Democrats still can’t get over the 2000 election. Despite losing the subsequent mid-term and Presidential elections, they still feel that they are owed something. And just like they tried to do during the 2000 election, they’re now trying to change the rules in hopes of overcoming their shortcomings with voters.

Tara Ross, writing for the National Review highlights the scheme:

Opponents of the Electoral College have conjured up yet another scheme by which they hope to undermine America’s unique system of electing presidents. If they are successful, the Electoral College could essentially be eliminated at the behest of a handful of states, without the bother of a constitutional amendment.

As Ronald Reagan might say, “There they go again!”

This latest anti-Electoral College effort, the Campaign for the National Popular Vote, was announced on February 23. Five states are currently considering the NPV plan: Illinois, Colorado, Missouri, California, and Louisiana. The Colorado state senate acted on the bill quickly, approving it on April 14.

If enacted, the NPV bill would create an interstate compact among consenting states. Each participating state would agree to allocate its entire slate of electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact would go into effect when states representing 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to the compact. The eleven most populous states have 271 electoral votes among them, and could thus make this change on their own. If one populous state failed to enact the plan, it could easily be replaced by a handful of medium-sized states.

The man that dreamed up the concept, and founded National Popular Vote Inc. is John Koza, a professor at Stanford and a staunch Democrat supporter. He’s donated almost a million dollars to Democrats and Democrat causes since 1990. The President of the organization is Barry Fadem, who supported John Kerry in 2004.

And the liberal MSM is right there in the mix, pushing this measure. The New York Times endorsed it, so did the Chicago Sun Times, the Denver Post, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, U.S. News & World Reports and more.

It’s obvious why Democrat supporters and their allies in MSM would push such a measure. They can’t win an election under the procedure that’s been in place for over 200 years. It’s another attempt to make the United States of America look less like the U.S.A.

NPV’s legislation, on the other hand, does not ensure national coalition building. To the contrary, the proposal gives the eleven largest states incentives to work against the remaining states: Getting rid of the Electoral College would allow presidential candidates to win with positions that are not at all in the interest of less populous states. To be sure, and as NPV points out, candidates now focus largely on battleground states, but the only reason other states aren’t battlegrounds is because they are, by and large, happy with one of the candidates positions. Moreover, so-called “safe” and “swing” states change constantly. As recently as 1988, California voted consistently Republican. Texas was a safe Democrat state until it began voting Republican in 1980.
…
John F. Kennedy once stated that America’s presidential election system is like a solar system of governmental power. If one aspect of the solar system is changed, others will inevitably be impacted. If the gravitational pull of the sun is changed, then the Earth will be pulled out of its orbit. In the same way, if the Electoral College is removed from the nation’s system of electing presidents, then other aspects of the political system will inevitably change. For example, the two-party political system will likely be seriously undermined. Also, presidential candidates will have less incentive to build national coalitions, and they will instead campaign primarily in high population areas.

We often say that Democrats don’t have a plan, but we’re dead wrong. They have a plan. It’s just not a plan that will make America better or improve the lives of Americans. It’s simply a plan to circumvent our historical electoral process, sidestep a Constitutional amendment and bypass the rights of citizens in an attempt to obtain political power and control.

And it must be stopped.

Even Al Gore agrees… or did:

“[U]nder our constitution, it is the winner of the Electoral College that will be the next president. Our constitution is the whole foundation of our freedom and it must be followed faithfully.”

I wonder when he’ll make public his opposition to the NPV movement. I’m not holding my breath.

1. Abolishing the Electoral College by Stealth

   A group called Campaign for the National Popular Vote has been pushing a plan to essentially do away with the Electoral College without amending the Constitution. I read about it in The New Yorker a while back and it’s apparently gaining some st…

   Trackback by Outside The Beltway | OTB — 9:11 am
   

2. […] Now comes word of an even worse assault on the constitution of the United States. Texas Rainmaker discusses what would be, in effect, an end run around the constitution and the electoral process for the presidency. Legislation being considered in many states as the result of something called the "National Popular Vote" would invalidate the electoral college. They tyranny of the mob the founding fathers feared is at hand. […]

   Pingback by Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » The Attack On The Consitution — 11:04 am
   

3. "Popular Nonsense: An unfair and ill-conceived attempt to ditch the Electoral College"

   Tara Ross, NRO:Opponents of the Electoral College have conjured up yet another scheme by which they hope to undermine America's unique system of electing presidents. If they are successful, the Electoral College could essentially be eliminated at …

   Trackback by protein wisdom — 1:29 pm
   

4. Preserving the Electoral College is about immigration and controlling our borders.

   If we weaken or eliminate the Electoral College, the result will be GREATLY increased incentive to politicians to make immigration & nationl-level voting rights much easier.

   Why?

   Because currently immigrants have to spread out among the states in order to influence an election. They have to integrate across the country. That requirement would be weakened or eliminated by weakening or eliminating the Electoral College.

   Just fill up Texas or California with an extra few million voters who owe it to one party and, presto!, you’ve tipped the national election to that party.

   As for recounts, the agreeing states can simply agree to go ahead without a national recount system. Then there could be nightmare chaos of lawsuits all over the country, contesting every result. Anyway the agreeing states could have their own agreed “system” for deciding how to vote in case significant election results still remained in question. All they need to do is agree and cast their Electoral Votes accordingly; and I’m not sure that that’s such a tall order even in the case of contested voting totals.

   Now, here’s a nightmare which let’s hope never takes shape: If the agreeing states comprise a majority of the country’s electoral votes, and if they agreed to cast their votes collectively for whoever wins the popular vote in just the agreeing states collectively (rather than nationwide collectively, as is the current plan), then the national election in the rest of the country would be rendered irrelevant. And it would be hard to get a Constitutional amendment to stop it — you’d need, among other things, 2/3 of the House of Representatives to agree.

   Comment by ForNow — 9:18 pm
   

5. This is so scary. Rhode Island would no longer be equal to Texas as far as the electoral process is concerned. I hope I understand that this is what the founding fathers had in mind–making the states equal in this process. If I am wrong, someone (not a troll) please correct me. I majored in History and and minored in Poli Sci but its been a while.

   Comment by Judith — 12:20 am
   

6. Legally, I wonder if this could stand?

   On the one hand, you have the Supreme Court who may not be inclined to agree with the legality of this movement. After all, ignoring the will of the voters in your own state in order to obeserve the will of the voters in other states seems to undermine the idea of the Electoral College and its purpose.

   However…

   The Constitution does say that the electoral votes in each state are to be allocated in a manner that the state sees fit. For example, all but two states use the popular vote of their state to award all electoral votes to a candidate. The other two (Maine and Nebraska) allocate their electoral votes differently: one vote per Congressional district, plus the remaining two electoral votes to the guy who had more votes in the state. Technically, a state could decide to have a 100-meter dash between the candidates, or have the state legislature pick the winner, or whatever they want.

   In other words, the Constitution does allow a state to decide how to allocate its electoral votes. Therefore, as much as it behooves me to understand why a state would possibly ignore its own voters, it may be that the Constitution allows the state to do that.

   I am both horrified (at the thought it could succeed) and intrigued (I’m fascinated with Constitutional law…I know, I need a life!).

   Comment by Jonathan — 10:29 am
   

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.