Home » 2012 Election, Barack Obama, Socialism/Communism, Socialist Opinion Shapers

Warning! Progressives’ NPV Plan for White House Control, 2012 & Permanently

Submitted by on October 22, 2011 – 2:16 pm EST59 Comments

Gulag Bound

By Jacquerie
Wake Up America

National Popular Vote manifesto, 2004

While the lamestream media holds public attention on GOP candidate rivalries, a “progressive” strategy is underway to eliminate the role of the states in electing a U.S. President. By transferring electoral votes to a “national popular vote” this “Compact”  would  usurp the role of the states as safeguarded by our Constitution. In doing so, it could also neutralize Obama’s critics — totally.

This may be the most vital – and time sensitive – expose WAM has ever uncovered and shared! And it’s happening now, under the radar, with the general public in the dark. This “ultimate vote fraud” is intentionally  complicated to keep it obscure until it’s too late to stop it.

This complete expose on the “National Popular Vote Compact” won’t be found elsewhere. Because of the complexity and urgency of this issue. read it through completely. See who is behind this scheme and what its intended consequences are.

Then spread the word  in your blogs, forums and forward to all your contacts now. There is still time to block the NPVC sufficient states passage – only if we act now!

All of US urgently need to contact our State Assemblymen, State Senators and Governors to vehemently oppose this covert measure! See below the real facts of this manipulation of the Constitution and American electorate. See Your State Status and action needed  in last column.

Plan for 2012 (& Permanent) White House control by progressives happening now

Called the “National Popular Vote 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 popular vote 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 National Popular Vote 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.

Here is what would happen with an NPVC that hands all the needed 270 Electoral Votes to the national popular vote winner: Those states with larger populations – especially those with heavily populated big cities will pick the President. Period. The politically savvy know that big city voters trend “Democratic” – and that controlling big city vote results (by buying votes, duplicating votes, “fixing” vote count machines on a large scale basis – these are all “Democratic” party specialties!

Take Illinois as a case in point. No matter the notorious corruption in politics there. Year after year, all the suburban and rural vote populations together can’t get their voices heard to change who runs the state. Why not? Because the votes of the city of Chicago always outnumber the total combined votes in the entire rest of the state. Is that what we want to happen to the White House?

The state houses of Illinois, California, New York and New Jersey – with their large combined Electoral Votes – are among those that have already passed the NPVC into law. A list of states which have passed this treacherous law is given below. Do you think the voters in those states (of which you may be one) have an idea this has happened? Of course not – as with all Progressive take-over tactics, this one is being arranged as quietly and quickly as possible, before the actual voters there even find out!

So, if you’ve wondered why Obama isn’t more worried about his “re-election” – despite growing public dissatisfaction – now you know. Just pass the NPVC in a handful more states. Then, put the usual paid workers out in the precincts with lies and pockets full of bribes for votes; send out more union propaganda enflaming and threatening union members into support; continue using state paid staff to bring in the votes of the infirm and institutionalized; doctor up more absentee vote records; alter the vote totals of machines in key areas. And voila – Obama gets even the tiniest combined margin of the “popular” vote (by hook or crook) – and he stays in office!   

If this NPVC vote scam gets enough states to go along, the rest of US are doomed to non-elect but appoint Obama again – by the magic 270 with claims that its all very constitutional!   Akin to ObamaCare, if this National Popular Vote Compact is passed – no matter how wrong and corrupt – it would take massive funding and endless delays to drag through the courts in hopes of any reversal.

An NPVC success in its remaining targeted states would mean: states that have been trending GOP and don’t support NPVC won’t matter; states with large land expanses sprinkled with Conservative voters and rural farmers won’t matter; suburbanites who pay the taxes that support city entitlements won’t matter; the original fair and balanced Electoral College system won’t matter. After all, they tell US: this is just one of those parts of that old Constitution that’s not really fair and needs to be updated!

Here is a summary of why the National Popular Vote Presidency is a really bad idea.

Who is behind the National Popular Vote Compact?

