The NPV may be closer than you think

[martybegan]

I don’t support winner take all. See post 24.

For this reason. Watch what you ask for, you might get it and not like the results.

WW

An amendment means a vast majority of the country wants something. I would accept an amendment even though I would vote against it.

 

[Oddball]

I don’t support winner take all. See post 24.

For this reason. Watch what you ask for, you might get it and not like the results.

WW

So winner of New York gets to take all from Kansas?

 

[jacksonlamb]

Look dumbass if the vote total in a state is for a person and the State then changes who they send electors for to another person that negates the voters in that state. And that is unconstitutional. A state that allows a vote must honor that vote.

Take a logic class, please.

 

[jacksonlamb]

You do need one, nothing in the Constitution allows for the aggregate vote of the many states' elections to interfere with what is already laid out in the Constitution. You loons really aren't very bright.

The judges don't agree with you, as you well know.

 

[westwall]

Everyone of these states could go for it in the 2027 legislatures.

View attachment 1252699

Who cares, it's unconstitutional.

 

[Independent thinker]

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-decades-long-plan-to-abolish-the-electoral-college-may-finally-pay-off/ar-AA22qrwV#comments

You folks on the right will go beserk if it happens.

The National Popular Vote Act may be in position to jump the shark this fall.

That means that it could put an end to the Electoral College and the excess of power that a minority of Americans have in several of the small states thwarting the will of the majority in the larger states.

The Electoral College — our nation’s bizarre system that hands a few narrowly-divided states the privilege to choose our presidents — has been entrenched for two centuries.

But a long-game effort from reformers, which has played out quietly in blue states across the country over the past 20 years, has gotten it surprisingly close to toppling.

Throughout the 20th century, it was believed that the only chance for nationwide Electoral College reform was a constitutional amendment, and there was a real bipartisan push to do so after the 1968 election, endorsed by President Richard Nixon. Third-party candidate George Wallace’s strength in the South had risked depriving Nixon of his electoral vote majority, meaning the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives would have determined the outcome. Despite initial momentum in Congress for a popular vote, a trio of segregationist Southerners filibustered the proposed amendment to death in 1970 with help from senators in smaller states.

The 2000 election, in which Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush was declared the winner in the decisive state of Florida after much controversy, rejuvenated interest in reform. Democrats were of course furious that Bush won, but much of the country believed it was absurd that a 537-vote margin in a single state determined the outcome. Polls showed a large majority of respondents supporting a move to a popular vote system by constitutional amendment. But amending the Constitution is toweringly difficult; ratification requires the backing of 38 states.


An alternative route was that the states could do it themselves — states could simply pledge their own electoral votes to the popular vote winner. The problem there was that if states stuck their necks out to go first, they’d be throwing away their influence under the current system. So several experts and thinkers batted around the idea of a trigger mechanism — a state law that wouldn’t go into effect until the 270-electoral-vote threshold was reached.

After the 2004 election once again came down to a single swing state, John R. Koza had had enough. A computer scientist who had become wealthy from a lottery ticket business (he co-invented the scratch-off ticket), Koza told me he “got all agitated about the fact that Ohio was the key state that reelected George W. Bush, and the rest of the country was basically ignored, including California” — his home state.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Koza had gone from state to state trying to get state lotteries established; if multiple states wanted to work together on a single lottery, they’d create an interstate compact. Koza believed the same device — a binding agreement — could work for Electoral College reform. So in 2006, he launched National Popular Vote Inc., which was (and remains) the major group lobbying for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact around the country.

And a blue wave in the 2026 midterms could finish the job.

• Since 2006, a plan to change the US presidential elections to a popular vote — by getting states controlling 270+ electoral votes to pledge their electors to the popular vote winner — has been gaining support in blue states.
• The 2026 midterms could sweep Democrats to power in enough swing states to cross that threshold, potentially putting a popular vote system in place for 2028.
• But there are legal, practical, and political questions about what, exactly, would replace the Electoral College — and whether carrying out this reform without GOP support could doom it to failure.

