Mitch McConnell warns: The National Popular Vote movement is nearing success
“Imagine the following scenario: you’ve got a national election within 100,000 votes. That happened in 1968,” McConnell said.
The national popular vote would give “every precinct in America the incentive to have a recount so that recounts are going on in 50 states … When the national popular vote total is the way the president is chosen, then every vote in America in every precinct in America would become the subject for endless litigation. There wouldn’t be a chance the presidency would be resolved by Jan. 20 in time for swearing in.”
This would, McConnell said, be “a catastrophic outcome” and “a constitutional crisis” that “brings this country to its knees. We’ve never had a situation where the president wasn’t sworn in by the date specified in the Constitution.”
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
Probably only California and New York would matter anyway. No more Republican presidents.
littleguy on December 8, 2011 at 9:47 AM
I’m strongly against the popular vote. It encourages fraud. Under the electoral college, the candidates know the rules, so campaign to win under those rules. I suspect the Left supports popular vote because history shows it favors them. And they are better at fraud than we are.
Paul-Cincy on December 8, 2011 at 9:48 AM
Encouraging fraud, disenfranchisement, chaos, endless legal recounts, paralysis and constitutional crises is the MO of the modern Democrat Party.
Good Lt on December 8, 2011 at 9:50 AM
Time to write the Congress critters.
Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 9:50 AM
With the popular vote model, every dusty corner of America becomes ripe for fraud. That’s right up the liberal alley.
Hot Gas on December 8, 2011 at 9:52 AM
In places like Chicago or St. Louis they could get that voter participation up from 120% to 150%.
RBMN on December 8, 2011 at 9:52 AM
I see this as long term Liberal goal:
1) National Popular Vote movement
2) Amnesty to illegals, who them and their children will vote Democratic.
Oil Can on December 8, 2011 at 9:53 AM
If this means it is nearing acceptance among a majority of Americans, that’s not the measure. Like the election of the President, changing the Constitution requires approval of a number of states, not merely the will of the majority of the populace.
If we need three-fourths of the states to approve this change, that is, three-fourths of the states to completely surrender their influence in elections to the few largest states, this change is nowhere “near success.”
MassVictim on December 8, 2011 at 9:55 AM
Harley D. Avidson, Pookster McHookster, Sam Francisco, and dead people shouldn’t be marginalized just because they always vote demorat. Haters.
Bishop on December 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM
This is a cool video. It’s a good explanation of how the system works. I’m pretty sure the narrator is a fan of NPV. I’m not sold on the idea, I think the system we have is working just fine.
Mord on December 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM
Without the Electoral College, New York and California will pick our president. That’s a very scary thought.
Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 10:02 AM
Eighty-sixing the constitution
*shaking the head*
cmsinaz on December 8, 2011 at 10:02 AM
Last time I looked there are 3 branches of government Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.
If the legislative body tries to go around the U.S. Constitution, you simply address the issue to the “Courts”. That’s what injunctions, restraints, and hearings are for. Checks and Balances.
Dr Evil on December 8, 2011 at 10:07 AM
Bringing this country to its knees is exactly what the leftys want.
Blake on December 8, 2011 at 10:07 AM
Okay, McConnell, so why do you continue to call those people your “friend” and find obtuse ways to compromise with them?
SouthernGent on December 8, 2011 at 10:09 AM
Liberals will find more ways to cheat, won’t they? Why can’t they live with the Constitution we have rather than the set of laws they wish they could have?
ExpressoBold on December 8, 2011 at 10:09 AM
Please NO on the popular vote! With the naacp trying to get the un involved with our elections and what acorn and groups can do, we will never know if any elected is legit!
L
letget on December 8, 2011 at 10:12 AM
Goodbye Republic, hello Democracy.
Foxhound on December 8, 2011 at 10:13 AM
You want a longer, more expensive election season? Go with the popular vote system.
blatantblue on December 8, 2011 at 10:14 AM
The progressive plan to turn our “representative” republic into a “democracy” is almost complete.
katy on December 8, 2011 at 10:19 AM
How? Will an amendment passable in Congress?
Flapjackmaka on December 8, 2011 at 10:19 AM
And the next step beyond popular vote is the “instant run-off” system, where voters have to rank the candidates.
Right now, there are thousands of voters who cannot manage to fill in an oval correctly, or touch the right button on a screen, but they’ll be asked to rank all the candidates in order of preference….
Every, and I mean every, election will end up being decided in the courts. Which is where some people want it.
notropis on December 8, 2011 at 10:22 AM
The left have their judges in place to litigate all of it.
It’s amazing how well planned this is and how patient the left are. Decades of groundwork and now we’re just waking up…
To late…
katy on December 8, 2011 at 10:22 AM
The theory is that a constitutional amendment is not needed. Since each state can choose how it assigns its electors, the states are choosing to give all of their electors to whoever wins the popular vote, regardless of how their own constituents voted. It is not clear at all that this is constitutional. It may well violate the 14th amendment, among others….
notropis on December 8, 2011 at 10:24 AM
Right now, it is only blue states doing this. When the GOP wins next year and Maryland has all its votes for Øbama turned into votes for the Republican, then I think Maryland and others will quickly repeal those laws.
Kafir on December 8, 2011 at 10:29 AM
I think it is time for conservatives to focus on reestaishing the primacy of the states and the 10th Amendment. If we can do this and push states to reclaim their Constitutional 9th and 10th Amendment powers then the risks and threats to our liberties from a strong centralized government are dramatically reduced. Additionally if we force the Left to fight 50 state level battles rather than a single national one, the power of the Leftists is greatly diminished.
What, for example, do we do if Obama is reelected and the SCOTUS upholds the Obamacare mandate? Surrender?