George Soros – and that’s not all 

If you have any doubt left about the purpose of this Constitutional reversal in favor of a Presidency by national popular vote, consider these facts and check out these references:

Summary: George Soros favorite game is taking over the politics (and governments) of countries. If you’re not familiar with his bio, you should be. See here his role in the bogus movement toward a popular vote. Soros son, Jonathan, propaganized “It’s’ time to junk the electoral college” all the way back in 2008. We know by know how their ilk uses long-term, heavily financed astro-turf “reform” movements – under cover of nice-sounding names, multiple websites and distorted messages to increase their public appeal. Here’s what the National Popular Vote movement wants you to believe. Their operatives began moving this Plan through state assemblies even before 2008 election. See an actual chart of the scope of Soros spiderweb of behind-the-scenes influence here.

What’s their game: Take the 2012 election – and those that follow – by the cheapest, most expedient means. Save time and money by focusing “electioneering efforts” (including illegitimate ones) in major population areas to make those vote totals overwhelm the votes of the rest of US.  This makes it easy for Obama to continue ignoring increased public resistance – if half the states and nearly half the voters just won’t count anymore anyway. Most of US are by now familiar with the bombardment of attempts to subvert our government under cover of populist propaganda to appear “more truly democratic.” See below those behind this clever manipulation of the law – to pass a “newer and better” way to choose a President without the proper Constitutional amendment.(And somebody tell them our founding fathers formed a Republic, not a democracy!)

Meet the Men behind this “Compact”:  Vikram Amar & Akhil Reed Amar

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!

Vikram Amar

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! V. Amar is the author of hundreds of legal articles and several books. Although his age is included in a wiki-bio, Vikram’s country of origin is not mentioned. His articles cover topics like this:”Should Christian groups on state campuses by allowed to restrict their membership to Christians.” Many articles are aimed at using the legal system against the Constitution. Here’s two books he’s written: “Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking” and The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction

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.” Together this pair has made many other monstrous “legalese” proposals including how an “Instant Run Off System” could “remedy the flaws” in America’s voting system; term-limiting Supreme Court Justices and improving the Presidential line of succession in the event of “election terrorism.” By no strange coincidence, the brainstormer of this end-run to trick the public and the Constitution by a minority of favorable state lawmakers, Vikram, also keeps busy writing frequent legal articles in defense of the constitutionality of ObamaCare! Need we wonder who is financing this scribe?

Vital & Urgent: See your state status & contact state officials!

Conclusion: WAM has done the math and citizen action is urgent to stop this Compact! States where it has already passed add up to 171 Electoral Votes of the 270 required. 81 more Electoral Votes are at stake in states where NPV has passed 1 of the 2 needed chambers. Additionally, States where NPV is listed as currently active legislation hold more than 100 EV.  There are under 100 total (electoral vote bearing states) more for this to be our law nationally – and there are way more than enough states with this in process to meet that end goal before 2012 Election!!!

Shockingly, numerous Republican state officials have fallen for the popular vote strategy. Enough GOP have supported it, for NPV.com to brag this is a “bi-partisan” measure (along with bogus polls claiming how We the People want this!) Banners of progressive newspaper editorial endorsements are topped (of course) by the New York Times. Some GOP have co-sponsored this in their state. More have even voted for its passage! Whether these are ill-informed, popularity-seeking, bribed or just too dumb to do the math we can’t say. What we know is this probably means no more Republican presidents ever – and Obama back in 2012, if only by the tiniest of margins!

Evidently, it’s going to take all of US to contact our own state assemblyman, state senator and governor to inform them of how destructive (and “progressive”) this national vote compact really is.

CALL THEM, WRITE THEM QUICK
 (contact info link here)

TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK of this NOW 

LIST OF STATUS State-by-State HERE: There is currently no single site online that has real-time, complete, and accurate status on this outrageous measure. So save this info:

ELECTORAL THEFT LAW ALREADY PASSED IN: CA, HA, IL, NJ, MD, MA, VT, RI, D.C., and most recently NY

AR, CT, DE, MI, NV, NM, NC, OR, VT (& according to NPV site CO has now passed it in both  chambers and sent it to the Governor for signing.)

Also, legislation is currently filed but not yet voted in favor in these states:

AK  now in Committee

AL filed in the Senate this year

AZ introduced in the Senate by a Republican!

