Electoral College vs National Popular Vote Organization: Threat Alert – NPV Half Way to Goal – Amendment Not Necessary

The first video below explains how the National Popular Vote (NPV), an actual organization, is working diligently behind the scenes to change state law from casting Electoral Votes as gathered from across the state, to casting Electoral votes to the winner of the NATIONAL POPULAR vote. I find that conservative, former Congressman Tom Tancredo supports the NPV movement. In the second video below, Tancredo was interviewed at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference and said the MediCare Prescription Drug Bill was passed by buying electoral votes in Florida.

The 2012 GOP Platform takes “a firm stance against instituting a national popular vote scheme.” The Southern Republican Leadership Conference name comes up (the event where Tancredo was interviewed in the second video below). At the time of the Conference, PJ Tatler’s Bryan Preston wrote that National Popular Vote was one of the sponsors of the event, appearing on their sponsor page. The link leading to that page is no longer leading anywhere.

Though many Republicans have signed onto National Popular Vote’s goal of undoing the Electoral College at the state level, its funding is coming almost entirely from the left, according to the Weekly Standard:

[John] Koza—who hit the jackpot when he patented the scratch-off lottery ticket and then convinced states to sell them—has reportedly pledged $12 million to his organization. Koza has given tens of thousands of dollars to various Democratic Party committees and liberal candidates; he was an Al Gore elector in 2000. New York businessman Tom Golisano, who has also pledged millions to NPV, is quick to point out that he is a registered Republican—even though he supported John Kerry and gave a cool $1 million to the Democratic National Convention in 2008. The organizational support behind NPV is similarly lopsided, coming almost exclusively from left wing groups such as Common Cause, the American Civil Liberties Union, FairVote, and the League of Women Voters. A George Soros-funded group, DEMOS, has supported NPV, and Soros’s son, Jonathan Soros, has written in favor of the plan.

If votes were ‘bought,’ it is our elected Representatives who should suffer the consequences, and this study shows that 25 Democrats lost their seats in 2010 due to votes for ObamaCare, Cap and Trade and The Stimulus, with the consequences of ObamaCare making up the larger portion of those loses (862 & 851).

Do we really want to give up the “representative” advantage of our Republic?

The NPV position is that the Electoral College survives if the National Popular Vote is enacted by states who can produce 270 Electoral votes. While we might still have what we call an “electoral” vote, it is not an Electoral vote in the same sense it has been since our founding.

Here’s the current action by state with the number of Electoral votes in parentheses:

States which have passed legislation: California (55), Washington (12), Illinois (20), Maryland (10), New Jersey (14), Massachusetts (11), Vermont (3), Hawaii (4) and the District of Columbia (3). [Washington DC is not a state, it is a federal district, but does have 3 Electoral votes] = 132 votes already designated as Winner Take All (National Popular Vote)

Bills have been introduced: Idaho (4), Wyoming (3), Texas (38), Florida (29), Georgia (16), South Carolina (9), Tennessee (11), Indiana (11), and Ohio (18).

Legislation has passed both Houses: Colorado (9) and Rhode Island (4).

Legislation has passed in one House: Oregon (7), Nevada (9) , New Mexico (5), Arkansas (6), Michigan (16), North Carolina (15), New York (29), Maine (4), Michigan (16) and Delaware (3).

Legislation has passed 1 Committee: Montana (3), Oklahoma (7), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Alabama (9), Minnesota (10), Iowa (6), Kentucky (8), West Virginia (5) and Alaska (3).

Hearings have been held: Utah (6), Arizona (11), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Nebraska (5), Kansas (6), Missouri (10), Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (20) and New Hampshire (4).

Legislation is underway at some stage in every state. See the map here.

From the NPV website homepage:

“The National Popular Vote law has been enacted by states possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate it.”

