electoral college means nationwide cheating and vote invention/fraud would help Democrats win the election instead of just a state or two.

You cant be naive enough to think Democrats would do anything more than spend extra money, time, and make more promises of handouts to their urban majorities. They would spend all their time in 7 or 8 cities, use ACORN to “find” a few million votes across the US (its much easier and less obvious, to spread the voter fraud out among many states) and wipe out the few extra votes the Conservatives get from Utah or Wyoming.

Its a trick….a trap, that would allow the Democrats to win every election by pandering to inner cities, buying their votes, and spreading out their corruption.

Our side cant be that blind, can they?

alecj on August 16, 2010 at 9:30 AM

NPV means the end of the federalist republic. NO NO NO.

BrianA on August 16, 2010 at 9:34 AM

What the hell? There aren’t enough real issues floating around, that ‘conservatives’ need to make up more crap?

First it’s the birthright citizenship hoo ha, now this idiocy?

Take a deep breath and apply the KISS principle, kids. IT’S THE ECONOMY DUNDERHEADS! IT’S A BLOATED AND INTRUSIVE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY! IT’S AN UNRESPONSIVE AND OUT OF CONTROL LEGISLATIVE BODY!

Work on those three first, then get back to us with your pet projects, and ‘what if’ scenarios.

Wind Rider on August 16, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Our side cant be that blind, can they?

alecj on August 16, 2010 at 9:30 AM

This post proves the answer is YES WE CAN.

angryed on August 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM

We’re a republic, not a democracy.

Since when do Conservatives want to overhaul the Constitution, anyway? First the anchor baby issue, now this.

hawksruleva on August 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM

The entire purpose of the electoral system was to prevent a national popular vote, which favors large constituencies and leads to ignoring the individual vote.

Under NPV, every vote doesn’t count. Just the ones in the majority, and thats after the fact. In a NPV regime, there is no need for an Electoral College. If any reform of the Electoral College is needed, I suggest that it become one of apportionment, where the appointing of delegates is based on the popular vote within each state. In the case of California, which would be the greatest example, if the vote is 51-49%, then half plus one is the apportionment of electoral delegates. This is a truer representation of the public will than winner take all.

No matter how its designed, NPV is an end-around of the Constitution. Period.

BobMbx on August 16, 2010 at 10:12 AM

This is all about getting democrats elected. If we lose the EC, we have lost the two party system in America and there will never be another Republican president. And this stuff of states allocating their EC votes is a sham too. Leave it alone – the Founders knew what they were doing.

abcurtis on August 16, 2010 at 11:34 AM

I can see awarding the presidency to a candidate that wins a clear majority (51% or so, so as not to encourage voting fraud in one-party districts), and falling back on the electoral collage if no-one reaches that level.
But doing it just by who wins the largest number of votes nation wide is just asking for ballot stuffing in corrupt counties.

Count to 10 on August 16, 2010 at 1:21 PM

How about this:

EC votes are allocated to the states based on their representation, like so:

1 vote for each congressional house disctrict, plus 2 (the Senators.)

So we do it like this: whichever Presidential candidate wins the popular vote in a given congressional district is awarded one EC vote, and whichever candidate wins the popular vote statewide is awarded the two (Senator) EC votes.

Know why this will never happen? Because Republicans would win a lot more. California’s electoral votes would never go wholesale to the Democratic candidate based on the votes of San Franciscans and Los Angelinos alone. Likewise Texas’s votes wouldn’t go 100% for the Republican (although most of them would), either.

This is a far more fair distribution of EC votes, and actually would solve the problem of always focusing on swing states and nowhere else. Your vote would actually count for something if you lived in a big state. Now instead of a handful of swing states, you’d have a BUNCH of “swing districts,” and no one district would be any more important than any other.

