Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's way different. Maine and Nevada proportion their votes based on the votes within their own states.
What they are proposing in Nevada is to assign the electoral votes to the candidate that won the popular vote in all 50 states (49 of which, aren't Nevada). it's illegal, it's unconstitutional and it will never get through the supreme court.
Please point out the part of the constitution which tells states how to allocate their electors. Thank you.
is was about the small sates like Rhode Island being able to have a say... equal representation
oh course the fascist lefties are for this pact to eliminate the EC....its funded by Soro's
the nationalpopularvote scheme, is a scheme from soros and the marxists/fascists
the 501(c) organization NationalPopularVote Inc., a George Soros funded who’s who of the progressive left. ...billionaire George Soros fund sand supports the movement via his myriad 502(c) outfits, such as the Progressive States Network and Common Cause.
Under a NationalPopularVote, 100% of the citizens in a state could vote for candidate A and all of the state’s electoral college votes go to candidate B, rending small states powerless and the will of the people in the state irrelevant.
the electoral college is there for a reason
..to protect the little guy from the big guys
Plan for Permanent White House control by progressives happening now
Called the “NationalPopularVote Compact” this movement has been in the works nationwide – without public attention – on a state-by-state level since at least 2008.
Like other surreptitious actions against the U.S. Constitution, the NPVC “movement” has several promotional websites claiming to represent “true democracy.”
Why would progressives want to switch to a NationalPopularVote POTUS?
Do the math: The electoral vote system protects voting rights by giving every individual state a number of electoral votes representing the level of population. In this way, all states in the Union have a proportionate and representative say in who becomes President. It doesn’t matter if the state has more land mass than populace, or if more of the people live in rural areas, etc.
Who is behind the NationalPopularVote Compact?
George Soros ...and Vikram Amar & Akhil Reed Amar
Akhil Amar has also “recently proposed that every American should be required to undergo a DNA test so that a national DNA database can be created.”
The National Public Vote Compact bill, promoted nationwide, came from this source in 2001. Since then, the same bill based on their strategy has been filed in states nationwide!
Digging into the background of the National Public Vote Compact – as a means to radically and permanently shift the basis of the Presidency, here’s what we found: highly credentialed attorneys (and brothers) who devised this “state bill” compact, as a strategy to get around the normal requirements for constitutional amendment – and, instead, undermine the Electoral College by bypassing both Congress and the voters!
plan for Permanent White House control by progressives happening now
Called the “NationalPopularVote Compact” this movement has been in the works nationwide – without public attention – on a state-by-state level since at least 2008.
Like other surreptitious actions against the U.S. Constitution, the NPVC “movement” has several promotional websites claiming to represent “true democracy.”
The NPVC is a bill now moving state-by-state to make the popularvote winner President by bypassing normal requirements to amend the Constitution. Tts outcome would ensure the Presidency would be declared by giving all the required 270 Electoral Votes needed for a “winner” to the candidate who wins the largest number of popular votes nationally – no matter how small the win margin and no difference how many states voted to oppose him. Here’s
how it works:
Once enough states have passed the NPVC bill into law to reach the requisite 270 Electoral Votes (by totaling the EV’s of those states which pass this bill) the NPVC goes into immediate effect in the next – and all subsequent – Presidential elections. It doesn’t matter how strongly other states oppose this. We’d all have to go along, if even a minority of states pass it! • Currently, this bill has passed enough state houses to reach more than 160 EV’s – so they are well over half way to their goal right now.
According to most up-to-date information this NationalPopularVote Pact has already passed 1 of the 2 required chambers in more than 30 other states- without public attention.
If their magic number of 270 EV totaling states is reached, it won’t matter how the rest of the states vote on this; nor whether other states never take up the bill; not even if other states vehemently object and oppose this action. It would be the Law of the Land!
This sneaky scheme to upend Constitutional rights and protections of all states and their residents in selecting the nation’s leader is underway as an explicit attempt to defeat the careful Constitutional amendment process with no public knowledge, no voter input, no public referendums and no input from states which object to this measure. All NPVC takes is a portion of current state houses to make it law for all of us – always!
Why would progressives want to switch to a National Popular Vote POTUS?
Do the math: The electoral vote system protects voting rights by giving every individual state a number of electoral votes representing the level of population. In this way, all states in the Union have a proportionate and representative say in who becomes President. It doesn’t matter if the state has more land mass than populace, or if more of the people live in rural areas, etc.[/quote]
^^^^^^This. ALL OF IT. This is about STATE'S RELATIVE EQUALITY, that is why the EC is there. Not people's equality, athough states with more people get more EC votes therefore have much more power over smaller states. States elect the President.
