Resurrection of Subversive Behavior
UMBC Prof Tom Schaller once again is cheerleading for this subversive idea:
Devised by Stanford mathematician John R. Koza, NPV employs federalism, the Constitution’s core structural principle, to turn the Electoral College into a de facto mechanism for making the national popular winner the president. How? Because the Constitution grants each state the power to determine the method for selecting its electors – the people who vote in the Electoral College – NPV proposes forming a compact among states to use the outcome of the national popular vote (rather than each state’s respective statewide popular vote) as the mechanism for determining which candidate wins the state’s electors.
This concept would work only if states with a combined 270 or more electors agreed to the compact; ideally, it eventually would include all states and all electors.
Yes, we are back to seeing liberals try to tell the Constitution to drop dead through attempts at Constitutional Subversion by trying to amend the Constitution without actually having the guts to actually try and amend it. W e are back to trying to turn the Presidential Election from a contest in which states have a relative equitable chance at determining the outcome, and instead making it into a national popularity contest.
Of course once again, we get fed this cockamamie reason as to why we should do this:
There are many advantages to the NPV solution. Every vote in the country would matter equally, no matter where it was cast. Thus, competitive areas and swing voters in otherwise very “red” or “blue” states would receive attention from both parties. Most states, including Maryland, are now eliminated from electoral consideration well before November.
“More money was spent in 2000 on political ads just in Florida than in 46 other states and D.C. combined,” laments Senator Raskin.
NPV would change that. And because a nationwide tie is far less likely than a statewide tie, the chances of a Florida-style recount fiasco would drop significantly.
Of course, all of this is hogwash. What it means is that as we have noted before only large metropolitan areas will receive attention from the nominees. Does anybody realistically think that candidates will pay more attention to a voter in Big Sandy, MT under this NPV scheme than they would otherwise? Will voters in Orlando, Cleveland, and Minneapolis receive any less attentions? Of course not, because the money and the attention is going to flow to where the undecided voters are: just as it is now.
Of course, what Schaller, Raskin, et. al who are proposing this nonsense are really trying to do is to continue fighting the 2000 Presidential Election, which Al Gore lost despite continued protestations to this day.
There are legitimate arguments for changing the way the Electoral College functions; I don’t subscribe to them, but they are out there. The problem, as usual, is that supporters of this concept do not have the courage of their convictions to try and realistically attempt to make this change through the acceptable means of changing our Constitution. Instead, they wish to use state governments to try and implement a subversive change that undermines the entire foundation of our election law. Instead, they are trying to be sketchy and are intentionally trying to be underhanded in how they are trying to pull this off.
These folks should be ashamed (but as usual, they won’t be) of themselves for the scam they are trying to pull on the American people.