Article Image
News Link • Voting and Elections

Stealth Attack on the Constitution: National Popular Vote

• thenewamerican.com
 In fact, at least one analyst believes that if enough states pass it, it would mean the end of any chance to ever again elect a Republican as President.

The Left is keeping this George Soros-sponsored effort very hush-hush. But you need to know about it, since its adoption could render meaningless the votes of you and your friends for a Republican candidate for the nation’s highest office.

Basically, the NPV says that a state must award all of its electoral votes to whichever candidate for president wins the national popular vote — regardless of how the citizens of that state vote.

3 Comments in Response to

Comment by Joe Kohler
Entered on:

National Popular Vote doesn't change anything in the Constitution.

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 normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely 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. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

 

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections.  It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.  The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

 

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

 

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.


With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

Comment by Joe Kohler
Entered on:

Of course the National Popular Vote bill is written down

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php#exp_st-agree

“Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote”

Article I–Membership

Any State of the United States and the District of Columbia may become a member of this agreement by enacting this agreement.

Article II–Right of the People in Member States to Vote for President and Vice President

Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States.

Article III–Manner of Appointing Presidential Electors in Member States

Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a “national popular vote total” for each presidential slate.

The chief election official of each member state shall designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the “national popular vote winner.”

The presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment in that official’s own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote winner.

At least six days before the day fixed by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, each member state shall make a final determination of the number of popular votes cast in the state for each presidential slate and shall communicate an official statement of such determination within 24 hours to the chief election official of each other member state.

The chief election official of each member state shall treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate made by the day established by federal law for making a state’s final determination conclusive as to the counting of electoral votes by Congress.

In event of a tie for the national popular vote winner, the presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment of the elector slate nominated in association with the presidential slate receiving the largest number of popular votes within that official’s own state.

If, for any reason, the number of presidential electors nominated in a member state in association with the national popular vote winner is less than or greater than that state’s number of electoral votes, the presidential candidate on the presidential slate that has been designated as the national popular vote winner shall have the power to nominate the presidential electors for that state and that state’s presidential elector certifying official shall certify the appointment of such nominees. The chief election official of each member state shall immediately release to the public all vote counts or statements of votes as they are determined or obtained.

This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes.

Article IV–Other Provisions

This agreement shall take effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted this agreement in substantially the same form and the enactments by such states have taken effect in each state.

Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.

The chief executive of each member state shall promptly notify the chief executive of all other states of when this agreement has been enacted and has taken effect in that official’s state, when the state has withdrawn from this agreement, and when this agreement takes effect generally.

This agreement shall terminate if the electoral college is abolished.

If any provision of this agreement is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be affected.

Article V–Definitions

For purposes of this agreement,

“chief executive” shall mean the Governor of a State of the United States or the Mayor of the District of Columbia;

“elector slate” shall mean a slate of candidates who have been nominated in a state for the position of presidential elector in association with a presidential slate;

“chief election official” shall mean the state official or body that is authorized to certify the total number of popular votes for each presidential slate;

“presidential elector” shall mean an elector for President and Vice President of the United States;

“presidential elector certifying official” shall mean the state official or body that is authorized to certify the appointment of the state’s presidential electors;

“presidential slate” shall mean a slate of two persons, the first of whom has been nominated as a candidate for President of the United States and the second of whom has been nominated as a candidate for Vice President of the United States, or any legal successors to such persons, regardless of whether both names appear on the ballot presented to the voter in a particular state;

“state” shall mean a State of the United States and the District of Columbia; and

“statewide popular election” shall mean a general election in which votes are cast for presidential slates by individual voters and counted on a statewide basis.

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

If you hire someone to mow your grass, and the deal is set in place, that person has a job to do. His/her job is to mow your grass. But suppose that person trims your hedges instead of, or in addition to mowing your grass? What is your relationship to that person then?

What's wrong with the grass-mower-person trimming your hedges? I mean, they needed it didn't they? And it was a wonderful service done for you virtually for free, right? Possibly. But maybe not. Maybe you didn't want it done. Or maybe you were intending to hand that job over to another worker you knew, right? Or maybe you were going to teach one of your children by trimming the hedges with the child.

Now, imagine that the hedges were not yet trimmed. And imagine that some acquaintance (possibly even a friend) who happened to be walking past your house, simply stepped over and trimmed your hedges, without asking you, without notifying you, and without getting permission. How would you feel about it?

The people in Government were given a job. It was laid out in the Constitution. They even swore to uphold the Constitution. Yet, they are constantly doing other jobs that aren't written in the Constitution. And they are harming you and stealing from you by doing these other jobs. It isn't something simple like "trimming hedges" without an agreement in the hopes that you will like their work and hire them again. It's about stealing your property from you...

AND NOW THEY WANT YOU TO GIVE THEM COMPLETE REIGN OVER YOUR ENTIRE PROPERTY THROUGH A FREE-REIGN AGREEMENT THAT BYPASSES THE CONSTITUTION AGREEMENT. This new agreement is free-reign because it isn't necessarily written down, and doesn't have to be.

IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT WE STEP IN AND MAKE THE PEOPLE OF GOVERNMENT OBEY THE CONSTITUTION. But if they don't, punish them as common criminals so far as to execute them.

If we want to do this, we need not only to read the Constitution, but we also need to carefully consider what it means. Moving the country into a popular vote for elections is a bad idea. But if it is implemented, it needs to be done through AMENDMENT set by the States in a Constitutional Convention.

Let's go the other way. Lets start to make Fed Gov people obey the Constitution as it stands, first, before we start to think about changing it.


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: