The NPV may be closer than you think

[jacksonlamb]

you deny he won the popular vote?

I deny he won the majority of the popular vote.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

you deny he won the popular vote?

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I deny he won the majority of the popular vote.

And yet, he was still the popular vote winner.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I deny he won the majority of the popular vote.

retard he got more votes the Harris and he won all swing states.

 

[HikerGuy83]

How is this any different than what is being done now? Almost every state in the union uses the PV to determine how it electors go.

You don't see the difference in your own post.

Remember: if you care to try...that the states created the federal government....not the other way around.

The constitution was about protecting the states.

They do how they will.

In a red state....if they vote for candidate X and the state governemnt insteads sends electors for candidate Y, the people will burn the statehouse to the ground.

But that won't be necessary because the SCOTUS is never going to allow voters to be disenfranchised like that.

 

[HikerGuy83]

retard he got more votes the Harris and he won all swing states.

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.

 

[Rawley]

Read the language, wrongloid.

I did. Perhaps you should.

"Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of California urges each state legislature and governor to ratify the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote"

 

[Concerned American]

You mean the minority of the rest of you.

Sure, whatever you say. Try finding someone in any one of those listed municipalities that wouldn't starve if left to their own resources. SMH.

 

[Rawley]

I deny he won the majority of the popular vote.

WTF does that mean? Certain not in the NPV bills.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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

It in fact reads like the state would have been awarded to him/bush without argument...unless of course the state is somehow required to ignore its own majority.

 

[BlindBoo]

It is not really a good substitute for amending the Constitution. But I don't think a national popular election for the executive branch would fundamentally change the nature of our Constitutional Republic, after all, it was built on Democratic norms. I think we should have other national referendums too.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It is not really a good substitute for amending the Constitution. But I don't think a national popular election for the executive branch would fundamentally change the nature of our Constitutional Republic, after all, it was built on Democratic norms. I think we should have other national referendums too.

The entire purpose of our "constitutional" democracy was to fix the flaws in democracy that failed to address the needs of the minority whose rights and voice are often stifled and even trampled by majority rule, I have no problem with a constitutional amendment to change our constitution, but this is just one more way white liberals have found to try and skirt the constitution...do it right or don't do it.

 

[marvin martian]

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!!!

Trump won the popular vote in 2024.

 

[Eman623]

If the NVP passes, I would look forward to CA, OR, WA, IL, NY, etc, sending electoral delegates for the GOP candidate in 2028.

 

[jknowgood]

There was not a majority of the votes for Trump.

He won the popular vote dumbass.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He won the popular vote dumbass.

he of course won't answer when we ask him who should have been made President after the vote was in.

 

[candycorn]

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!!!

Its not going to happen. Turn the page.

 

[jacksonlamb]

I love the way the alt right is running around and roaring like cowardly lions.

We will see what the elections bring.

 

[marvin martian]

I love the way the alt right is running around and roaring like cowardly lions.

We will see what the elections bring.

Trump won the popular vote in 2024.

No one told you that, huh?

 

[Doc7505]

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!!!

<~~~~~~~~~~>
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) can be implemented without a constitutional amendment, as it allows states to decide how to allocate their electoral votes based on the nationwide popular vote. However, some legal observers argue that it may require congressional consent under the Constitution's Compact Clause.
The compact’s goal is to award each member state’s electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of how that state voted.
The author claims this would nullify the Electoral College in practice.

Source:

National Popular Vote

Learn about the National Popular Vote movement and how it aims to fix the broken Electoral College system in the US presidential elections.

www.commoncause.org

xxxxxxxxxx​

National Popular Vote: Circumventing the United States Constitution - Princeton Legal Journal

By Alexandra Orbuch — In 2016, Donald Trump became President of the United States after winning a majority of electors (he won 304 electoral votes, surpassing the necessary 270 votes) but losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton. For reference, the national popular vote is the direct vote of...

legaljournal.princeton.edu

xxxxxxxxxx​

Combination Among the States: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an Unconstitutional Attempt to Reform the Electoral College – Harvard Journal on Legislation

journals.law.harvard.edu

xxxxxxxxxx​

MSN