If this had been in effect in 2004, where George W. Bush won both the popular and electoral college votes, these states' electoral votes would have gone to Bush. Is that right? Trying to monkey with the electoral college to engineer a specific desired outcome is stupid and dangerous.

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:
<bionic solemnly makes jerking off gesture>

Whatever, crybabies. Keep signing your symbolic bullcrap 'pacts' and whining, when you need us, we'll be over here winning.

Pretty sure it’s more than symbolic. The states in question are passing laws. Not that they’ll ever reach 270. Here’s a thought, split the electoral votes along the popular vote of the state. I’m sure dems in California would love that.

The lib states are all going to go Democrat anyway

The only way this would actually do anything is if a Republican won the national popular vote, in which case the lib states' electors would go to the Republican, and basically guarantee the Republican's victory.

In other words, I don't see how this can do anything but backfire on them.

quote:

I don't see how this can do anything but backfire on them.

the next step is for the individual state to assert the same kind of favoritism to specified groups that deserve special voting rules;

quote:

In other words, I don't see how this can do anything but backfire on them

if this Nat'l Pop Vote Interstate had been in place in 2016, and PA and FL were part of it, Clinton would have won.

Even though Donald Trump won PA and FL by the actual state voting, under this pact their total electoral votes would have gone to Clinton because she had the popular vote. (just an example)

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

In other words, I don't see how this can do anything but backfire on them

if this Nat'l Pop Vote Interstate had been in place in 2016, and PA and FL were part of it, Clinton would have won.

Even though Donald Trump won PA and FL by the actual state voting, under this pact their total electoral votes would have gone to Clinton because she had the popular vote. (just an example)

Right... this is a gambit to get a few swing states to sign on. That's all it would take.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

In other words, I don't see how this can do anything but backfire on them

if this Nat'l Pop Vote Interstate had been in place in 2016, and PA and FL were part of it, Clinton would have won.

Even though Donald Trump won PA and FL by the actual state voting, under this pact their total electoral votes would have gone to Clinton because she had the popular vote. (just an example)

Right... this is a gambit to get a few swing states to sign on. That's all it would take.

While it is a ridiculous waste of time as things stand, they are gaining three things.

1) As pointed out, if swing states were to drink this Kool-aid, it could actually swing a future Presidential election and make a mockery of the electoral college system.

Keep in mind that while that is unlikely now, swing states by definition are finely balanced. Not hard to imagine that in one or two election cycles they might swing the other way and do this. They could undo it after they swung back, of course, but by then it would have affected elections.

2) This will suppress the vote of some of their own citizens, by depressing turnout, and make the task of effective voter fraud much easier.

Generally, turnout for a Presidential election is higher than other cycles. But if you as a voter knew that your state's electoral votes were going to be given to the winner of the national popular vote, and your in-state vote becomes worthless except as a minuscule effect on the entire national vote. So...why turn out? Thus, the turnout for Presidential cycles in those states should be about what they see for other cycles - i. e., much smaller. Only the truly dedicated (and, of course, the hyper-partisans) will show up. Also, with smaller numbers of voters, smaller turnouts are much more sensitive to voter fraud - so for the "D"s that's a two-fer.

3) It provides support for the 'narrative'

This builds the impression that there is some groundswell of opinion that the Electoral College is some conspiracy, rather than an essential part of the Constitution. Creates the appearance of a bandwagon building a structure to counteract it for some higher purpose, so it's raw material for the "Fake News" brigade to try to tell us all how much smarter they are than we are, and thus to try to help accomplish point number 1 above in some hapless swing-states.

June 6, 2019
Wreck the Electoral College, Destroy the Country
By David Horowitz

While you were sleeping, the Democrats (abetted by some deviant Republicans) have been working on a plan that would destroy the diversity of the American political system and bring the nation to the brink of civil war. The plan is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and tens of millions of dollars have already been spent over several decades trying to implement it. Fourteen blue states and the District of Columbia have already joined the Compact, which means they are 70% on the way to making their proposal the law of the land.

The Democrats’ plan is designed to eliminate the influence of the Electoral College in choosing the nation’s president, no doubt because while Hillary won the popular vote she failed win necessary votes in the Electoral College. Eliminating the influence of the Electoral College would end the diversity now embodied in the federal system with its division of powers between Washington and the fifty states. The fact that a party which presents itself as a defender of diversity should be leading the charge to eliminate the nation’s most powerful source of diversity should be all that is required to understand the threat their agenda poses to what has been the nation’s constitutional way of life for 232 years.

The Electoral College and the division of powers are features of the Constitution. But the National Popular Vote movement does not propose to amend the Constitution because it doesn’t have the votes to do that. Instead, in the name of “democracy,” it proposes to circumvent the Constitution and its requirement of large national majorities for amending what has been the fundamental law of the land. Think how Orwellian that is, and how concerning it should be for anyone believing the Founders created the most practical, realistic, democratic, diverse and successful polity the world has ever seen.