ALBANY, June 7, 2011 — The Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill (S4208 / AB 489) by a 47–13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21–11 and Democrats favoring it by 26–2. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17–7. The bill now goes to the New York State Assembly. The bill passed the New York Senate in 2010 when the chamber was controlled by Democrats and has now passed with the chamber controlled by Republicans. Source: National Popular Vote

I have both a transcript and the first video below of Chad Kent of ChadKentSpeaks giving his opinion of what the National Popular Vote will mean for our country – a “fundamental transformation” of how we elect the leader of the Free World. The second video is former Congressman Tom Tancredo offering his reasoning behind supporting NPV.

Map of 2010 Illinois Governor Race

Pullout Quote from video:

In case you haven’t noticed, Illinois is pretty rural. We have one urban center – Chicago, but Chicago is big enough that it drives all of our state-wide elections. Let’s take a look at our 2010 Governor race. That’s what it looked like [see the graphic above]. Governor Quinn was able to win the Governor’s race by only getting four counties out of 102 counties in Illinois. He won four. So we run our entire state of Illinois like it’s an urban area, but it’s not – especially if you go down-state, south of Springfield it is extremely rural – ridiculously rural but yet we govern that area of the state as if it is an urban area. If you haven’t noticed, Illinois is a disaster. People aren’t exactly flocking to this state to join the party. They’re leaving in droves.

What we are going to do, if we have a national popular vote, we are going to take the Illinois model and we’re going to move it national, and if you think that’s a good idea, I’ve got three words for you: The Chicago Way.

Partial and loose video transcript:

Welcome to Freedom’s Foundation. I am the Constitution Guy [ChadKent] and tonight we’re going to talk about what is probably the greatest threat to your freedom that you don’t know about yet. It’s time for a Presidential election and that means it’s also time for the people to come out of the woodwork and talk about how the Electoral College just isn’t fair, and because of that we need to choose our president based on a national popular vote. The organization has been really effective at winning people over to their side by using emotional arguments. They’ll say, if one person wins the most votes but they are not president, then that’s not fair, and besides, we’re a democracy, right?

Well, all those things sound right in theory but they are a disaster in reality. Probably the biggest problem with this idea that the belief that Democracy is a good thing, but it’s not. Democracy is a terrible idea, and it has failed every time it is tried throughout history.

The Founders wrote a lot about ‘Democracy is a terrible idea.’ It cannot protect Liberty and it cannot work. That is why they gave us a Republic. The United States is a Representative Republic. If we elect our president based on a National Popular Vote, that’s going to move us from being a Republic to being something much closer to being a Democracy. Remember, Democracy doesn’t work.

I can’t get into detail about why Democracy is a terrible idea here. I’ll do a future video on that topic, but let me give you a quick explanation. A Republic protects your rights as an INDIVIDUAL. A Democracy cannot protect your rights because it’s just MOB RULE.

In the past it’s been said that Democracy is basically two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. It doesn’t turn out well for the sheep, does it? You never want to be in the minority when it comes to a Democracy.

Right now you might be saying, ‘So what, who cares. Even is this is a huge threat to my freedom, it’s never going to happen, so why are you throwing such a fit about it?’ That’s where you’re wrong. This is really close to happening in just the next couple of years.

There’s a group out there called the National Popular Vote, and they have a really interesting way of making this happen. What they are trying to do is convince states to pass legislation that will change the way states apportions its Electoral votes.

What will happen if they pass this legislation is, the state’s Electoral votes would be granted to whoever wins the National Popular Vote, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT STATE. So, let’s say here in my home state of Illinois, we pass this legislation: Candidate A gets zero votes in Illinois, but Candidate A wins the National Popular vote Candidate A is going to get all of Illinois’ Electoral vote. Once they get enough states to do that, that they have 270 Electoral votes that are granted that way, we do have a National Popular vote. Here’s the thing: this group already has enough states that have already passed this legislation, that they are half way to their goal.