What if a handful of states passed legislation that stated that all federal legislation of dubious Constitutionality would be voted on by the state legislature and ignored if deemed unconstitutional? What could the Feds do about it if enough Red states did this?
The Founders would have never approved the Constitution if they knew the states would eventually become subordinated to the federal government.
I think we can get the support of liberals in this effort. Especially on social issues. For example we let them know that we won’t oppose gay marriage in their states if they don’t try to push it on ours.
Food for thought. Help yourselves.
prodigalson on December 8, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Exactly. This is what happens when people fail to recognize that we are not a democracy by design. I especially cringe when I hear conservatives refer to us as a democracy, and talk about spreading democracy–no, and no.
DrMagnolias on December 8, 2011 at 10:38 AM
this along with voter fraud is the only way dems can win the presidency.
they are becoming the party if the cities and can’t even carry states anymore.
if they succeed then our federal system is dead.
and they will have transformed it into a national government.
the presidency was intended as the post to lead the federal govt not the nation.
after this they will try to repeal presidency’s term limitation and then we might as well elect chavez or castro or lenin.
reliapundit on December 8, 2011 at 10:40 AM
From your keyboard to God’s ear.
Very nice buffet. I’ll be back seconds.
platypus on December 8, 2011 at 10:41 AM
s/b “back for seconds.’
platypus on December 8, 2011 at 10:41 AM
Louder. And more often. Until they get it or get sick of hearing it.
platypus on December 8, 2011 at 10:43 AM
Two votes per state. The end.
rogerb on December 8, 2011 at 10:44 AM
The NPV is unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 10:
edshepp on December 8, 2011 at 10:44 AM
While the NPV concept is totally ridiculous, in which smaller States are asked to give up their birthright to larger States who may tip the balance, I don’t quite see the scenario McConnell is seeing, unless there is a sea change in Bluish-Red States, let alone Red States
First off, each State has the right to determine how their EVs will be arrived at, so no constitutional amendment is required.
Second, the recall would only apply to States using the NPV. California can’t demand that Iowa or Texas recount. As I understand it, the ‘National’ part only applies to the participating States.
Thirdly, whatever they do to resolve the recount issue, they have to settle it in time for the inauguration. I don’t think the constituition could stand for a postponement due to recount battles, a la Franken & Minnesota. And if necessary, the dropdead date needs to be codified, as it would be unconstitutional for the sitting president to extend his residency in office beyond the expiration date.
Bottomline, if we can conduct elections during periods of war and other distress, it would be ridiculous to prolong the seating of a new POTUS due to recounts.
AH_C on December 8, 2011 at 10:58 AM
I’m in favor of changing the system, but not into a NPV system. Wouldn’t a NPV lessen voting? Somebody who is busy working on election day might not turn out to vote if they think to themselves “There are tens of millions voters out there, my vote won’t make a difference”
I think we should move away from the “winner-take-all” approach 48 of the states currently use, and something along the lines of Nebraska and Maine approach. Break down the electoral votes to individual districts.
This does a couple things: first, it empowers voters. Now their votes seem to hold a little bit more weight. How many Republicans bother voting for the president in the state of New York? This approach liberates more rural districts from the power of the liberal urban areas.
Secondly, it removes the idea of a swing state, and instead starts swing districts. This forces presidential candidates to spend more time at different places, and less time in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. Now, spending all of your time in 1 place may only get you an extra 1 or 2 votes, instead of 20, 25.
Finally, it may not eliminate voter fraud, but it makes it much more costly, for less results. Say voter fraud is going on in Philly under the current system, which swings the state of Pennsylvania blue and awarding Obama 20 electoral votes in 2012. Under the new system, rampant voter fraud in Philly might only net Obama 8 electoral votes instead of the entire 20.
Just my 50 cents
dernst2 on December 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Totally agree and hope that PA goes thru with it.
AH_C on December 8, 2011 at 11:35 AM
Anyone want to bet, that should a Republican win the popular vote, that any democrat blue state that agrees to this will refuse to cast their electoral votes for the Republican if the democrat wins their state?
What these states are doing amounts to an ILLEGAL Constitutional convention.
wildcat72 on December 8, 2011 at 11:37 AM
The right way to fix this is by changing the primary schedule, not an NPV. Establish some sort of rolling schedule so that over time, each state gets an equal number of turns to be at or near the beginning of primary voting, and no state establishes an undue level of influence on the primary selection process.
The ultimate candidate may still not visit your state much during the campaign for the general, but the individual states will have much more say in who it is that’s in the general to begin with.
TexasDan on December 8, 2011 at 12:20 PM
Throw the entire Congress out, from left to right, to teach them a lesson.
2012!!!
Schadenfreude on December 8, 2011 at 12:31 PM
I don’t like the underhanded way these states are making an end run around the EC, but I think 222 years after changing from a loose alliance of independent states into a single country, perhaps it is time to let the people elect their president. Really, what’s so bad about a popular vote? Four times in our nation’s history the people have picked one guy to lead them, and yet the other one became president. If that doesn’t bother you then I don’t know what does. Yeah, sometimes it helps the Republican, like in 2000, but it almost happened again in 2004, when Kerry, who was 3 million popular votes behind Bush, nearly won Ohio and the presidency with it. Under the current system, a Republican in California has no voice in the presidential election (nor does a Democrat in Alaska). What’s so good about that?
Time Lord on December 8, 2011 at 12:33 PM
What the founding fathers had was next to perfect. What warped it was the 17th Amendment, the 14th among others. We don’t need more rules to unscrew the mess, we need to reset.
The EV is but a check & balance, as everything else that the FF envisioned to force us to slow down, instead of galloping over the minority from one new-fangled idea to another.
AH_C on December 8, 2011 at 4:14 PM