The so-called National Popular Vote (NPV) binds the Legislatures of participating states to an agreement to appoint the state’s presidential electors according to the “national popular vote results” without respect to vote results generated by its own voters.
Thus, the Compact creates a strange hybrid system which denies representation to some while greatly amplifying the “winner-take-all” effect about which many of this compact’s supporters have long complained.
Now that election-results in Colorado and 11 other states are to be set aside BY LAW in deference to the so-called “national popular” result, an even more fundamental question is begged:
“Who determines the National Popular result and how is that done?”
The USA presently HAS NO NATIONAL ELECTIONS.
All are state elections, presided over separately by each state’s election authority. As Obama pointed out, this makes our presidential election particularly resistant to tampering and corruption.
It also means there IS NO CENTRAL, OFFICIAL (easily-corruptible) count. Each state certifies its own result. So how does the “National popular vote” tally presently get reported?
Once each state certifies its own results, the newsmedia aggregates and reports the combined results as the “national popular” result.
On the basis of WHAT are aggregated counts to be made if states are permitted to “set aside” their results in deference to results generated by the most populous states?
It’s not those who cast the votes who hold the political power.
It’s he who COUNTS the votes who holds the power.
Many on the left support the Compact BECAUSE it was deceptively sold as a way to achieve equal weight for every vote.
Proponents pointed to the fact that voters in less populous states are participating in a smaller state election. The disposition of electors, then, based on smaller number of voters, gives the voice of small-state voters greater volume. This is presented, inaccurately, as a “problem.” The solution, they say, is for every vote to have equal weight.
This is a result the Compact cannot deliver because it is an agreement by some states to set aside their vote results in deference to those generated by other states.
The only way to achieve equal weight for each vote is to do away with the Electoral College, and establish a singular, nationalized election.
Although we disagree with the leftist desire to replace individual, state elections with a centrally-controlled, national election, the winning argument to leftists is not an impassioned argument about the merits of distributed power.
The winning argument with a leftist who wants a singular, national election to replace the individual state elections is this:
“the Compact fails to deliver a centralized election because it retains the EC. The best this Compact can hope to achieve is to silence smaller-population states and let the biggest choose the president.”
If you live in CO and want to help HALT the implementation of the compact and instead refer the measure to the voters, below is the link to volunteer as a petition circulator. If your state is among those binding itself to this unconstitutional compact, I urge you to seek out and help the group(s) who are forming locally to fight it.
[…] since Hillary lost in 2016, this idea has been on a constant loop. The case against a National Popular Vote was detailed earlier this year by Global Liberty Media’s Patricia Anthone. As noted by […]