YES, THIS WOULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL if they are able to make this happen. If these folks are successful and are able to move us to a National Popular Vote for president, that will fundamentally transform the way this nation operates, and I’ll give you two examples.

First of all, only urban areas are going to matter in choosing a president. Our president will govern this country as though it is one giant urban area, but obviously it’s not. That means that the needs of Montana or Alaska or Wyoming are going to be completely ignored, while focusing completely on places like New York, Chicago and L.A. Why? Because that’s where all the people are and these presidents [voted into office because of a popular vote] base what they do on where the people are, because that’s where they are going to get their votes.

The Electoral College was designed the way it was in part, because the Founders wanted to make sure whoever was President not only had the support of a significant percentage of the country, but also a significant portion of the state. [A President] needed to have a big enough area that he was representing, that he could represent the entire country. Thus far it has been successful, because you notice that politicians have to go to a variety of places in order to get elected President.

Basically, what they are trying to do is avoid what happens here in Illinois. In case you haven’t noticed, Illinois is pretty rural. We have one urban center – Chicago, but Chicago is big enough that it drives all of our state-wide elections. Let’s take a look at our 2010 Governor race. That’s what it looked like [see the graphic above]. Governor Quinn was able to win the Governor’s race by only getting four counties out of 102 counties in Illinois. He won four. So we run our entire state of Illinois like it’s an urban area, but it’s not – especially if you go down-state, south of Springfield it is extremely rural – ridiculously rural but yet we govern that area of the state as if it is an urban area. If you haven’t noticed, Illinois is a disaster. People aren’t exactly flocking to this state to join the party. They’re leaving in droves.

What we are going to do, if we have a national popular vote, we are going to take the Illinois model and we’re going to move it national, and if you think that’s a good idea, I’ve got three words for you: The Chicago Way.

The second reason why a national popular vote won’t work, ever – it is recounts. Think Florida 2000. Wasn’t that fun? Wasn’t that a great thing to go through? Imagine this [a photo of a man inspecting Florida’s ‘hanging chads’] on a national scale. Oh yes, Florida 2000 times 50. I think we’d still be trying to figure out who won that race, but by choosing our Presidents on a state-by-state basis, that localizes the issues, because there’s no need to recount California in 2000 because we knew Gore pretty much won California, handily. We don’t need to recount Texas because we know Bush won Texas. Florida was the only area that was really close, but if you take that, and make it a national popular vote, now how many votes Bush did get in California is important; now how many votes Gore got in Texas is important, so you are recounting not a few million votes – you’re recounting 50-60 million votes and you’re doing this [image of the hanging chads] with every single one of them. It’s a disaster and completely unworkable.

Those are two reasons why the Electoral College is a great idea and the National Popular Vote will not, cannot work, but there are a lot more reasons why the Electoral College is a good idea. To see more, check out a website I found, TaraRoss.com. She’s a lawyer from Texas and she’s done some great work in this area, so check out her website and follow her on Facebook if you want to learn more about the details behind the Electoral College.

You also want to check out NationalPopularVote.com’s website so you can see what these folks are doing, and then you can talk to your local politicians, because we have to make sure this doesn’t happen. If we move to a national popular vote, it will fundamentally transform the way this country operates. Remember, we are a Representative Republic, but if we go to choosing our President by a national popular vote, we get closer to a democracy. Trust me, democracy does.not.work.

End loose transcript.

Chad Kent’s YouTube Channel is here.Follow Chad Kent on Facebook here.Follow Chad Kent on Twitter here.

Read a related article at TaraRoss.com here.Follow Tara Ross on Facebook here.Follow Tara Ross on Twitter here.

Please a comment if you have a strong opinion about this issue, and don’t forget to check your state’s progress with the National Popular Vote movement, and then try to stop any forward movement. Thanks to Conservative Daily News for the video.

Linked at BadBluethe smartest and baddest news on the planet!