FL bill now active in both chambers

GA bill introduced in both chambers

IN introduced in the assembly

KY introduced in the House

LA passed House Committee and introduced in the Senate

MO introduced in the House

MS introduced in both chambers

MT introduced in the Senate

ND introduced in the House

NH introduced in the House

OK passed Senate Committee and introduced in the House

SD introduced in the Senate

TX introduced in both chambers

UT introduced in Senate and House

VA introduced in Senate

WARNING: Also listed as current and active legislation in these states:

GA, IA, KS, MN, NE, OK, SC, TN, WV

 

If you want further information on Preserving the Electoral College, the Heritage Foundation is sponsoring an Event on this issue on Friday afternoon, October 28.  See details here.

Please share this information with others who may not yet be informed. You deserve credit for helping this turn of events through your interest and actions on behalf of reform!

Sincerely,
Jacquerie
WAM Strategist Wake Up America Movement

Your comments, research, feedback or questions are welcome.
Contact Wake Up America Movement at: wamtoday@wamaction.info

59 Comments »

  • Matt says:

    This is a pretty exaggerated article. The National Public Vote would in no way guarantee that any one group gets a lock on the presidency. It just says that a state will cast it’s electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote. That could be a Democrat or a Republican. All this law would do is ensure that an election like 2000 (or 1876 for that matter) doesn’t happen again. The most basic concept of democracy is that the person with the most votes wins. Besides, you’re obviously conservative, wouldn’t it make you feel good if California or New York legally had to vote for a conservative.

    I don’t like the NPV idea for an entirely different reason. I believe it would lead to candidates focusing on issues that affect the most people. That would cause them to ignore the issues of smaller, but important groups like farmers. But the law doesn’t contradict the Constitution. The Constitution gives states the right to decide how to cast their electoral votes. If that’s how these states choose to do it, that is their business.

    This article should have focused on the issue, and not simply been a scare tactic to attack the left.

    • motocrossed says:

      The only thing wrong with your statement is you didnt take into acct. george sorroses involvement. How this man aka. Dr evil is allowed to even be free is beyond belief, let alone to play chess with governments, economys etc.

      • Johnc says:

        We’re all allowed to be free. Unless we break the law. If you think he’s broken the law, bring forth the charges.

        • sodacrackers2 says:

          john that is not quite true in America today. We have social justice instead of equal justice. If the tea parties had behaved illegally as the occupiers are now, do you have any doubt that they would have been arrested? But these dupes are given a pass by the White House, the democrats, and the media. I might also add that the national socialist party, the communist party usa, Chavez, and North Korea are gleeful about what is happening here. We are one very short step away from a dictator very similar to the ones Obama is putting hits out on.

        • motocrossed says:

          YOU GOT ME THERE I GUESS COLLAPSING COUNTRYS ECONOMYS AND MAKING BILLIONS OFF THE MISERY OF OTHERS ISNT AN ARRESTABLE OFFENSE. AND HEY BEFORE YOU COMPLAIN I USED ALL CAPPS

      • I’ve always wondered why some of our greatest men who championed causes for whites & blacks/ blacks & whites, ie., Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy were shot down in their prime by assassins.

        Yet, complete outlaws like Eric Holder, Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Ayers, George Soros go unscathed and waltz through life like the world is their entitlement.

        I’m surprised – and wouldn’t shed one tear – that/if someone “busted a cap” in their butts and left them to posterity as “Villains” which I’m sure history would eventually find them out to be.

        Again, I would not shed a tear for them because I shed many tears for the first group and they did not deserve their fate.

    • Janet Cook says:

      The only problem with your statement is that we are not a Democracy. We are a Representative Republic. A democracy is majority rule but there was a reason that our Founding Fathers did not want us to be a Democracy. It is just one step away from Anarchy. If it has worked for over 200 years,just leave it alone.

      • oldgulph says:

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

        The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.

        With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

      • Janet Cook says: Democracy is just one step from anarchy.

        I would only add that anarchy is ALWAYS followed by tyranny.

        The Founders considered pure democracy to be nothing more than mob rule — which is why they designed a Republic instead.

    • jan says:

      It certainly can gaurantee a group has total control; with the progressive movement having so much power given to the unions and voter fraud, it’s quite possible this would happen. The strong effort by Obama, Soros, others to take this country down and turn us to socialism or worse, communism, makes this NPV idea “very” possible.

      • oldgulph says:

        Less than 12% of Americans belong to a Union, and few Americans identify themselves as Progressives.

        The League of Women Voters assures us that Americans are twice as likely to get hit by lightning as to have their vote canceled out by a fraudulently cast vote.

        The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

        National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

        Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .

        For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

        Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?”

