California governor Jerry Brown has just signed legislation adding California to the National Popular Vote compact, which provides that member states will give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It will take effect only if it comes to include states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes, the minimum necessary to elect a president. Seven other states and the District of Columbia have joined, with 77 electoral votes. Brown’s signature adds California’s 55.Every time I write something that involves the Electoral College I get several lengthy comments from the people who are promoting this nonsense. The comments are obviously pre-written and plugged into whoever has a blog post on the subject. It's a dumb way to drum up support, and frankly, this compact will never work...at least for both parties.
The inspiration behind the compact was the 2000 election, where George W. Bush won 271 electoral votes even though he lost the popular vote to Al Gore. In California, support for the measure came mostly from Democrats, who may have thought that it would help their party. If so, they could be in for an unpleasant surprise.
Gallup has just reported that President Obama’s disapproval rating exceeds his approval rating in 29 states, including eight that he carried in 2008. If the election took place today and these states went Republican, the president would still win, but by a narrow 286–252 margin. If he also lost North Carolina (where his approval/disapproval split is dead even at 46/46), he would win 271 electoral votes — exactly the same as Bush in 2000.
So just picture a situation where the electoral-vote split this way even though the GOP nominee was ahead in the national popular vote. Might Democrats suddenly discover constitutional defects in the compact?
Take California, New York, and Massachusetts for example. All three states are reliably Democrat in presidential elections. Someday, and hopefully that day will be 2012, a Republican candidate will come along (we'll call him Rick Perry) who will lose those three states but will clean up enough votes elsewhere to win the national popular vote. Does anyone seriously believe those three states will willingly had their electoral votes to a Republican candidate? No way. They'll immediately abrogate the compact using any excuse they can come up with. That's how they do things.
They've never gotten over the 2000 election...and never will.
Posts
3 comments:
What's interesting about the 2000 election is that everybody who took a Civics class knew full well that it was possible for a president to receive the majority of the popular votes and lose the election. It wasn't until after they lost the 2000 election that liberals suddenly wanted to 'fix' it.
Sore losers. Even when they don't lose, they're sore.
For those of us in smaller states, there'd be no need to campaign here if there were no electoral college. We could, of course, propose that states be realigned to equalize population... Think how much we'd enjoy being redistricted into a higher-tax state.
OK, so where's the usual prepackaged commenter. . . counting. . . counting. . . they've got to be showing up anytime soon! (sigh)
Their volume of words exposes one telling fact: they aim to WIN no matter what. They will change or reinterpret laws, rules, regulations, etc. to get their way. They are RIGHT and we are WRONG according to them. They also think by repeating the same lies long enough, people will believe them.
It's their religion (Secular Humanism and leftist politics, that is). They don't know any better. It's what they were taught at government school. The liberal state universities and uber elite private colleges reinforce and solidify the liberal doctrine already memorized in the K-12 years.
People like the usual commenter Anonymous treat their politics like a religion. . . because Secular Humanism is a religion. I, on the other hand, don't regard politics as a religion, and don't have the same fervor as they do. That doesn't mean I don't participate in the voting process. I do. I simply don't elevate voting as a religion. The thing to do is to have a watchful eye and vote intelligently for people and measures I believe are better or more appropriate *FOR THE GOOD OF ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY/STATE/COUNTY* than the other side(s) of the coin - and when necessary, I will vote against people and ballot measures to express my beliefs.
But nah. . . voting is not my religion. I won't die for it. I'll die for (Him who the Secular Humanists despise and who shall not be named, causing even more interest in this Mystery person) instead. . . in a heartbeat!
Post a Comment