9.25.19:
Evidently, the argument in favor of popular election of the POTUS is back, as Bongino is talking about it on his latest show.
Perhaps not the Compact itself, which is failing. These people may try to eliminate it by fiat. Of course, that in itself is against the law, but why should this stop them?
I don't know if Bongino mentioned this, as I shifted immediately into this post, and failed to watch all of what he said. Here's the thought I had. If there were a popular vote scenario in effect in 1860, Abraham Lincoln would not have been elected. Why?
The Democrats of that time split up, and that is how Abraham Lincoln won. Lincoln did not win a majority. If you have a popular vote setup, then there is going to be some type of runoff that would have produced a winner of the majority of the votes cast. In such a scenario, it would have resulted in a runoff between Lincoln and the Democrats with the most votes. Southern voters would have united with the Northern Democrats, and voted Stephen A. Douglas as POTUS.
That would have meant no Emancipation Proclamation. No freedom for the slaves.
Mention this bit of history to the lefties, and let's see them argue their way around that one.
5.29.19:
This poll might be more useful if it were to be held in each of the 50 states, as opposed to what they have done here. It is irrelevant what the people overall think of the matter, as the states' legislatures are the sole decision-makers of any POTUS election.
In order to change this, there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution, which takes 2/3rd of the Congress to propose and submit to the states for ratification. Otherwise, 3/4ths of the states can apply to Congress for a Constitutional Convention.
Rule of law my ass. National Popular Vote is a compact between states, which is against the CONUS.
The National Popular Vote is ILLEGAL.
Most Americans still understand the reason the #FoundingFathers established the #ElectoralCollege and are increasingly opposed to efforts to get rid of it... https://t.co/mP4WMPQo8O pic.twitter.com/BMoUzESzs1— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) May 28, 2019
5.22.19:
Honestly, nothing is changing you people. The same causes, the same effects.
The Democrats are acting as if they have a grievance, which they do not.
The Democrats knew the law going into the election. Change the law, by the appropriate and lawful means, and there's no problem.
They have to know full well that this is illegal. For instance, how is it not a compact if it only goes into effect if 270 electoral votes are obtained this way???
You cannot count on the Supreme Court, either. Remember what John Roberts did?
I tell you what the problem is. The left thinks that they can do this because nobody will do a thing about it. If you allow this to happen, GOP, then you have no credibility whatsoever as an opposition party.
I see no effort to stomp this into the ground. Yes, I know how that sounds, but the left is giving us a stark choice here. Surrender or fight.
Nevada Senate passes bill that would give Electoral College votes to winner of national popular vote https://t.co/0baM5j0gT3— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 22, 2019
5.7.19:
As has been written many times before, this movement is gravely flawed. Not only that, as it is being considered now in state houses across the USA, it is unlawful. This post will aggregate all the links to posts already made on the subject.
Besides that, there will be another argument against it. That is, the right of states to regulate their own voting processes that will lead to a flawed national outcome based upon flawed internal processes.
If a totally blue state rigs its elections, so that no GOP candidate can campaign there, then how can that vote be counted amongst the national popular vote? In other words, if you have a national popular vote, then the states can no longer be responsible for the regulation of their own votes in their own jurisdictions. A national election, as opposed to a federal system that now exists, will entail the use of national regulations. Local regulations will have to be swept aside for a national standard of how the votes will be counted. But the National Popular Vote Compact wants to use local standards to decide national outcomes.
Under the current system, if a state wants a rigged election, they can have one. After all, California is a one party state. Nothing illegal about that under the federal system. For many years, the "solid south" voted Democrat. Now, the "solid south" has morphed into a solid blue state model. This blue state model wants to impose itself upon the entire country through this national popular vote proposition. For that to happen legally, they have to get a majority of the electoral votes under the current system. Or they have to abolish the Electoral College system, which maintains a federal character to the US system. The national popular vote proposition seeks to amass enough electoral votes in order to make the current electoral system obsolete. This will destroy the federal system that now exists, and make it a national one instead.
In order to get a legal system, they have to rig election outcomes to such an extent that the national popular vote will never be competitive again. For example, many states want to exclude Trump from the ballot if he does not turn over his tax returns. However, if Trump is not allowed to run on these states' ballots, he cannot get the votes of those people in that state who would like to vote for him. His vote totals will suffer accordingly. How then can a GOP candidate ever win? The partisans in each of these blue states will exclude a candidate from the ballot, and even if he could win a fair national election, he won't be allowed to.
Under the present system, a state legislature can award its electors however it chooses. But it cannot have a fair election without precautions against rigged outcomes. In other words, the blue state model wants to pretend to hold elections without actual having one. Even if a states citizens prefer Trump, the national popular vote compact would require that state to ignore the will of the people in that state, and award it to the winner of the national popular vote. May sound fair to some, but if the rules of counting votes are rigged in the various solid blue states, how can a fair vote be tallied nationwide?
The only way to have a truly fair national election is to remove the Electoral College system. But to do so will come at the cost of having a federally organized government. For this, you need a constitutional amendment. This is very unlikely to pass, and these activists in favor of the national popular vote know it. That is why they are trying an end run around the law, and are trying to impose an inherently undemocratic process upon the rest of the nation. It is unlawful, and should be declared unconstitutional.
Now, for the rest of the links on the arguments against this flawed compact.
- Trump could be excluded from ballots of 18 states
- A flaw in the National Popular Vote Compact
- National Vote Compact disenfranchises voters
- A republic not a democracy
- Electoral College promotes issue oriented campaigns, popular vote will destroy that
- Ruling class v. country class and how self hatred is at the helm
No comments:
Post a Comment