      • Let us also not forget another Soros project, the Secretaries of State Project, in which Soros is trying to make sure that the Secretary of State in each of the 50 states is a fellow “progressive.” The state Secretary of State is the one who oversees, monitors and certifies elections and election results, and makes crucial decisions in close votes. This is why, if you will recall the case of Minnesota, we now have a Senator Al Franken instead of Sen. Norm Coleman.

        It’s a winning strategy because progressives believe that the end justifies the means — i.e., what WE call cheating is, to a progressive, just another way to make sure that the Evil Republican gets defeated, and the White Knight of socialist redistribution wins his rightful place. A few “lost” ballots in Republican precincts, a few “found” ballots in Democrat precincts, a friendly Sec of State to certify it all, and, what do you know, you’ve just won yourself an election.

        • Wu Ming Ren says:

          Minnesota has recently been named the state with the most voting fraud of all states. Maybe we need to have videos of all voting places and use face recognition software to round up some of the multi-voters. As for the ballots, these need to be handled in the same way forensic evidence is handled, but with the signatures of three witnesses, one for each of the major parties and one for the largest third party represented in each precinct. No more lost or found ballots.

    • HorizonScanner says:

      Matt takes this statement as a first premise:

      . All this law would do is ensure that an election like 2000 (or 1876 for that matter) doesn’t happen again. The most basic concept of democracy is that the person with the most votes wins.

      Matt’s thinking is not grounded in Constitutional theory and practice. The Electoral College is intended, in part, to ensure that people like Matt do not run our elections. Matt’s deviousness seeks to do my thinking for me.

      The Electoral College works to stop such a vote, such a tyrannical vote, from prevailing. A small state like Rhode Island is intended to be able to counterbalance a state like California. But, not in Matt’s world.

      Matt doesn’t want the little voice to have a way to fight against the socialist plutocratic forces (advanced by George “Goldfinger” Soros, of whom Ian Fleming so brilliantly warned). Matt wants a fictional, ballot-box-jammed-by-SEIU-thugs-and-Jay-Carney-twerps majority vote to govern USA permanently.

      It is a contradiction to say that Conservatives would be happy with such a vote – – – if they were to win such an election. In such an event, we would immediatly repeal and outlaw this Soros system of tyranny and arrest Soros!

      Matt is a voice for TYRANNY! OPPOSE MATT! OPPOSE SOROS!

      • oldgulph says:

        The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” 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. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. 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.

        Note the strong support for a national popular vote and passage of the bill by voters and legislators in small states I posted earlier. Most are ignored under the current presidential election system. And their votes, beyond the simple plurality needed to win in their states, are wasted.

        With the current system, it could only take winning the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

        But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

        Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support , hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
        * Texas (62% Republican),
        * New York (59% Democratic),
        * Georgia (58% Republican),
        * North Carolina (56% Republican),
        * Illinois (55% Democratic),
        * California (55% Democratic), and
        * New Jersey (53% Democratic).

        In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
        * Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
        * New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
        * Georgia — 544,634 Republican
        * North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
        * Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
        * California — 1,023,560 Democratic
        * New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic

        To put these numbers in perspective, 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. 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).

    • oldgulph says:

      With National Popular Vote, 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.

      Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.

      Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive,in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.

      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): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.

      In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers — including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.

      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.

    • jacquerie says:

      Clear to see, by reviewing the comments in this thread defending the NPVC, that the Obots from 2008 are back on the job: watchdogging conservative sites and attempting to shift the discussion away from the real issues. Sometimes they try to sound neutral like the above post; sometimes they just reprint their own talking points (like the one below that uses “poll data” to argue how the American people really do want this change – but who took the polls, what questions did they ask, and how many they polled grasp the distinctions between representative government and rule by majority?)

      No matter their particular guises, the way NPVC defenders jumped right onto negating this article in this comment thread is a throwback to how they defended Obama in 2008 – and how pervasive their take-over of dialogues on blogs will probably be in 2012. Best thing to do is ignore them rather than engage them.

      Note that first to comment in this thread did not:
      discuss the suspicious origins of this “compact”
      and did defend how “perfectly constitutional’ and fair they’d like us to think that NPVC is.