Please point out the spot in the constitution where it tells states how they must allocate their electors.
it doesn't
but.....
but and its a big butt....
they have the power to allocate it based on their VOTES... ie give all their ec to THEIR pop vote winner...or prorate it proportionally
but under the pact:
so if the people New Jersey vote for candidate "A" overwhelmingly , but candidate "B" takes the national popularvote ALL the EC votes of New Jersey go to Candidate "B", no matter the fact that they voted for candidate "A"
it essentially eliminates the EC and essentially eliminates 40 sates from having a say
All of the people thinking eliminating EC would make Republicans permanently unelectable / convert the country into one party-state run by the Democrats are not thinking through this at all.
If EC is eliminated both parties would just change their platforms and campaign strategies. No one would go and campaign in Iowa, Ohio, Carolinas, and the rest. LA and NYC would become the "battleground cities". With present urban area concentration, all you need to do is win in 6 cities to get elected.
With a popular vote in mind, I can see a candidate being elected running on the following platform:
- eliminating farming subsidies. Actually, killing most agriculture and converting all the farms back to nature & parks would be desirable.
- dismantling/reducing funding for interstate highway system and diverting funds to subway construction
- start putting nuclear power plants on federal land to combat greenhouse gas emissions. I hear Colorado has a lot of federal land.
- diverting more water from Colorado river for use to California. Why should Arizona or Nevada get water? More ppl in Cali.
- $15 federal min wage. Should decimate most rural businesses. Meh. Those people should be living in Chicago anyway.
- tax on single family homes. Multifamily is more energy efficient per capita and environmentally friendly. Most people who matter live in multifamily anyway. Seems like a reasonable tax.
^^^^^^This. ALL OF IT. This is about STATE'S EQUALITY, that is why the EC is there. Not people's equality. States elect the President.
First, the usefulness of the Electoral College was obliterated by both the two-party system and a winner-take-all approach in 48 out of 50 states. The Founding Fathers expressly stated that either (nevermind both) of those things would undermine the entire purpose of having an Electoral College. Indeed, the idea of "winner take all" apportionment of States' electoral votes in a binary race between political parties (with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska) based on popular vote within any given state was expressly against the will of the the creators of the electoral college (specifically, Hamilton and James Madison).
Indeed, Madison was so concerned that he backed a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the practice, arguing that winner-take-all apportionment of State electoral votes is "so great a departure from the Republican principle of numerical equality, and even from the federal rule which qualifies the numerical by a State equality, and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on this point is justly called for."
Incidentally, the Electoral College was never about "State's equality" but rather as a firewall against uneducated and uninformed voters in an era where literacy rates were low and candidates did not have the wherewithal to speak directly to the citizenry (due to lack of advanced transportation). In the Federalist Papers No. 68, for example, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the selection of delegates was necessary to ensure that "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station" were selecting the President.
Of course, these problems are less pervasive with near-universal literacy and the advent of television and the internet where candidates can orally speak directly to voters.
We DO NOT actually vote for the president. We vote for an elector to cast a pledged vote in the electoral college. We vote to tell our state how we want them to vote, and depending on how a state’s laws or constitution are written, in accordance with the US Constitution, they can ignore that vote. This is the reason why states like Nevada are able to say “We are going to ignore the vote of the people in this state if it is different than the popular vote from the rest of the nation.”
The president doesn’t really represent the people, he is supposed to make sure Congresses’ laws are executed, provide the official one voice for the nation when dealing with other nations, and lead the leaders that have been directly elected. Until 1913 the only federal officials “the people” directly voted on were members of the House of Representatives. In 1913 the 17th Amendment was ratified, getting rid of state appointment of Senators. Since that time the people directly vote for all the members of Congress that serve the area they live in but we still don’t directly vote for the president.
There is a reason we were named the United States of America instead the United People of America.
The only political office not subject to a popular vote. An historic relic of a different time. More population more votes. Why do low population podunk states have the power to overturn the people’s choice?
Remember, the left didn't complain about the electoral college before the election, when they thought Her would win.
Actually, people on both the right and the left have been complaining about the EC for years now. I first heard those mutterings back in the 70s, long before either Gore or Clinton won the popular vote but lost the EC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
