Saturday, September 1, 2012

The Shocking And Silent Attack On The Electoral College And The U.S. Constitution.

There is a silent attack going on against the way Presidents are elected. 

The supporters of the attacks claim "The bill preserves the Electoral College, while ensuring that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election." but in truth it just ensures only the large populated stated will have a real say in who is elected. Those states just happen to be Democrat states. 
Eight states and Washington, D.C., have joined the Compact so far.

Surprisingly there are some heavyweights in the RNC supporting the NPV and some are Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), and former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R) endorsed the National Popular Vote bill at a press conference on May 12, 2011, at the National Press Club in Washington DC.

"We live in a time when the American people are increasingly cynical about their government's ability to deal with our most pressing problems," said Thompson. "This means that there is a need for bold, effective presidential leadership as never before. Therefore, we simply can no longer afford to run the risk of having a president who is handicapped by not having won the most popular votes. The National Popular Vote approach offers the states a way to deal with this issue in a way that is totally consistent with our constitutional principles." Fred Thompson

Former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R):
"I'm proud that the state of Illinois was among the first to enact this plan. This isn't a red state issue or a blue state issue; it's about making sure every state has a voice in our presidential elections."

There is clearly a hate for the Electoral College.  All major Progressive groups want it abolished. The League of Women Voters of the United States (LWVUS) opposes it. But is a study the LWVUS some interesting Opposing Arguments 

"Because the U.S. Constitution gives  a state legislature the power to 
determine how a state’s electors are chosen, there could be legal challenges to a compact 
between several states on selection of electors. 

Political Compacts.   According to opponents a political compact - one that tends to enlarge the political power of compacting states at the expense of either the federal government or nonconforming sister states - may function differently from other types of interstate compacts that cover subjects such as boundaries or economics issues.   
Constitutionally, political compacts are permitted between states, but all require congressional approval. 

Under the Constitution’s Compact Clause any changes that create a shift in political 
power require congressional consent. Therefore, without  congressional consent the NPV 
Compact may not be enforceable. Congressional approval has not always been sought for  
previous state compacts, and the four states that have adopted the NPV Compact have not sought Congressional approval. 

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case about the impact of one state’s method of appointing its presidential electors on another state (1966).  However, the current Court might LWVUS National Popular Vote Compact Paper Opposing the NPV Compact
decide to hear a case on the NPV Compact, and could decide against a group of state legislatures introducing a new system of electing a president without an amendment to the Constitution. 

The U.S. Constitution is written to protect the interests of the states in order that all states will play a role in the electoral process. The NPV Compact allows as few as 11 states to determine a presidential election and could shift political power between states that are and are not party to the Compact."

And the LWVS says: "It is clear that changing the Constitution is extremely difficult; it was so designed. It is important for the League to consider whether changes in the election of the president should be accomplished through normal constitutional amendment  procedures or the ‘work around’ proposed in the NPV Compact."

The Republican Party says it is for "States Rights" yet many of it's elite old guard support the NPV.  If the NPV Compact takes effect in enough states that have 270 electoral  votes, those states say, the 11 largest states, together have the  270 electoral votes that 
would be needed for the Compact to take effect  and, if they were the only states to join the compact, could determine the outcome of the election even if 39 other states did not participate in the Compact.

This would kill the selection process the framers established and leave the people in the non Compact states totally disfranchised. Their vote would be worthless. 

We have seen the Obama DOJ fight to stop voter I.D. laws but there has been no indication they would ever fight the disfranchisement of so many millions of Americans that will clearly be caused by such a state Compact. In fact indications are they support the NPV movement.

As each state has it's own unique laws for voters, how would these differences affect voters in each state. Would the voters in one Compact state be required to follow the same requirement as those in other Compact states?  Would a state without voter I.D. laws supersede the laws in a state that may have them? Would voters or state legislatures  in all Compact states be required to follow the same rules, vote on the same type of equipment, and be able to challenge the results in other Compact states?

Another flaw with the NPV is that if a state, say New York, did not want its electors to go to the Republican who won the national popular vote. They could just break the Compact forcing the other states in the Compact to take them to court to make them honor it. This could take many months if not years to work through the court system much like obamacare did. 

On the one hand we have a system that produces results that Americans accept, and does not deny any state a seat at the political table. On the other, we have a risky scheme whose only sure result would be to make lots of money for lots of lawyers. It’s a sign of dysfunction that so many state lawmakers chose the latter.

The vote for president is the only one in which all Americans vote for a national leader. In framing the U.S. Constitution, Klein and Elliott write, the Founding Fathers displayed their characteristic wisdom and subtlety in firmly rejecting a purely popular vote to elect the president to balance the power of the larger states against the smaller.
The Electoral College was fashioned as a compromise between an election of the president by direct popular vote and election by Congress.
However, “Fool Me Twice” documents how a group backed by a who’s who of the progressive left, calling itself the National Popular Vote, or NPV, has already been successful in quietly pushing for abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a “popular vote.”
“Under the rubric of a ‘National Popular Vote,’ the plan would allow the 14 most populous American states, mostly majority-Democrat, to determine the outcome of future presidential elections. The voters of the 36 less populous states would then effectively be disenfranchised,” warn Klein and Elliott.
The plan is already gaining traction.
In 2007, Maryland became the first state to approve a “national popular vote” compact. As a result, in a theoretical winner-take-all contest, Maryland would allocate all of its 10 electoral votes to the candidate who won the most votes nationally – even if the same candidate did not win the most votes in Maryland.
By March 2012, eight states – California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington, plus the District of Columbia – had enacted the “national popular vote” into law.
Two other states, Colorado and Rhode Island, had passed it in both houses, but it had not been enacted. Ten more states had passed it in one house, and 10 others had passed it in a committee. Eleven states had held hearings on it, and nine more states had introduced bills.
While organizational support comes almost exclusively from left-leaning groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters, the Soros-funded Common Cause and the Demos group, NPV’s army of lobbyists has also been pushing its plan to the Republican National Committee, the American Legislative Exchange Council and conservative think tanks such as the Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
There is, however, one hitch in the NPV plan: For a “national popular vote” to predominate, the full 270 electoral votes needed to win must be based on identical legislation (the “interstate compact”) passed by each state.

No comments:

Post a Comment