Linked at Conservatives on Fire with more the NPV – Forget the Constitution. Let’s Elect our Presidents by Popular Vote. – thanks Jim!


Chad Kent on Electoral College vs National Popular Vote (video)


Former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo Supports a National Popular Vote (video)

  • kohler

    The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

    The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

    The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

    The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.

    As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

  • kohler

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    80% of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

    Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

    The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

    The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
    National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

    Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

    If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party’s dedicated activists.

  • kohler

    Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

    With National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn’t be about winning a handful of battleground states.

    Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored.

    None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored.

    Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

    Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

    Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

    In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

    Of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes) 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states – NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) – got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

    In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

  • kohler

    8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659). Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.

    Presidential vote totals in the 12 biggest states have been virtually tied in presidential races.
    In 2004, six went Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia), while the six others went Democratic. Kerry got 34,784,178 of their votes versus Bush’s 34,539,521. Kerry had a small margin of only 244,657 votes from all of the 12 states, which was massively overshadowed by Bush’s national popular vote margin of 3,012,171 (out of over 122 million votes cast).

    None of the biggest states are as Democratic as many people seem to think. The highest percentage achieved by either party in the 12 biggest states in 2004 was Bush’s 62% margin in Texas (which generated a bigger popular vote margin for Bush than Kerry received from far-larger California).

    Republican candidates for Governor and U.S. Senator have won statewide in all 12 of the biggest states in recent years.

    The big cities inside the 12 biggest states are not as big as people think, and not as dominant as people think. Big cities do not, for example, even control California elections, as evidenced by the reality that governors Reagan, Deukmejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger never carried Los Angeles, San Francisco, or other big cities in California. Similar examples of Republicans winning in big states, despite losing the big cities, can be easily cited in every other big state.

    The populations of the 50 largest cities together constitute only 15% of the nation’s population. And, to put that into perspective, Arlington, Texas is the nation’s 50th largest city (at about 363,000).

    * * * *

    With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation’s votes!

  • kohler

    The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

    The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

    Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

    The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

    The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

    We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

    The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.

    Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

    The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

    No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

    The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their “final determination” six days before the Electoral College meets.

  • kohler

    National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences. This bill does not eliminate the Electoral College. It does not overlook any state, it does not disenfranchise voters, it does not cancel votes, it does not negate votes, it does not steal votes, nor does it ignore votes. It does not force the U.S. to completely change its government. It gives a voice to the minority party in states where their votes now count only for candidates they did not vote for.

    It adds up votes of all voters in each state and the candidate with the most popular votes from the states wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Now voters in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the voters of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. This year, only 9 states matter.

    A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

    The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

    With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

    Your vote would count as much as anyone else’s, as it does in elections for other offices.

    The National Popular Vote bill guarantees that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency. Adding up votes of all voters and winning with the most popular votes is the method that is used in virtually every other election in the country.

  • My concern is as follows. The U.S. Senate hugely, hugely overrepresents small states…. OK, fine. It’s in the U.S. constitution. Love it or leave it..

  • Kohler and Sabrina, thank you for your comments. I hope to have a follow-up.

    • kohler

      Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. This feature cannot be changed by state law or an interstate compact.

      In fact, equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides:
      “No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

      Thus, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states.

      In contrast, the U.S. Constitution explicitly assigns the power of selecting the manner of appointing presidential electors to the states. The enactment by a state legislature of the National Popular Vote bill is an exercise of a legislature’s existing powers under the U.S. Constitution.

      In short, enactment of the National Popular Vote compact has no bearing on the federal constitutional provisions establishing equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate.

