Virginia House passes bill to give electoral votes to popular vote winner

[Newman]

They're voting to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

CNN:

Virginia's House of Delegates passed a bill on Tuesday that would award the state's electoral votes to the national winner of the presidential popular vote.

The measure, HB 177, would look to incorporate Virginia into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement established by each participating state's laws to put its electoral votes toward the winner of the national popular vote, instead of the state's own popular vote.

Seems to me it would be more honest just to pass a bill that says any votes for Republicans do not count.

Ted Cruz replied:

Embedded Tweet

At least this CNN report acknowledges, in the last sentence excerpted above, the essentially unconstitutionality of this arrangement. To "work," to flip an election, voters in one or more states have to be disenfranchised, flatly denied their constitutional right to vote.

The leftist mob in this country is furious that our Constitution was designed to thwart mob rule.

[Adam]

This compact requires a total of 270 EVs to join before it goes into effect, and I think that they're still a fair piece away from that.

That's kind of a shame, because if it were effective for this November, then Trump can just change his campaign strategy only a little bit, throw a couple of rallies in California, New York, Chicago, etc. and draw in those otherwise disheartened voters who don't even bother going to the polls. And then Trump can pull out the popular vote, and force California to throw their 55 (?) EVs to Trump. That meltdown would be absolutely fantastic! Then these states would be sprinting to court to claim that the compact that they entered into willingly is not legal. My God, it will be delicious!

[80zephyr]

This compact requires a total of 270 EVs to join before it goes into effect, and I think that they're still a fair piece away from that.

That's kind of a shame, because if it were effective for this November, then Trump can just change his campaign strategy only a little bit, throw a couple of rallies in California, New York, Chicago, etc. and draw in those otherwise disheartened voters who don't even bother going to the polls. And then Trump can pull out the popular vote, and force California to throw their 55 (?) EVs to Trump. That meltdown would be absolutely fantastic! Then these states would be sprinting to court to claim that the compact that they entered into willingly is not legal. My God, it will be delicious!

Yep. When they get a vote they don't like, it will be chaos. Lol.

Mark

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Wait, I haven't been following this much, so apparently I misunderstood the plan. I thought each state that did this would give all its electoral votes to the candidate who won the popular vote in that state. Are you all saying participating states would give their EVs to whoever won the popular vote nationally??? That's crazy! It would be like saying the state of Virginia names the governor of Texas as its elector.

[Adam]

Wait, I haven't been following this much, so apparently I misunderstood the plan. I thought each state that did this would give all its electoral votes to the candidate who won the popular vote in that state. Are you all saying participating states would give their EVs to whoever won the popular vote nationally??? That's crazy! It would be like saying the state of Virginia names the governor of Texas as its elector.

Yep. That's the plan.

[Newman]

Wait, I haven't been following this much, so apparently I misunderstood the plan. I thought each state that did this would give all its electoral votes to the candidate who won the popular vote in that state. Are you all saying participating states would give their EVs to whoever won the popular vote nationally??? That's crazy! It would be like saying the state of Virginia names the governor of Texas as its elector.

Yes.

This pact, had it been in effect in 2000 and Tennessee been a participating state, would have required flipping TN's electoral votes to Gore and reversed the election result.

"Flipped" meaning slapped down the voters in Gore's home state who had the temerity, the majority of them, to vote for George Bush.

I don't see how that could possibly be constitutional. It's one thing for an elector to be a maverick; it's quite another for that elector to be required by an outside agency to defy the express will of his or her constituents.

Blue states have signed on, of course, since that's where the recent frustration lies. The invidious aspect to it is this: "it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome" (Wiki), as Adam says above. The calculation is that the majority having signed on, the "will of the people," so to speak, will defeat the protests of the losers.

I doubt that. My guess is that were this pact ever to be triggered, the "Tennessee" state would simply defy it. The consequences of the TN Democrats standing before the microphone and telling Tennesseans that their ballots were being reversed would be, well, dramatic.

In fact, I'd be curious about what you imagine would happen.

[Norm dePlume]

I thought each state that did this would give all its electoral votes to the candidate who won the popular vote in that state.

Why would they need an agreement (compact) between states for that?

[Norm dePlume]

The leftist mob in this country is furious that our Constitution was designed to thwart mob rule.

Does Florida select a governor by popular vote? I mean, they could break it down by county, or district, right? But, no, they use the popular vote. Does that make Florida's executive branch "mob rule"?

That's ridiculous. Popular elections for government representatives is not "mob rule". It's a democratic republic.

[Newman]

Does Florida select a governor by popular vote? I mean, they could break it down by county, or district, right? But, no, they use the popular vote. Does that make Florida's executive branch "mob rule"?

That's ridiculous. Popular elections for government representatives is not "mob rule". It's a democratic republic.

And what about that "gerrymandered" Senate?! Are you OK with that?

[80zephyr]

Does Florida select a governor by popular vote? I mean, they could break it down by county, or district, right? But, no, they use the popular vote. Does that make Florida's executive branch "mob rule"?

That's ridiculous. Popular elections for government representatives is not "mob rule". It's a democratic republic.

You know damn well that the founders didn't want the president to be elected by the majority of the people, but by the majority of the states.

Mark

[scott]

Does Florida select a governor by popular vote? I mean, they could break it down by county, or district, right? But, no, they use the popular vote. Does that make Florida's executive branch "mob rule"?

Yes, when choosing the Governor of Florida it is "mob rule," as are the ballot initiatives. It's not that terrible when it goes bad for states, but it would be disastrous at times for the nation.

That's ridiculous. Popular elections for government representatives is not "mob rule". It's a democratic republic.

National popular elections for government is "mob rule" and there is no "republic" for long after that.

[Newman]

You know damn well that the founders didn't want the president to be elected by the majority of the people, but by the majority of the states.

Mark

We have a winner!

And I smack myself again for not remembering that.

A popular vote for the president is not specified in the Constitution, and I believe a number of states early on did NOT have a popular vote for president.

[Norm dePlume]

You know damn well that the founders didn't want the president to be elected by the majority of the people, but by the majority of the states.

Mark

We have a winner!

And I smack myself again for not remembering that.

A popular vote for the president is not specified in the Constitution, and I believe a number of states early on did NOT have a popular vote for president.

Then why do some state get more electoral votes than others? Something about population, perhaps?

Why bind the electoral votes to popular election results? That's not what the founders envisioned.

[Norm dePlume]

Yes, when choosing the Governor of Florida it is "mob rule," as are the ballot initiatives. It's not that terrible when it goes bad for states, but it would be disastrous at times for the nation.



National popular elections for government is "mob rule" and there is no "republic" for long after that.

Ballot initiatives are direct democracy. Elected officers are representative democracy (aka republic). Mob rule is when the general population makes governing decisions (aka direct democracy). A republic is where representatives make governing decisions. A democratic republic is where the representatives who make governing decisions are selected by popular election.

If you expand your definition of mob rule to include popular election of governors, it's a stupid definition and nobody should ever fear "mob rule" because there is nothing wrong with popular election of governors.

[80zephyr]

Then why do some state get more electoral votes than others? Something about population, perhaps?

Why bind the electoral votes to popular election results? That's not what the founders envisioned.

Yes, its exactly why they did it, and its one of the major reasons that small states joined the union. Their state would be counted, not their small population. Presidential candidates would have to also consider their issues during a campaign. Without that they may as well live in Siberia. Not only wouldn't the union have started without having this advantage, it certainly wouldn't have lasted.

Mark