Hey “blue states” — hurry up and pass the NPVIC before November 6!

Posted on October 19, 2012 6:18 am

Remember all the talk about the NPVIC? You know, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?

Sure you do. A bunch of dumbass states have signed on to this thing.

Here’s what it does: in the states that sign on, whoever wins the popular vote nationally, wins all the electoral votes in the participating states, regardless of how that state voted.

The idea is to make the Electoral College meaningless.

Why are they doing this? They’re still all pissed off over the 2000 election. Gore seems to have won the popular vote, although Bush won the majority of electoral votes. And they’ve had their panties in a wad ever since.

The Compact has been signed on by eight states and DC. Here’s a list of those states and their electoral votes:

  • California (55)
  • Hawaii (4)
  • Illinois (20)
  • Maryland (10)
  • Massachusetts (11)
  • New Jersey (14)
  • Vermont (3)
  • Washington (12)
  • District of Columbia (3)

What do you notice about those states? Yep. That’s right. They’re all “blue states.”

Oh, and the bill is currently pending in New York (29) and Pennsylvania (20).

Now, here’s where it gets kinda interesting.

According to the latest Gallup poll, Romney is leading by 7 points nationally. According to the Real Clear Politics average, Romney is leading by a point. Either way, Romney wins the popular vote.

Now, according to the Real Clear Politics electoral map, currently Romney has the lead in electoral votes (excluding toss-ups), and, under the current system, leads 206-201.

If toss-ups stay where they are, Obama has enough electoral votes to win the election under the current system, 294-244.

But — and here’s the fun part — if the states that are part of the Compact were to go ahead and follow it now, Romney wins in a landslide, 376-162:

Oh, and if the two states where the bill is pending were to play along anyway, Romney wins by a larger margin, 425-113.

Told you that was the fun part.

There’s a lesson to be learned from this: liberals don’t think things through.

They joined in on this idea after the 2000 election because they can’t imagine that their silly candidate could actually lose the election. They didn’t like the rules under which Bush won, so they want to change the rules.

But, they didn’t see this coming.

Oh, and there are lots of other problems with the NPVIC, not the least of which is that many states don’t even count absentee ballots if there aren’t enough to change the outcome within the state. For instance, Gore’s popular vote lead in 2000 would shrink if the absentees in New York state had been counted. They weren’t, since there weren’t enough to sway the election in the state. And, since many absentees were military, they’d have swung for Bush.

Remember that whole mess in 2000 where those idiot Florida counties were trying to figure out what a hole in a piece of paper looked like? Remember Minnesota in 2008 stretching into Summer 2009? Look for that all over.

But, Democrats, and liberals in particular, don’t think about stuff like that. It complicates their neat little imaginary lives.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (10 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Tags: ,


30 Responses to “Hey “blue states” — hurry up and pass the NPVIC before November 6!”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    But in either case it results in no change in result. Since the party that would have benefited from this change would have gotten those states (and the non-state) anyway. And if Romney wins by squeeking it out, He still wins, whather or not the compact states add to the mess.

    The other interesting question is how this would be implemented. How long will the compact states wait to tally the official popular vote before declaring their electoral college votes? In any really close contest (HINT: THEY ARE ALL GOING TO BE CLOSE CONTESTS) the leader will change several times as the votes are tallied. If they wait for the absentee ballots to come in and for recounts results it could be weeks before they award their votes.

  2. Basil says:

    Your point about the delay is valid, but I gotta disagree about “no change in result.” If the RCP average holds and each candidate takes each state in which he leads, Obama wins. See the second graphic. But if the NPVIC applies, Romney wins, because he leads in popular vote. So, yeah, it would change the outcome. Just not like the left wants.

  3. Zaklog the Great says:

    Although it wasn’t created for that purpose, the compartmentalization effect of the electoral college is a very real benefit. A close race in 2000 in Florida stayed in Florida. If it had been a simple nationwide popular vote, that would have been the entire nation. Can you imagine the chaos that would have caused?

  4. Pat Rosenstiel says:

    Ya’ll should read the compact as your missing one critical point. National Popular Vote does NOT take effect until states totaling 270 electoral votes join the compact. That is enough states to guarantee the presidency – a majority of the Electoral College. So the states that have past the National Popular Vote operate under their current state-by-state winner take all rule, until other states join the compact.

    The net result — if the election were held today — Mitt Romney would win the popular vote and lose the election (according to RCP averages). For the record – I’m a conservative republican and a strict constructionist AND I support the National Popular Vote. Also, I’ve read it and know how it works and that it preserves the state power to award electors. Read it – you might like it.

  5. Basil says:

    I did read the part about it not taking effect until 270 votes are impacted. That’s the point if the title of the post: Quick, pass it before the election so it will go into effect and screw the left over.

    I don’t like the Compact, but I find no Constitutional prohibition against it. Article 1, Section 10 may be read to require Congressional approval, but I’m not certain it does, given the context.

