National Popular Vote

Our situation is desperate. We need conservatives to mobilize in several key states to head off disaster.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an initiative designed to prevent purple states from being won by President Trump in 2020. It is a scheme to steal the electoral votes of purple states away from their voters by subterfuge. Legislatures with Democrat majorities in states with Democrat governors have passed this law while most Trump voters were busy with their personal lives. The people are having their votes stolen away from them without any chance to directly vote on the measure.

The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes).  It has been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes…. The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 74 electoral votes.  

It has also passed at least one legislative chamber in 8 states possessing 75 electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK). 

I think Republicans in Arkansas and Oklahoma are positioned to kill the NPVIC.

We need to stir up as much opposition as possible in Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Nevada.

9+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

46 thoughts on “National Popular Vote”

  1. Thanks to Hypatia, whose comment elsewhere stirred me up to post.

    Here is the site of these snakes. Their map was last updated three weeks ago.

    https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

     

    Arizona, Arkansas and Oklahoma have governors who are Republicans. They might need a note of support from citizens.

    There are Democrat governors in Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Nevada. The situation is precarious in those states. If you live in or have any way to influence citizens in those states, please apply yourself.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  2. NPVIC is already the law in fifteen states.

    It has been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 5 small jurisdictions (DC, DE, HI, RI, VT), 7 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NM, OR, WA), and 4 big states (CA, IL, NJ, NY).  

    If you live in any of these places, make as much noise as you can about how your vote has been stolen.

    0

  3. As I said, I very much fear it  isn’t unconstitutional.  My only hope so far i#that most of these states woulda voted Dem  anyway.  The Demoncrats are desperate now.

    If you have any ideas about 2hat we can actually DO, I’m listening.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  4. Ok, you’ve guilted me into something I should’ve done already. I’ve just been banking on the fact that this is very unconstitutional. I’m in N.C. and will start shaking some bushes.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  5. If I understand this correctly… does it mean that news reports on election night can’t call those states that passed this legislation until all of the votes have been counted in the entire country?

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  6. JJ:
    If I understand this correctly… does it mean that news reports on election night can’t call those states that passed this legislation until all of the votes have been counted in the entire country?

    I think it would mean the could call the results of the popular vote in each state, but it wouldn’t matter, cuz the electoral vote won’t be announced till the entire national  popular vote is counted.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  7. Blondie:
    Ok, you’ve guilted me into something I should’ve done already. I’ve just been banking on the fact that this is very unconstitutional. I’m in N.C. and will start shaking some bushes.

    I think it would be a very complicated constitutional argument.  You’d have to go back to why we have the electoral college, and exactly want it was supposed to do.  🤔

    If we can make an argument that it was meant to prevent tyranny by the most populous states, would that even be enough, if smaller states are, in this compact, voluntarily giving away their power?

    Can there be an argument  that this is one of those areas where a state should not even be permitted, for the sake of its future demos,  to give up its own rights?   Something as fundamental as if a state wanted to say: we know the federal constitution guarantees us freedom of speech and religion, but we dont want it in 2019: what our people want right now is to criminalize  any  criticism of Islam…no it doesn’t make sense it a States ‘ rights context.  We’re screwed.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  8. Hypatia:

    Blondie:
    Ok, you’ve guilted me into something I should’ve done already. I’ve just been banking on the fact that this is very unconstitutional. I’m in N.C. and will start shaking some bushes.

    I think it would be a very complicated constitutional argument.  You’d have to go back to why we have the electoral college, and exactly want it was supposed to do.  🤔

    If we can make an argument that it was meant to prevent tyranny by the most populous states, would that even be enough, if smaller states are, in this compact, voluntarily giving away their power?

    Can there be an argument  that this is one of those areas where a state should not even be permitted, for the sake of its future demos,  to give up its own rights?   Something as fundamental as if a state wanted to say: we know the federal constitution guarantees us freedom of speech and religion, but we dont want it in 2019: what our people want right now is to criminalize  any  criticism of Islam…no it doesn’t make sense it a States ‘ rights context.  We’re screwed.

    I seem to recall there was quite a back and forth in deliberations around the formulation of the Constitution regarding national versus federal government. The fact that we wound up with federal government probably works against the concept of ‘national popular vote’, but not necessarily the question of constitutionality.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  9. If the supreme court (sic) were to allow this compact to undo a clear Constitutional requirement, it might as well take the original document into their chambers and burn it. There will surely be flames in many other locations.

    6+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  10. Haven’t yet listened to the podcast John Walker references in comment #10, but my understanding is that Interstate Compacts have to by approved by the Congress. Has the Congress approved this one?

    I also think (but am not a lawyer) think that since the Feds are supposed to guarantee each state a republican form of government, the Feds could stop this. I can think of nothing less republican than having voters in other states decide how your state’s elector vote.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  11. danok1:
    Haven’t yet listened to the podcast John Walker references in comment #10, but my understanding is that Interstate Compacts have to by approved by the Congress. Has the Congress approved this one?

    I also think (but am not a lawyer) think that since the Feds are supposed to guarantee each state a republican form of government, the Feds could stop this. I can think of nothing less republican than having voters in other states decide how your state’s elector vote.

    Yeah but what if that method is what the state’s people want? This is the dilemma of democracy…

    0

  12. I don’t have a job. I don’t care about this crap.

    There is nothing I can do to save the Republic.

