Democrats Make a Last-Ditch Effort to Change the Electoral College
A Nevada lawmaker wants to propose a bill that will elect the president by the popular vote.
This is a desperate attempt to use states filled with illegal voting like California to control who our next president will be.
From the Las Vegas Review-Journal
Assembly Bill 274 by Assemblyman Nelson Araujo, D-Las Vegas, would enact the “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.”
The bill would make the electors identified with the president and vice president who win the national popular vote the official presidential electors for each state.
The provisions of the bill would become effective on the date that states with enough electoral votes to constitute a majority of the electoral votes, 270 of 538, adopt the agreement.
The debate over how to elect the president emerged again in the 2016 general election, when Republican Donald Trump won enough electoral votes to become president, but Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
Critics of the proposal say the current system works fine, and that the change would give too much power to populous states like California and Florida.”
What’s so great about this is that it implies Democrats don’t believe they will be able to win presidency in 2020 under electorial collage system. That means that liberals don’t think their party platform or candidate will be popular enough to win against Trump 4 years from now and are conceeding already. Popular vote gives Dems lot of chance to cheat with illegals in CA, NY
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).
Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .
In 2000, 537 popular votes in Florida determined that the candidate who had 537,179 less national popular votes would win.
Less than 80,000 votes in 3 states determined the 2016 election, where there was a lead of over 2,8oo,ooo popular votes nationwide.
Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in 1, 2, or 3 states would have elected a 2nd-place candidate in 6 of the 18 presidential elections
In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.
After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that “Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College.”
This bill ain’t going nowhere. Trump will Veto it 100%. These Dems and Liberals are so desperate. Of course they had no problem with the Electoral College when Obozo won. Hypocrites
The “Dems” are just showing how petty they truly are….they still don’t get it….convention of states is not going to let that ever happen….we are a republic and that will never change. Hillary…..hahahahahahahahaha, funny shit.
The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate.
It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes and majority of Electoral College votes.
It changes state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state’s electoral votes
In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate.
It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).
Trump cannot “veto” a state bill.
Trump can’t veto this. It is a state-by-state law. But I am sure that once this gets to 270 (which is believed to be the threshold for enactment), there will be a PLETHORA of legal challenges that will make their way all the way to the SC.
Btw, why wait until 270? Why not start enacting it now for the “165 electoral votes” states that have it on the books already? *Answer: The same reason why even though “270 electoral votes” states won’t put it into effect. You can’t have two entirely different systems – some states with one and other states with another. That will be one of the legal challenges once that threshold is reached.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.
The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use winner-take-all laws
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
Anthony, last i checked, a statewide popular election is winner take all. On that note, there will be legal challenges and the Supreme court will strike down the National Popular Vote because it isn’t exclusive to a state. In other words, interstate compacts are illegal when it comes to Presidential elections.
Since the ‘electoral college’ was written into the original US Constitution,what the moonbats do,don’t mean squat.
Ant state that would sign on to this stupidity would be giving up their state’s rights. IDIOTS!!
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
But here are some other questions……….Once that 270 electoral vote threshold is reached, would it ONLY take effect in those states that have enacted it? Or will that law automatically apply to the remaining states, even though they never formally enacted it? Why is the mere fact that “270 has ben reached” be the “trigger” for this to take effect? Isn’t that an arbitrary designation? & If those ” ‘270’ states” have that arrangement and the others don’t, wouldn’t that only exacerbate the problem we have now — candidates only campaigning in a certain, selected group of states?
Btw, the articles that mention that “so many state legislatures have passed this” say NOTHING about whether they were actually SIGNED INTO LAW in those states. Any news on THAT front??
Because state’s have exclusive authority to determine how to award their electors, when the bill goes into effect, non-enacting states would award their electors however they want.
270 is the majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538 – needed to become President.
All of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
All voters then would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
The bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate.
It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes and majority of Electoral College votes.
Cant wait to get rid of all the Democrats, even prior voting Democrats are leaving in droves and dont want to be associated with them. Enjoy the death of your party, you are your own undoing.
If they do go to the “popular vote”, then the system will have to be cleaned up 100%. With 100% accuracy. That everyone voting is an American citizen, who they say they are, and have the legal right to vote. That leaves out illegal immigrants who are registered to vote in several states when they are allowed to get driver’s license. Yes, it’s on the license that they’re illegal, but without voter ID no one is looking at the license. That would have to change.
The registration rolls would have to have a complete overhaul and there would *HAVE* to be Voter ID!!!!
If we’re going by numbers, then the numbers HAVE to be accurate. No room for mistakes, cheating, or questions. Every voter an American citizen with a legal right to vote. Verified by voter ID. Period.
IF the Democrats want to Now Rig the Electoral College, then let’s do so with One Stipulation, THERE MUST BE NATIONWIDE VOTER ID REQUIRED TO VOTE AND ONLY US CITIZENS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, If it is found just 1 Illegal voter especially from California votes in the election then the Electoral College reverts back to the way it is NOW. In other words Clean Up Your Illegals from Your Election Roles Democrats, this way you will NOT have the majority vote anymore.