This is how the Democrats’ circumvention of the Constitution and its provision for an Electoral College would work. Instead of abolishing the College, which would require the support of two-thirds of the states, they are hoping to put together a coalition of states representing 270 electoral votes that would agree to award all their votes to whoever wins the national vote. In other words, if the popular vote is won by 10 votes, every state in the Compact would award 100% of their votes to that party, even if a majority of the voters in their state voted against them.

The bottom line (and goal) of this devious plan is to eliminate the influence of rural voters or “Middle America” and create an electoral lock for the large urban population centers, e.g., California and New York, which would then decide the direction of the country.

Currently the Electoral College forces candidates to campaign in states they might otherwise ignore, and thus forces them to compete for diverse constituencies, and therefore to compromise and moderate their positions. It was designed by the Founders to move the country to the center and to prevent an overzealous majority from tyrannizing the minority.

Consider the practical implications of this radical plan to remove an institution that has stabilized our political life for more than 200 years. The urban centers of America, which would become dominant under the plan, are also the centers of America’s crime problems and gun homicides, its intractable poverty, its failed public schools and political corruption. Do we really want to replicate for all America the failed welfare policies that have created a permanent underclass in cities like Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and Baltimore?

Or consider California, a one-party state whose government has defied federal law and proclaimed itself a sanctuary for illegal migrants. What will be the consequences for an already deeply divided nation of having an open-borders policy imposed by leftist states led by California and New York on Middle American states who are already fiercely opposed to flooding the country with millions of illegal aliens whom no government agency has vetted? lf New York has legalized the killing of babies already born, how will that go down in states already banning abortions of babies with fetal heartbeats? All the blue states pushing this agenda are fans of the Green New Deal which focuses on a problem -- global warming -- that most of the country doesn’t consider urgent, calls for crushing new taxes to finance new social giveaways while programs like Medicare and Social Security are already on the brink of bankruptcy. Or consider the Green plan to remove 250 million gasoline-driven automobiles within ten years and replace them with electric cars. If an incredibly costly and unsettling confiscation scheme like this is imposed on the rest of the country, what can we reasonably expect as a reaction?

The Founders' scheme to produce compromise between competing factions and to put checks and balances on radical adventures was never more needed than now, when the country is divided in a way that it has not been seen since the Civil War. But apparently this is the perfect time for an out-of-touch and increasingly out-of-control Democratic Party to undermine the constitutional foundations of the nation, push a divisive agenda, and move the nation towards a one-party state.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...y.html#ixzz5q4ybfojd

quote:

Originally posted by lkdr1989:
So if President Trump wins the 2020 popular & Electoral vote...then what

Could very well happen in the next one so this will be a lesson in unintended consequences to the lib's. Watch heads really explode then when Trump ends up with all those liberal state electors.

"President Trump said that if the winner was to be determined by popular vote, rather then electoral college vote, he’d’ve campaigned according."

Another concept that they don't seem to grasp. Trump campaigned to win, Hillary and the Democrats campaigned where they felt validated, whatever that is.

Hopefully they keep going around with their heads up their asses for the next few years.

I think SCOTUS would step in and end this silliness if it got too far along.

We've already seen one Democrat governor veto it, good for him.

We had that pass our state assembly and the senate but our governor vetoed it. It's the only thing he's ever done that I've agreed with. He's ultra liberal on every issue and I abosoluty dispise him, but he made great sense when he said this bill would disenfranchise every single Nevada voter in national elections.

The article is wrong. It says

quote:

The pact is meant to be a work-around to the constitutional requirements that created the Electoral College system, which awards each state's electors to the winner of that state.

but the Constitution makes no statement about how a state's Electors are to be picked, OR HOW THEY VOTE. It is true that most states have the "winner takes all" rule on how their Electors are to vote (all of them voting for the candidate that wins the popular vote in the state), but not all do. Some states have a "proportional allocation" scheme whereby the number of Electors voting for each candidate is roughly proportional to the way the popular vote in the state went. There are even a couple of states that don't even have a popular vote for President--their Electors are chosen some other way. And in every case, an Elector COULD decide to vote differently from the general rule in the state (it has happened a few times).

flashguy

The dems are following their leader, Joey Stalin

“People who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

One thing to consider. Everyone knows it's the Electoral College that elects the president.

Maybe Trump and his campaign knowing this campaigned to win the Electoral votes and didn't worry so much about the popular vote. If that counted maybe he would have campaigned differently and won the popular vote.


The Dems are supposedly for the little man with no voice. Isn't that why the Electoral College was set up for........