    Call me when the sectarian civil war starts.

    8+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  13. Hypatia:

    Blondie:
    Ok, you’ve guilted me into something I should’ve done already. I’ve just been banking on the fact that this is very unconstitutional. I’m in N.C. and will start shaking some bushes.

    I think it would be a very complicated constitutional argument.  You’d have to go back to why we have the electoral college, and exactly want it was supposed to do.  🤔

    If we can make an argument that it was meant to prevent tyranny by the most populous states, would that even be enough, if smaller states are, in this compact, voluntarily giving away their power?

    Can there be an argument  that this is one of those areas where a state should not even be permitted, for the sake of its future demos,  to give up its own rights?   Something as fundamental as if a state wanted to say: we know the federal constitution guarantees us freedom of speech and religion, but we dont want it in 2019: what our people want right now is to criminalize  any  criticism of Islam…no it doesn’t make sense it a States ‘ rights context.  We’re screwed.

    The big issue is that we have justices who were taught in modern law schools which do not teach adherence to the document as it was ratified. The teach means to an end shrouded in some sense of legal reasoning. If this question got to the court, I foresee a 6-3 decision at best this being found constitutional.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  14. John Walker:
    Prof. Richard Epstein discussed this National Popular Vote scheme on the 2019-03-22 Hoover “The Libertarian” podcast (the discussion starts around the 9 minute mark in the recording) and concludes that it is blatantly unconstitutional and would be held so, especially by the present Supreme Court.

    https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-wv77c-ab94d3

    Let’s hope he’s right.

    I wager $100 he’s wrong. These people are products of a legal education that does not give a damn about the law only what advances the leftist agenda. Thomas might be the only solid opinion on this and he might be enough to get two others. But we know four votes are goners and then Roberts. I could see Gorsuch and/or Kavanaugh going that way too.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  15. I think Bryan is absolutely correct on this: the republic is dead. Has been for a while. We need to prepare and advocate for separation and disintegration. Small republics are best.

    7+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  16. I tell any advocate of abolishing the Electoral College this simple message:

    “Stop trying to make the Hunger Games happen.”

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  17. MJBubba:
    Our situation is desperate.

    This claim and the thesis of the post are based on the notion that we can never again win the popular vote, specifically in 2020. I dispute both the general and the specific claim. There have only been two recent elections in which the Electoral College’s outcome differed from the popular vote’s. Two instances do not a trend make.

    Regardless of the fate of this particular National Popular Vote initiative, a system that consistently elects a president who did not win the popular vote will be changed one way or another. If the right wing, however it is embodied in a political party, never again wins the popular vote, the United States is finished. It might be finished anyway.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  18. Bryan G. Stephens:
    I don’t have a job. I don’t care about this crap.

    There is nothing I can do to save the Republic.

    Call me when the sectarian civil war starts.

    Oh, Bryan, you’re right: these “agonies are evils of a day” as Byron put it.    I so much hope to hear good news from you soon.  The personal puts the merely political into perspective.

    drlorentz:

    MJBubba:
    Our situation is desperate.

    This claim and the thesis of the post are based on the notion that we can never again win the popular vote, specifically in 2020. I dispute both the general and the specific claim. There have only been two recent elections in which the Electoral College’s outcome differed from the popular vote’s. Two instances do not a trend make.

    Regardless of the fate of this particular National Popular Vote initiative, a system that consistently elects a president who did not win the popular vote will be changed one way or another. If the right wing, however it is embodied in a political party, never again wins the popular vote, the United States is finished. It might be finished anyway.

    Dems are ensuring  we can’t win the popular vote by importing polyglot hordes, is the point.

    7+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  19. Not to mention the bulk of the right’s voters are 55 and up and there is little hint at them being replaced by younger voters. The numbers just aren’t there. People selling the idea that we could ever again have a “Reagan-type” landslide are selling lies. People who say that voters want something different than what dems are peddling are selling false hope. We should cut ties politically and let them sink in their own ship.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  20. danok1:
    Haven’t yet listened to the podcast John Walker references in comment #10, but my understanding is that Interstate Compacts have to by approved by the Congress. Has the Congress approved this one?

    I also think (but am not a lawyer) think that since the Feds are supposed to guarantee each state a republican form of government, the Feds could stop this. I can think of nothing less republican than having voters in other states decide how your state’s elector vote.

    A quick trip to WIKI (cuz I never studied the clause about interstate compacts in law school!) indicates that the Supreme Court  has interpreted the congressional approval requirement  to apply only where the compact would increase a state’s power.  At first, it seemed clear to me that this compact would do the opposite—but let someone weigh in whose legal scholarship is fresher ( lookin’ @ you, RMcR!)

    This effort has evidently been going on for awhile.  I hope there is a clear Constitutional case against it, but, if there is, why hasn’t anybody brought one yet?

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  21. Enough with the negative waves.

    So long as there is a hope that western civilization can be preserved without massive bloodshed, we should pursue all possible political strategies with as much energy as we can muster.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  22. Hypatia:
    Dems are ensuring  we can’t win the popular vote by importing polyglot hordes, is the point.

    That is precisely the point. Immigration is the issue, not this initiative. And with de facto open borders, nothing else matters. Obsessing over the National Popular Vote thing is a waste of time and, more important, a distraction. Once the demographic change is complete, the National Popular Vote initiative will be the least of your worries.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar

Leave a Reply