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

In April of 2014 I posted the article below--and it's more relevant today:

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 zero, 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 chosen by the winner of the national popular vote-- without having to amend the Constitution. 

This scheme exploited an ambiguity in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution--the section that established the electoral college.  That section states 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 direct their electors to cast their electoral votes for the candidate who won the nationwide popular vote, the electoral college system would magically be transformed into the "popular vote wins" rule sought by Democrats. 

Simple.  "Elegant, citizen."  "Perfectly legal, citizen, cuz the Constitution allows this, see?"

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 pull here: 

Under the Dem 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 passes this law, then if a majority in your state votes for the Republican candidate for president but the Dem wins the national popular vote, 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 what the drafters and signers of the Constitution clearly intended doesn't matter to the cunning creators of this Democrat scheme.  The only thing that matters to them is the ability to take advantage of a legal loophole--even when that result contradicts a very clear provision of the Constitution.

Each state's law specifies that this mandate shall go into effect as soon as states controlling a majority of electoral votes to win the presidency--which, as everyone knows, is 270-- pass similar bills.

This scheme is really brilliant in devising a way to abolish the electoral college system without the inconvenience of having to amend the Constitution. 

Obviously this would change the way presidential elections are decided--and hugely to the benefit of the big, urban, Democrat-voting states.  And Democrat pols know this an unconstitutional end-run--using a loophole to do something that violates the clear intent of the Constitution.  But they have a cunning, clever answer ready to parry:

When a critic of the scheme charged that NPV was an end-run around the constitutional amendment process, law professor Jamie Raskin replied,

"The term 'end run' has no known constitutional or legal meaning. ...it's a perfectly lawful play."

In other words, top Democrats all know this scheme violates the explicit provisions of the Constitution--but like Raskin, smugly note that 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 scheme is a totally 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. 

If you click on the link you may also notice something else:  The party affiliation of the governors who have signed NPV bills into law in their state is never mentioned.

Conservatives might seek to minimize concern about this scheme by assuring you that the Supreme Court would quickly declare this abomination unconstitutional.  But courts only hear cases where plaintiffs have suffered actual damage--and the first damage will be after the Democrat states have stolen a presidency via the NPV scheme.

Now, I'm willing to bet that unless you follow political matters very closely, not one of you has heard a single word about this unconstitutional scheme.  I'll also bet that every liberal who's not in on the scheme will immediately claim this 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, NPV 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.

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 Democrat pols think changing our system of electing presidents to the winner of the 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 they're going to use a loophole to change the rules to favor their party.