  6. DamnCat says:

    If the presidency were decide by popular vote then cats would win every time! Gouverneur Morris snuck in that 35-years-old rule just to keep us out – racist!

    “Morris”, oh, the irony!

  7. John D says:

    The Law of Unintended Consequences, biting Liberals in the ass since… forever.

  8. CrustyB says:

    You have to admit, that was pretty sneaky of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to travel backward in time and put the electoral college into the Constitution like that.

  9. Keln says:

    The electoral college system protects the small states more than a straight up popular vote would. And a popular vote could easily be a tie with nation wide vote recounts for weeks or months following an election. People say the electoral college is complicated, but honestly, it maks elections simpler and results faster.

    Remember: we call them “states” for a reason. This country is a federal republic of individual sovereign states, not a country divided into provinces like most are in the world. Each state says which candidate they wish to elect. The national popular vote is good for polling, but is irrelevant in a federal republic like ours.

  10. Critter says:

    Keln: ~~~~~~

  11. Jimmy says:

    Liberals don’t want us to be a “nation of states” anymore. They want power consolidated in one place where they can practice statism and have full control: Washington D.C.

    So, uh, what happened to us being so close to calling a Constitutional Convention?

  12. Professor Hale says:

    The biggest change and the one no one is talking about is how illegal aliens are represented in their votes in the electoral college. in effect allowing them to vote for president just by being alive when the census for their state was counted. California would be worth fewer EC votes without the strangth of illegal aliens in their population.

    The fix: The census should count everyone, but only citizens get counted for representation. Illegal aliens should be counted only for the purposes of knowing where to send the busses to pick them up.

  13. Basil says:

    And all the people said “Amen.”

  14. kohler says:

    “the compartmentalization effect of the electoral college is a very real benefit. A close race in 2000 in Florida stayed in Florida. If it had been a simple nationwide popular vote, that would have been the entire nation.”

    The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

    [She wrote lots more stuff. Click here to view it. - B]

  15. kohler says:

    The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

    The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

    [She wrote lots more stuff. Click here to view it. - B]

  16. kohler says:

    Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

    The U.S. Constitution provides:

    “No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state….”

    [She wrote lots more stuff. Click here to view it. - B]

  17. kohler says:

    With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

    The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

    [She wrote lots more stuff. Click here to view it. - B]

  18. kohler says:

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

    On June 7, 2011, the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47–13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21–11. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17–7.

    [She wrote lots more stuff. Click here to view it. - B]

  19. Basil says:

    Damn, but you’re long-winded.

  20. Jimmy says:

    And he doesn’t even have a blog of his own, Basil!

  21. Basil says:

    Unless you count her taking over this one…

  22. Jimmy says:

    Yeah, but he/she’s good!

    This is the first serious discussion in a long time.

    And we have you to thank!

    I’m out of donuts.

  23. Basil says:

    Who was supposed to bring the donuts? Was it my turn?

    By the way, I’m all for a serious discussion, but check the time-stamps. No way that was written in those gaps of time. Copy-paste job. Hell, if you got that much to say, Google and WordPress are giving away blogs.

  24. Jimmy says:

    It was Son of Bob’s. He’s got more than his fair share of them! And he’s practicing “winner take all!” Bloody Federalist. He’s always Right, you know.

  25. Don says:

    Liberal Progressives have been trying to force us into a pure democracy since 1913.

  26. plwww says:

    The same(or similar) comments by Kohler appear all over the net(just select a paragraph and google it). Likely a spam-bot, rather than an actual, interested reader of IMAO? Segments of that appear in so many comments on so many pages, I don’t see how there is an actual person associated with that poster(some of those paragraphs appear to come straight from the “answering myths” page from the nationalpopularvote website).

    I have to disagree on there being no constitutional issue with NPVIC(though I certainly leave room for the supreme court to rule wrong). Even assuming there is no explicit restriction on these agreements, the pure fact that the proponents are seeking to fundamentally change how elections turn-out, by agreement of only a simple majority of the states electoral votes, is enough to invalidate the effort. The constitution-defined electoral system was created under the assumption that electoral votes would be dependent upon the opinion of the states the votes are assigned to at the current moment. Same as an individual selling their vote undermines democracy, states deciding before-hand to pool their votes together and ignore the actual voters they represent is likewise a corruption of the defined system. Using California as an example: Letting other states decide how California applies its own votes is no more legitimate than if California decided to allow Canada a voice in our elections: the electoral votes were assigned to California, and California alone. If they want to fundamentally alter our election process, they must follow the Constitutional Amendment process; there is no alternative.

  27. kohler says:

    National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

  28. kohler says:

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states 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.”

    [She wrote lots more stuff. Click here to view it. - B]

  29. Basil says:

    Kohler:

    Of all the authors here at IMAO, I’m the one that waits the longest before banning and throwing into the spam queue or such. Your long comments have pushed my patience to the limit.

  30. 4of7 says:

    Hardy, extra thick, hickory smoked maple bacon for Basil!

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>