The big idea is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and it’s essentially one weird trick for moving to a popular vote system without a constitutional amendment.

How it works is that each participating state agrees that their electors will go to the candidate who wins the highest number of votes nationwide — if, and only if, enough other states agree so that the outcome will be determined that way.

View attachment 1252698

And, if so, yowza!!!

From AI:


Cons

• Constitutional Concerns: Critics argue that the NPVIC may violate the U.S. Constitution's Compact Clause, which requires congressional approval for certain interstate agreements.
• Potential for Disenfranchisement: Some fear that the compact could lead to the disenfranchisement of voters in smaller states, as their electoral votes maybe overshadowed by larger states.
• Complex Implementation: The NPVIC requires a minimum of 270 electoral votes from participating states to take effect, which complicates its implementation and could lead to legal challenges.

1. Now all of a sudden you are for passing something without Congressional approval? I thought you were against that.

2. Now you want to disenfranchise voters? I thought you were against that too. This is just plain voter suppression, which you claim you are against.

3. Do you think this would get past the 6-3 Supreme Court? That's where this would wind up.

This is in addition to the argument I already made in that only blue states are a member of the pact and if the pact is only full of blue states, then the democrat would have already won anyway, without the pact.

 

[Rogue AI]

The judges don't agree with you, as you well know.

What judges? The same liberal hacks who are overturned all the time? I'll take my chances that the Supreme Court will get it right.

 

[Independent thinker]

LOL I can only imagine the mass suicide in 2024 when CA, NY ... voters all realized that they had voted to elect Donald Trump for President.

Hey, now there's an idea. Maybe we should be for it.

 

[Independent thinker]

Oh brother

They can spin anything, can't they?

 

[Independent thinker]

It will be found unconstitutional since it negates the votes of people in the several states.

Exactly. And, he seems to forget that the Supreme Court is 6 -3.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Exactly. And, he seems to forget that the Supreme Court is 6 -3.

Having six is great.

What's sick is that 3 of them might find some stupid twisted argument for it.

 

[Independent thinker]

I give NPV as having no chance, exactly the same odds I give the ending of birthright citizenship.

I gotta disagree with that somewhat. I give NPV a zero chance. Birthright I would give about a 20% chance.

 

[Independent thinker]

LOL....Would you have really wanted Hillary?

Hell, it was obvious for a while at least that even Bill didn't want Hillary. She probably doesn't give blowjobs while others did.

 

[Independent thinker]

Again, it will never pass Constitutional Muster. It disenfranchises entire states voters votes and is completely unconstitutional.

Fantasies keep them going.

 

[Independent thinker]

Libs aren't big on math. Or science. Or logic.

They are like little baby birds, born with their mouths wide open waiting for mommy to feed them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

An amendment means a vast majority of the country wants something. I would accept an amendment even though I would vote against it.

Whether you accept a vote of the legislature determining how the allocate EC votes isn’t at issue.

Barring constitutional limitations, or Congressional action, the NOV falls within the purview of the state legislature.

WW

 

[Independent thinker]

He still did not win the majority of the vote (over 50%) which is going to make these laws all the more interesting.

They'll never survive the judiciary.

And if they do somehow, it will be the end of the Republic.

Democrats would be taking democracy away.

 

[martybegan]

Whether you accept a vote of the legislature determining how the allocate EC votes isn’t at issue.

Barring constitutional limitations, or Congressional action, the NOV falls within the purview of the state legislature.

WW

Said vote would be unconstitutional. It's an end run. nothing more.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So winner of New York gets to take all from Kansas?

View attachment 1253031

No winner take all in New York means a 59%+1 vote election means all NY EC votes go to the one candidate.

Kansas has nothing to do with BY current winner take all allocation.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Said vote would be unconstitutional. It's an end run. nothing more.

No it’s not.

It’s the state legislature determining the allocation.

WW