Beo on August 16, 2010 at 1:44 PM

I’ve always said a national vote would be fine. But you would have to change it years in advance. If we passed a change in the law today it should first take effect 2016. The idea is that you want it to not affect any current campaigning. That is 2 presidential elections away.

jeffn21 on August 16, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Your car won’t turn right, so you change the muffler.

Kind of what I’m seeing here – skip over actual problems (vote fraud, illegal immigration, gerrymandering) and fix something else that doesn’t address them, and has dubious benefits at best.

Merovign on August 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM

A so-called National Popular Vote is nothing but “Mod Rule” and that is something the founding fathers tried to steer away from! People are very easily persuaded as seen by how many of the dumb-asses (a.k.a. dumb masses) voted for the first Communist president of the United State! Stop trying to destroy this country!

Confederate on August 16, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Right now North Dakota has only one House member because it has less than or equal to 1/435th of the population of the country. It has .22% of the population.

But it has 3 electoral college votes, or 3/535ths of the voting power in the electoral college. It has .56% a say in the election of the president.

That is still a very small say, but as you can see, the electoral college gives them a bigger voice than the popular vote would.

The progressives want this because they see as liberal states keep increasing taxes and going bankrupt, the conservative states get more and more people, and will start having 1 or 2 more electoral votes. The Gore/Bush fight would have never happened in 2004 because of this phenomenon. The population shift had increased the electoral college votes so the Bush would have won WITHOUT Florida.

The progressives see that the time is here that they can’t win with the highly populated states with big cities with lots of dead voters on their rolls. If 10 more electoral votes worth of people move from California, New York and Illinois to the solid red states, their power is diluted.

So their only hope is to get enough votes in the states, even in a losing effort, that paired with the votes in their big city machines they can win the popular vote, even if they lose the electoral college. If they can get a red state to go 52/48 instead of 55/45, it might mean a popular vote win. In the NPV system they then can force the states they lost in to give them their electoral college votes.

It also means that they can use third party candidates to win. Say the Republicans finally put up a real conservative for election. They can encourage, in the background or through their MSM mouth pieces, a “moderate” conservative to enter the race. In this case, the conservative could still win enough states to win the electoral college, but lose the popular vote and lose his EC votes to the less-split progressive candidate.

There is a reason they want this “state gives over all EC to popular vote winner” way instead of every congressional district sends their own and state winner only gets the senate EC votes guaranteed. In California that would mean maybe 10 guaranteed Democrat EC votes. Fresno would send a Republican EC vote almost every time. Oregon would go from 7 to 5 Dem EC votes, though we tend to be a little bit of a wild card for President, the candidate needs to only win Portland and Eugene metro areas right now to get all 7.

It would also suppress voter turnout if people felt like their vote was even more diluted to the population centers. Instead of having .56% say in President you were back to .22%, that would be a bummer.

PastorJon on August 16, 2010 at 2:54 PM

The correct answer is smaller, not bigger. Beo is correct. We already have representatives (congressmen, senators). Break down the popular vote by their districts and award electoral votes accordingly.

We already allocate EC votes based on those representatives, so this seems pretty straight forward.

TechieNotTrekkie on August 16, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Sorry, Ed. I fundamentally disagree with you.

Let’s take just one part of that – the fraud factor. Going back to the 2004 election, simply upping the turnout in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Diego, Detroit, San Jose and San Francisco (7 cities in 3 states that weren’t “in play”) to that here in Milwaukee would have netted John Kerry almost 2.2 million of the 3 million vote separation between him and George W. Bush. Give all the extra votes to Kerry instead of allocating them the same way the actual vote was, and the entirety of the 3 million vote Bush lead disappears.

As for the compact issue, it is one that necessarily affects federal political power; as such, it would require Congressional assent.

steveegg on August 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Why are some of the most vocal, self-proclaimed “conservatives” also the most naive about how elections work?

If you noted the Massachusetts version of the law, there was a part that referred to “only going into effect if states with X number of electoral votes also passed the same law”. With this collusion among the states, it would effectively eliminate the Electoral system into a majority mob-rule vote… which is what our Founding Fathers sought to restrict.