    • d j cleve says:

      Reminds me of how easily a faction of the Tea Party was sucked in to help divert attention from what Reid/ McConnell/ Boehner/ Polosi, et al, really wanted to get with the debt ceiling fiasco: a governing council over Congress (as will likely be seen, blatantly soviet in practice) and an increase of the credit limit which is what, over $2 trillion ?? No wonder, Obama can now do things that he doesn’t “have time to wait on Congress for” because all he needed Congress for was approval in the form of funding which he has now without any Senator or Representative to be blamed politically (think impact on election) for anything that might go wrong.

      “While the lamestream media holds public attention on GOP candidate rivalries, a “progressive” strategy is underway to eliminate the role of the states in electing a U.S. President. By transferring electoral votes to a “national popular vote” this “Compact” would usurp the role of the states as safeguarded by our Constitution. In doing so, it could also neutralize Obama’s critics — totally. …”

      Seems like a repeal of the 17th Amendment would restore the original Constitutional power to the state governments that was so vital to the concept of liberty that our forefathers put into their efforts in setting the focus of ambitious power centers on each other rather than on the conquest of “we the people.”

    • Brent Morehouse says:

      @Matt – I am quite astonished by your lackadaisical attitude towards our voting rights!

      Suppose 51% (or more) of the citizens of Oklahoma vote for Candidate (A), 49%(or less) vote for Candidate (B).

      Now suppose that the national popular vote is 51% (or more) for Candidate(B). That means that my vote and the majority of voters in my state, are thrown out!

      This NPVC legislation is nothing more than trying to strip away States Rights altogether. The STATES collectively trump the Federal Government. Article V of the Constitution clearly reminds us that the STATES retained their authority over the Federal Government.

      PATRIOTS today – Get yourselves elected into the State Assemblies! This will ultimately be the path of reform that will restore sanity, strip the Federal Government of all assumed powers and restore the Republic.

  • Psutopgun says:

    How can this be done without approval of Congress. This process circumvents the Constitution and changes us from a Republic to a Democracy. THIS MUST BE STOPPED OR WE ARE DONE AS A NATION.

    • thatsitivehadenough (Nancy) says:

      Apparently a number of states have already passed this, and if a few more pass it that’s what happens. But I don’t really know. That’s just what they are saying. They may have passed a law circumventing the constitution. Who knows? They are up to mischief all the time.

      • oldgulph says:

        Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

        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 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: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

        The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

        NationalPopularVote

        • Wu Ming Ren says:

          These people should consider changing the name of our nation from the United States of America to simply America, as the popular vote would disallow the original purpose of the Electoral College, which was to account for states rights. After full-fledge democracy replaces our republican form of government, they might consider further changing the name to the People’s Republic of America (PRA), the Democratic People’s Republic of America (DPRA), or the Union of Socialist States of America (USSA). Of course, the term “Republic” would be used as loosely as it is used for the PRC, DPRK, and the former USSR.

        • Convet says:

          What part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL don’t you understand?

    • Johnc says:

      You (and many others here) obviously haven’t read up on civics or the Constitution.

      Every state is allotted electors. Under the Constitution, each state legislature determines how their electors vote. If they want to pass a law mandating the electors vote Republican every election, they can do so. If they want to pass a law mandating the taller candidate wins every election, they can do so. Originally, the states had a wide variety of laws regarding how their electors would vote.

      Eventually they gradually adopted laws saying the elector votes for the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote.

      But if some states want to tell their elector to vote for the national popular vote instead, that’s absolutely within their authority. No Congressional approval required to tell states what to do! They already have that right.

      Do yourself a favor and read up on our history and our politcs.

      • Keith in Seattle says:

        Um, they cannot “TELL” anyone to vote any way, that’s election laws. The electoral college with vote for who they please and nobody can tell them otherwise. Hence election laws.

        • oldgulph says:

          The Electoral College is the set of electors who vote for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. 2 states award by congressional district method.

          The Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained 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 . . .”

          There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable 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.

          The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

    • oldgulph says:

      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, are an example of state laws 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, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained 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.”

      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.

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

      The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.

      With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

  • Thanks for posting on this, Trevor. I’ll be sharing it and writing to my state leaders. Unbelievable what is going on in this country. I just went to the NPV website and there’s a video of Fred Thompson touting this plan. I could not believe it.

    • oldgulph says:

      You might also want to note, that 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, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole.

      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.

      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.
      http://tinyurl.com/46eo5ud

      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.”
      http://tinyurl.com/3z5brge

      Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote ” http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ 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 is 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.