  • Maggie,

    We have extensively covered this issue over at the SENTRY JOURNAL and believe the NPV efforts to push for a national popular vote not only diminishes the voting power of the individual, but reduces the power of less populated states. The reason state representatives are being snookered into passing laws that promote national popular vote is because many of them do not fully understand why the electoral college was put in place by those enlightened men we call our founders. The left has been trying to get this changed at the state level since the 2000 election. You can read our articles about this topic at the following: http://www.sentryjournal.com/2010/09/24/popular-vote-by-the-numbers/ and http://www.sentryjournal.com/2010/09/22/progressive-states-network-national-popular-vote/

    • John Carey, thank you for the links to your work. I know how in-depth you get. While I don’t have the background you have, this is my opinion as well. You can see from comments that some don’t think lesser populated states should have the same representation in the Senate. That’s faulty, in my opinion and the Founder’s got it right. It’s also folly to believe that nothing changes within the Electoral College. I’ll come read.

    • kohler

      The National Popular Vote bill was not introduced until 2006.

      In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

      On June 7, 2011, the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47–13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21–11. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17–7.

      Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: “I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
      It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.

      National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it.”

      Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.

      2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.

      National Popular Vote’s National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), and David Durenberger (R–MN) and former congressman John Buchanan (R–AL).

      Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

      Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:”A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.”

      Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote ” include:

      Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

      James Brulte served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

      Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

      Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

      Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

  • Pingback: Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (Voter apathy edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL()

  • kohler

    Most Americans don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state. . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it’s wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

    By state (Electoral College votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:

    Alaska (3) — 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters
    Arkansas (6) — 71% (R), 79% (Independents).
    California (55) – 61% (R), 74% (I)
    Colorado (9) — 56% (R), 70% (I).
    Connecticut (7) — 67% (R)
    Delaware (3) — 69% (R), 76% (I)
    DC (3) — 48% (R), 74% of (I)
    Florida (29) — 68% (R)
    Idaho(4) – 75% (R)
    Iowa (6) — 63% (R)
    Kentucky (8) — 71% (R), 70% (I)
    Maine (4) – 70% (R)
    Massachusetts (11) — 54% (R)
    Michigan (16) — 68% (R), 73% (I)
    Minnesota (10) — 69% (R)
    Montana (3)- 67% (R)
    Mississippi (6) — 75% (R)
    Nebraska (5) — 70% (R)
    Nevada (5) — 66% (R)
    New Hampshire (4) — 57% (R), 69% (I)
    New Mexico (5) — 64% (R), 68% (I)
    New York (29) – 66% (R), 78% Independence, 50% Conservative
    North Carolina (15) — 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), 80% (I)
    Ohio (18) — 65% (R)
    Oklahoma (7) — 75% (R)
    Oregon (7) — 70% (R), 72% (I)
    Pennsylvania (20) — 68% (R), 76% (I)
    Rhode Island (4) — 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), 78% (I),
    South Carolina (8) — 64% (R)
    South Dakota (3) — 67% (R)
    Tennessee (11) — 73% (R)
    Utah (6) — 66% (R)
    Vermont (3) — 61% (R)
    Virginia (13) — 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 54% conservative (R)
    Washington (12) — 65% (R)
    West Virginia (5) — 75% (R)
    Wisconsin (10) — 63% (R), 67% (I)
    Wyoming (3) –66% (R), 72% (I)

    NationalPopularVote

  • Pingback: Forget The Constitution. Let’s Elect Our Presidents By Popular Vote. « Conservatives on Fire()

  • As I commented at COnservatives on Fire:
    I don’t know about all of this, We are already going down a dangerous road. Look what California just did. Soon, I doubt we will ever see a GOP on the ticket as I read it.
    How are primary elections conducted in California?

    All candidates for voter-nominated offices are listed on one ballot and only the top two vote-getters in the primary election – regardless of party preference – move on to the general election. A write-in candidate will only move on to the general election if the candidate is one of the top two vote-getters in the primary election.

    Prior to the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act, the top vote-getter from each qualified political party, as well as any write-in candidate who received a certain percentage of votes, moved on to the general election.

    The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act does not apply to candidates running for U.S. President, county central committee, or local office.
    http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/june-primary/faqs-primary-2012.htm