If this system of colluding (being pushed by traditionally “blue” states) went into effect, it would elevate voter fraud to a NATIONAL level, instead of being somewhat contained at State level… since any voter fraud would effect the National numbers.

dominigan on August 16, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Being a Canadian, I can tell you that large cities will be where all your elections will be won or lost from now on if this passes. We have districts here and there are ways around the popular vote, but if you win Toronto and most of Ontario, you basically win the election (Quebec used to be in there too, but with the PQ, that’s all changed.)

Anyways, the large cities will have a higher turnout and completely drown out any advantage in other states and smaller towns. Take a good look at your largest cities. Those and only those will determine your elections.

MrX on August 16, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Representative Laura Brod (R-Minnesota) claims that NPV is Constitutional under…

Article II Section 1 Clause 2:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

…while conveniently ignoring the rest of the Constitution, including…

Article IV Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

Elections are part of government, and the NPV is based on democracy, not republic ideals.

Article I Section 10 Clause 3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, …

This is explicitly violated by the Massachusetts law since it will only go into effect when other states enact a similar law where their total Electoral College votes are greater than 50% of the total.

See how easy this is to refute when you actually read the Constitution, instead of trying to cherry-pick sections to support your agenda?

(… same applies to using Scripture!)

dominigan on August 16, 2010 at 3:28 PM

As is fully intended, elimination of the electoral college is a sure-fire way to ensure that Boston, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago get to select the resident of the Oval Office. More importantly, it gives the “community organizers” in metropolitan areas increased effectiveness in their efforts to “mobilize” (or fraudulently fabricate) Democrat voters, and marginalize (or openly intimidate, or “misplace” the ballots of, etc.) conservative voters. Reading deeper between the lines, it’s a huge push away from classically liberal values and towards outright fascism, where thugs in shirts (be they brown, black, or purple) and back-room cronies can turn the tide of presidential elections with ease. Like virtually all the modern “Democratic” Party stands for, it is, in the end, a cynical ploy to destroy not only the foundational values of the American republic, but to entirely subvert the democratic processes itself. The very thing they call themselves is a lie.

Blacklake on August 16, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Your car won’t turn right, so you change the muffler.
Kind of what I’m seeing here – skip over actual problems (vote fraud, illegal immigration, gerrymandering) and fix something else that doesn’t address them, and has dubious benefits at best.

Merovign on August 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM

With this Congress? Dude, they’d outlaw right turns just so they wouldn’t have to address the problem at all.

BobMbx on August 16, 2010 at 4:44 PM

The bottom line here is a change from the idea of engagement with the opposition to get them to agree to your ideas, to instead one of ignoring the opposition and doing everything possible to increase voter turnout of supporters. Philosophically im totally opposed to this. It could rupture the Republic into different factions which don’t engage with each other at all.

Resolute on August 16, 2010 at 5:09 PM

If the problem being addressed is that presidential campaigning is concentrated in 15 states (and by implication, political attention), shouldn’t that be addressed by the congressional representatives of the other 35 states, who happen to have a 70% majority in the Senate?

Next problem.

notagool on August 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM

by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly A few days ago, I got an invitation from my friend Laura Brod to discuss the National Popular Vote initiative. Laura served several terms in the Minnesota legislature, rising to assistant GOP leader in her last two sessions (majority, then minority), and she has organized and served conservatives for her entire public career. Given that, I was a little surprised to hear that Laura backed the NPV.

morons, both of you. NPV is a marxist deliberate sceme to undermine the Electoral College and implement the VERY sort of direct democracy horsecrap our Founders were determined to avoid.
Anyone who thinks it’s a good idea is grossly ignorant of history and should be kept as far away from political office or discourse as possible. Their ignorance is dangerous to our Republic.

rayra on August 16, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4