    • oldgulph says:

      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

      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)
      http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php

  • You are linked to at TCL and thanks, again, for bring this to our attention.

  • The thing is obviously unconstitutional. Where are the lawyers who are going to fight this in court, and finish it off?

    • thatsitivehadenough (Nancy) says:

      The lawyers are in the White House: Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarrett. That’s why they went to law school. So they COULD circumvent the constitution. Harvard Law is as guilty as they are. As far as I am concerned.

    • Johnc says:

      How is it unconstitutional? Have you read the Constitution? What part does it violate?

    • jacquerie says:

      If you are referring to the NPVC being unconstitutional – then, yes, in the spirit of law, it is. However, if you check out the links in the article, the NPVC was carefully constructed BY lawyers as a legal means of getting around the normal requirements for constitutional amendment. So, in the strict sense, it could pass as being “legal” despite the fact that it stripped US of representative government.

      if you read some of the comments here, you’ll see how many have no idea of wht representative government is – or how it protects us from simple majority rule democracy. That’s how (intentionally) dumbed down the ‘electorate’ have become.

      And if you check the links for other law articles by this pair of brothers, you’ll see it is their job to use the law to take down the U.S. Constitution. Note that Soros son’s article was written back in 2008 – and they’ve been brainwashing their law students with this -and other – corosive notions for several years already.

      So, in sum: If the NPVC were to pass its built-in turnover of 270 electoral votes to the national popular vote winner (by no matter how small a margin) all other states where they other candidate may have won the popular vote by a larger margin – including all states which rejected the NPVC bill – would be legally under the thumb of this Machievellian measure. Then, the trouble would be the great costs and dragged out time involved in defending the actual Constitutional requirements to reverse this travesty (just like ObamaCare) In the meantime, the nation would be in a leadeship crisis and chaos – which is just what they want to happen anyway. That is why this must be nipped in the bud NOW before it reaches that conclusion.

      • oldgulph says:

        The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws 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, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained 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 National Popular Vote bill is state-based. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

        The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.

        With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

        The National Popular Vote bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

        The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, as action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

      • oldgulph says:

        With the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state’s electoral votes.

        Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation’s 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

        Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.– including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912, and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

        And, FYI, with the current system, it could only take winning the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

      • oldgulph says:

        The U.S. Constitution, existing federal statutes, and independent state statutes guarantee “finality” in presidential elections long before the inauguration day in January.

        With both the current system and National Popular Vote, all counting and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College.

        The U.S. Constitution requires the Electoral College to meet on the same day throughout the U.S. (mid-December). This sets a final deadline for vote counts from all states.

    • jacquerie says:

      See comment below: Waiting to fight this out of existence in court is NOT a viable option. It MUST be stopped at the state-by-state level to prevent the completion of this “Compact” from taking over before 2012 election. And that, sadly, appears to require EDUCATING the foolish Republican officials who have not seen through this charade and, instead, have been blindly supporting it.

      If the state assemblymen and state senators – in the remaining states where this bill is in process – hear from their voters that they will be tossed right out of office if they vote Yes on this measure, that will circumvent its passage.

  • david says:

    So what you mean to say is that the people will elect are next President and not the people that pay off the electoral collage I think that is great news then we can finely call The United States a Democracy and not a republic whats wrong with that are you so afraid that for once you won’t be able to buy of con us in to thinking that are vote for the President matters because now it will because right now the electoral collage can vote ether way without taking the popular vote in to account now WE THE PEOPLE my actually get to elect a President

    • thatsitivehadenough (Nancy) says:

      You just don’t get it. Were you educated in public school?

    • GoodMojo says:

      Anyone who knows anything about history, beyond a “government school’s” poor excuse for a curriculum, would choose orderly republic government over “mob rule”.

      As an aside, it’s difficult to take someone who doesn’t use basic punctuation (periods, commas, etc.) seriously. Given those two realities, how can we expect your opinions on anything to have been researched, or even studied?

      You know, how do we know you are not spouting the normal, juvenile, feel-good, abysmally silly, DANGEROUS, progressive claptrap?

      It is the nature of the progressive to attack the foundations of the stable and effective, while looking to replace it with the less stable and less effective.

      Get some solid historical, economic, and social perspective, then get back to us.

    • Gunny G says:

      David,

      We’re a REPUBLIC not a Democracy. Try and research how ALL democracy’s have degenerated into mob rule.

  • PATRIOT CENTRAL says:

    Could someone provide the names of the Bills, which either have been passed or are in danger of being passed?

    • jacquerie says:

      Do not have a bill #. Should be able to find this by name:

      National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC)

      also there is 1 site we’ve seen about this issue, called Save Our States
      maybe they have more info on looking up the bills

  • sodacrackers2 says:

    Trevor, you are a hero for speaking the truth in a world full of lies!

  • Mutantone says:

    And the voting machines have already been shown to be rigged to turn out whom they want look at Nevada

  • Gorgeous, autonomous, long, celebratory variety. I copulate these! And OH how I would love relished that way with the afters lanterny-chair and the teddy-bear, with the known and indulgent wallpaper. That would screw been my indication interval as a juvenile and it is accomplishable I would never human nigh it.

  • commonsense247 says:

    It’s time to remind everyone of our founding, the type of government we have and WHY, and the other types of government we don’t want and WHY. Pass this on to everyone you can – it’s a relatively short video that superbly explains it all:
    “Types of Government – Explained”

  • oldgulph says:

    The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

    Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.

    If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

    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.

    Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

    In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

    Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

    There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

    With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

    The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

    With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.

  • arlie ray jr says:

    If I read this right, the Electors of a SPECIFIC state are required to cast their votes for the candidate who has the most votes in ANOTHER state. This will happen when the ELECTORS votes are tallied and certified. So for instance, using a mythical state with 10 electoral votes, with half the population in its mythical state capitol, if the President wins in that state capitol, but loses in all the other district/precincts in the state, and his challenger wins the state, that win is nullified because more votes were for the President in the capitol and New York? If that’s how it works, then it disenfranchises voters in all states with populations smaller than California, New York etc, right? That sounds more like democracy than a representative republic. Direct democracy killed Socrates didn’t it? As I understand it, California and New York states are currently in financial trouble concerning government expenditures, it seems their electorates can’t balance their state’s checkbooks, why then should they be trusted to balance electoral results?

    • oldgulph says:

      Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the 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. No one is disenfranchised.

      Most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . 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 consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

      The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable 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.

      The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

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

      The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.

      With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

  • oldgulph says:

    National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

    With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.

  • Nina says:

    They are planning to ‘sneak’ this by the American people just like the backroom deals that have been going on in the White House with this administration! No telling what else the sly dogs have up their sleeves. Welcome Nation to corrupt Chicago politics gone wild in the White House. Obama is NOT going to stay president. I don’t care what they pull. Americans are fed up with the liberals and their plans to turn our country into a communist socialist oligraphy with a few left wing idiots at the helm. Won’t happen.

  • Brent Morehouse says:

    I am so disgusted with today’s Patriots – they are relentless in tying their hopes to career politicians – especially into one person! (The President) Are we a monarchy now?

    Even as horrible as Obama is.. (and I believe the worst about him).. he is not the root of our problems.. simply replacing him will not be the solution either.

    The solution is YOU and I, the Patriots of today must get elected into the State Assemblies—where the real power lies (2/3rd’s of the States as outlined in Article V)

    Via Article V – The following States don’t even matter! (California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maryland, Vermont, Rhode Island… plus three more).

    Does this sink in? The states listed above in this article (9) are the ones who have passed the NPVC! They are the most irresponsible states in the union – and in an Article V Convention – they don’t even have to show up!

    Even if they do… their vote counts as much as South Dakota’s!

    I feel like I’m an extreme radical for promoting what the Framers thought diligently about. They wrote and debated Article V – not me! They debated Article V during the ratification debates in the 13 State assemblies, not me!

    I simply don’t get it – today’s Patriots have blinders on – they can only see Federal Elections – especially a Presidential election as the path to reform.

    Expecting reform from Federal Elections is an attempt to ‘reform a corrupt central Government.. VIA… a corrupt central Government’. Something that has never been done in history, never!

    Brent the ‘radical’.

  • SukieTawdry says:

    I predict that the first time California electors are obligated to cast their votes for the Republican who wins the national popular vote but does not win in California (probably 2012), the law will be repealed.

  • Thanks for sharing the information about Progressives’ NPV Plan for White House Control, 2012.

10 Pingbacks »

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.