Tuesday, December 9

Democrats gaining ground to change presidential elections to winner of the national popular vote

Last April I posted this:
Well, well, well.  I wondered what attack on our Constitution the Democrats would mount next, and here it is:  It's called the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact"--and it's a real bomb.

As every American knows, we elect presidents based on a majority of "electoral votes" rather than a majority of the popular vote.  This system was explicitly written into the Constitution because the representatives of smaller states were reluctant to sign the Constitution if it specified that the president would be chosen by the winner of the popular vote, as they feared that only candidates from large states could win.

Needing all the states to sign on, the Founders devised the "electoral college," in which each state has a number of electoral votes equal to the total of its senators and representatives.  Since every state has two senators this system leveled the playing field for smaller states to some extent, since it blended population size with the uniform two senators per state.

Frankly it strikes me as a brilliant compromise.  But Democrats--and a few RINOs--want to junk it.

The impetus for this move arose from the results of the 2000 election, in which the Democrat won the popular vote but the Republican won a majority of electoral votes. This was the infamous Bush-Gore election, and to say the Democrats were furious is a huge understatement.
Crazed by losing the presidency despite getting more votes nationwide, Democrats looked for a way to prevent this from ever happening again.  They knew the chances of amending the Constitution to so hugely favor the big, solidly-Democrat-voting states were microscopic since that would require two-thirds of the states to approve a Constitutional amendment that disadvantaged half of them

Then brothers Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar proposed a way to change the rules so that the president would be whoever won the national popular vote, without having to amend the Constitution.  The scheme exploited an ambiguity in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution--the section that established the electoral college.  This section provides that state legislatures shall appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct."  These "electors" then do the actual voting for president and veep.
SO...if Dems could just get Democrat-controlled states to agree to order their electors to cast all their electoral votes for the candidate who won a majority of the nationwide popular vote, the electoral college system would be transformed into the "popular vote wins" rule sought by Democrats.  Simple.

Let's go through that one more time, slowly, because most people miss how ghastly a rape of the Constitution and the residents of small states that the Dems are trying to do here:  Under their  proposal, all participating states would be required by their own state law to direct their "electors" to cast their electoral votes for the (presumably Democrat) winner of the national popular vote even if a majority of voters in that state voted Republican.

Did you catch it this time?  Cool deal, eh?  If your state signs on to this, then if a majority in your state votes for the Republican candidate for president but 50.1% of the national popular vote goes to the Democrat, your state would be required by its own state law to cast its electoral votes for the Democrat. 
Does anyone imagine the Founders--the guys who wrote the Constitution--ever envisioned a scenario in which a state would NOT cast its electoral votes for the winner of that state's popular vote?  But of course original intent doesn't matter to Democrats--what counts is the ability to exploit a loophole, no matter how strained the outcome.

Each state's law specifies that this mandate shall go into effect as soon as states controlling a majority of electoral votes pass similar bills.

It's really brilliant in finding a way to do away with the electoral college system without a constitutional amendment.  There's no question it would change the way presidential elections were decided--and unquestionably hugely to the benefit of the big, urban, Democrat-voting states.  But as to the ethics, consider how law professor Jamie Raskin replied to a critic who charged that the device was "an end-run around the constitutional amendment process:"  Raskin responded that "the term 'end run' has no known constitutional or legal meaning. ...the 'end run' is a perfectly lawful play."

In other words, top Democrats all know this subverts the explicit provisions of the Constitution, but it does so in a way that's technically legal.  So screw you if you don't like it.  "Besides, the Constitution is dead anyway.  Except when we Dems declare it's a 'living document' when we want to change something we don't like."

If you click on the Wiki link you'll see this is a Democrat play all the way:  All the states that have joined are Democrat strongholds.  The scheme is supported by the NYT, LA Times, Chicago and Boston papers. 

You may notice something else about the Wiki piece:  The party affiliation of the governors who have signed bills into law in their state is never mentioned.

Normally one would assume the Supreme Court would quickly declare this abomination unconstitutional.  But after John Roberts voted to declare Obamacare constitutional by virtue of the government's power to levy a tax--even though team Obama had explicitly claimed it was NOT a tax, and despite the fact that the bill didn't originate in the House, which the Constitution says must originate all taxing measures, clearly the fix is in.  (Some have suggested he's being blackmailed over an irregularity in the adoption of his children.)
Now, I'm willing to bet that unless you follow political matters very closely, not one of you has heard about this.  I'll also bet that every liberal who's not a politician or advisor will immediately think this whole story is bullshit--a scare-story pushed by Fox News.  Well, here are the states that have passed this abomination into fucking LAW:
In 2007, NPVIC legislation was introduced in 42 states.  Maryland was the first to join the compact when Democrat governor Martin O'Malley signed the bill into law on April 10, 2007.

New Jersey: Corrupt Democrat governor Jon S. Corzine signed the bill in January, 2008. 

Illinois:  Corrupt Democrat governor Rod Blagojevich signed the bill in April, 2008.

Hawaii:  The bill passed when the Democrat-controlled legislature overrode a second veto by the governor.

Washington state:  Democrat governor Christine Gregoire signed it into law in April, 2009.

Massachusetts:  Democrat governor Deval Patrick signed it into law in August, 2010.

In the totally Democrat-controlled District of Columbia the bill was signed by its Democrat mayor in October, 2010.  (D.C. doesn't have a legislature as such and is theoretically barred from passing laws but this was amended so they CAN pass laws unless one chamber of the U.S. congress objects.  None did.)

Vermont:  Democrat governor Peter Shumlin signed it into law in April, 2011.

California:  Democrat governor Jerry Brown signed it into law in August, 2011.

Rhode Island:  Democrat governor Lincoln Chafee (originally a Republican but switched parties) signed the bill into law in July, 2012.

New York:  Democrat Andrew Cuomo signed bill into law in April of this year.  The Wikipedia article helpfully notes that the vote in the state assembly was "bipartisan."  Well yeah, since the bill would hugely increase that state's power.  Duh.
So far Democrats have managed to get Dem-controlled states representing 165 electoral votes to pass this monstrosity.  That's over 60 percent of the 270 EV's needed to activate this scheme and thus eliminate the electoral-college system.  (It would technically remain but would simply ratify the nationwide popular vote.)

So once again--as with Obama's re-writing immigration law to grant amnesty by executive order (after saying on many occasions that the Constitution did not allow him to do that)--the Democrats have taken concrete actions to overthrow a fundamental provision of the Constitution.

If you Dems think changing our system to popular vote is a good idea, why not amend the Constitution?  Oh, that's right:  You know you'd never get it approved by two-thirds of the states.  So you're going to use a loop-hole to get what you want--because you know it favors your party in future elections.  Clever.  Typical Democrat/leftists.

Finally, just as a mental exercise:  Imagine that if this "compact" goes into effect, and in the future a Republican manages to win the national vote, how many of the Democrat-run states in this "compact" will suddenly decide their state law committing them to the thing are really, you know, not legal or something, so let's quickly repeal 'em.  Or have state courts do the same, which is a lot faster.

Yeah, democracy, baby!


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home