AT: A key difference between conservatives and liberals is the way in which they handle a presidential election loss. When conservatives lose a presidential election, they take a moment to lick their wounds, then use the rest of their time in the wilderness to examine, analyze, and strategize to win the next election.
Conversely, as many commentators have noted, and as liberals’ behavior since Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Donald Trump has demonstrated, when liberals lose under the existing rules, they seek to change the rules, specifically, the Electoral College whereby the individual states choose the president, replacing it with a nationwide “popular vote.”
It is obvious why liberals, whose political philosophy and preferences are anathema to much of the nation, would want to do this. Eliminating the Electoral College means Democratic presidential candidates never having to say they’re sorry to, or consider the opinions and values of, those ignorant, gun-totin’, Bible-thumpin’ rubes in flyover country. That it would also destroy our federal system, transforming the 50 independent states into satraps of an all-powerful federal government is icing on the cake.
But if there is one thing on which liberals and conservatives can agree, it is that, the odds of convincing enough smaller states to cut off their own electoralcojones lies somewhere between zero and zilch. So our ever-inventive (when it comes to disempowering their opponents) friends on the left have conjured up a Plan B, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
At last count, the total number of electoral votes among the states so far agreeing to the NPVIC is 189, with Ohio set to vote, soon. But none of the so-called blue states has approved the NPVIC, so it remains to be seen whether, ultimately, NPVIC proponents will garner the required number of states. It also remains to be seen whether the NPVIC is constitutional. NPVIC proponents typically support their argument by paraphrasing a portion of the Constitution in order to assert that the states “determine the time and manner of elections.” But their paraphrasing is incomplete. And misleading. Here is the precise language (Article I, Section 4, emphasis added):
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
So, the “Times, Places and Manner” language to which NPVIC proponents point applies only to senators and representatives. The language for presidential elections appears elsewhere, in Article II, Section 1:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…
As Article II, Section 1, makes clear, when it comes to presidential elections, the states have just one power: the power to decide how to choose their electors. They cannot tell the electors for whom to vote. Can our liberal friends have forgotten, already, their ples in 2016 for “Trump’s electors” to eschew their pledges to vote for Donald Trump and vote instead for Hillary Clinton?
Bottom line, a state cannot “assign” its electoral votes to anyone, including the “popular vote” winner. more
the ‘progressive’ argument that there have been 4 times the popular election in the US was thwarted & proves their point is totally ridiculous.
the system worked precisely as the founders intended in each of these instances, not because of it.
History – The Electoral College;
The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. … The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President.
Note: a compromise between;
A vote in Congress;
and the Popular vote of qualified citizens.
And the childish pissing match of this from democrats continuing to expand and delude the definition of ‘qualified citizens’.
Dead on thread!
the argument for abolishing the Electoral College can be used as abolishment of the Senate … each state, regardless of population, gets 2 senators (also gets 2 additional EC votes)
maybe every state that wants NPV should give up their senators … hmmmmmm?
Every state that wants NPV wants to give up the rights of THEIR citizens’ votes to the MOBS of New York, Calif,etc. Without the Electoral college we cease to become the United STATES and become a United State. No longer are we “a Republic, if you can keep it”.
Bill Clinton won only 43% of the popular vote.
Of course Democrats choose to not remember that.
It always surprises me when they do this. I shouldnt be. Most democrats ignore the laws anyway.
The end of the electoral college is literally the end of our Union. Literally. No state outside pverpopulated leftist garbage cans will remain one of the United States to be literally RULED by leftist garbage cans thousands of miles away.
The whole thing makes me nervous.
It might only end in litigation at a most inopportune time.
“Bottom line, a state cannot “assign” its electoral votes to anyone, including the “popular vote” winner.”
Oh, yes they can. If the State is run by and full of Democrats.
notice how the more aconstitutional our legislators are permitted to act, the further we slide from the original intent…… eventually (and sadly) the document will serve as toilet paper.
“Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” Geo. Orwell
Any state that goes against the Constitution and election law needs to be excluded from the election and their votes nullified.
Did you write, “blue,” when you meant, “Republican?”
For some silly reason, red, (not blue,) means Republican.