Democrats who not only gained power in Congress but also in state legislatures during this week’s midterms votes now are planning a national insurrection that seeks, in effect, to eliminate the Electoral College.
Such a move would erase, permanently, the value of all votes in states like Kansas. Like South Dakota. Like Montana. Like North Dakota. Like Utah.
Because it would mean that other states would “promise” each other to throw all their EC votes toward the winner of the national popular vote, giving extraordinary power to huge population centers like New York, Los Angeles and others already run by extremists with Marxist tendencies.
For example, South Dakota could turn in votes for a Republican candidate, and under the constitutional plan, its few Electoral College votes would be for that candidate.
Under the so-called interstate compact being developed, other states would promise to give their votes to the popular vote winner, possibly a Democrat, and that candidate would win, regardless of how the actual Electoral College votes would have fallen.
Of course such a plan is voluntary, and as it would abrogate a plan specified in the Constitution, it undoubtedly would be challenged in court.
Social media expressed alarm: “That would be the death of America. I would counter argue States should move to electoral style voting with their counties. Why should a city like Chicago dictate the rest of the State? Do they represent or understand the farmers?”
There even was talk of resistance to such an insurrection.
“At that point it becomes the duty of every American to rise up and overthrow their government. Somehow the left thinks Antifa and these NGO funded pu**ies are somehow capable of real combat. When they run out of meds, they will be committing suicide and shooting each other.”
“That would be ruled unconstitutional as the Constitution requires the EC. No way around it and no pact can get around it.”
“What this means is the popular vote pact ‘member states’ would willingly disenfranchise their own state voters to conspire to follow this compact. I seriously question whether that would pass Constitutional challenges at the federal court level, not to mention the Supreme Court.”
Leftists Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov were celebrating the concept.
Galloway said: “The National Popular Vote Compact basically does away with the Electoral College.”
He claimed the Constitution’s requirements “pervert” democracy, giving influence to a “small number of states.”
Currently, some 270 Electoral College votes are needed for a presidential election victory, based on one vote for each member of the House and Senate.
Tarlov claimed it would be a “logical” way to elect officials.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been promoted by leftists for 20 years already.
The Constitution allows states the authority to determine how they appoint their presidential electors. Nearly every state currently awards its electoral votes to the candidate who wins that state’s popular vote.
The compact would change that. States joining the agreement promise to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate wins their own state, reports confirmed.
A column at Townhall warned Democrats want to be “fundamentally changing the way we elect the president of the United States.”
It suggested people think about what the Democrats want:
“Imagine that Pennsylvania votes for the Republican presidential nominee in 2028. Not by a few hundred votes, but by a decisive margin. Pennsylvania voters have spoken. They want the Republican. But if Pennsylvania joins this compact and the Democrat wins the national popular vote, Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes would go to the Democrat. The candidate Pennsylvania voters rejected would receive every one of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes.”
“The compact doesn’t technically abolish the Electoral College. The electors would still exist. They would still meet. They would still cast their votes. But the outcome would be determined by the national popular vote rather than the individual results in each state,” the report said.
So far states with 222 votes have agreed to cast aside their own voters’ wishes.
The leftists need states with another 48 votes to join.
The commentary explained there would be challenges.
“Article I contains the Compact Clause, which restricts certain agreements among states without congressional consent. And the larger question is whether states can effectively transform the presidential election system through an agreement that circumvents the constitutional amendment process. The Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on this particular compact.
“Apparently, the Constitution is perfectly acceptable to Democrats right up until it becomes inconvenient.”
Another problem? “Here’s another problem that deserves considerably more scrutiny. Every state runs its elections differently. Different registration requirements. Different mail-in ballot procedures. Different signature verification standards. Different recount rules. Different deadlines. Under the current Electoral College system, a disputed presidential election can come down to recounts in a handful of closely contested states. Now imagine an election in which the national popular vote is separated by 15,000 votes. Nationwide. Are we going to recount California? Texas? Florida? New York? Pennsylvania? All of them? What happens when one state allows a recount and another doesn’t? What happens when a state that never joined the compact becomes the center of a dispute over the national vote total? What happens when the results of a presidential election depend on thousands of ballots being counted under dozens of different election laws?”
The commentary pointed out that such an agenda actually is a “betrayal of the voters who trusted Democrats to address their economic concerns” during this election.
Continue reading...
[ H/T WorldNetDaily ]
