There is an urgent matter at hand in New York — the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC) is about to come up for a vote in the New York state legislature. It is a national plan for blue states to steal the 2012 Presidential election and it is all happening under the radar.
The National Popular Vote Compact will indelibly change the nature of our Republic.
In most states, the NPVC is a Democratic initiative, but in New York, it has enjoyed Republican support. That does not mean the NPVC represents Republican or Conservative principles. It does not!
New York is critical in this process and the NYS Bills S4208/AB489 are currently on the calendar and could be voted on any day. If you don’t know what NPVC is, please take the time to check out the information after the petition.
Your action NOW can make the difference.
The NPV Bills S4208/AB489 in New York must be stopped if we want to save the Republic as the Founding Fathers envisioned!
THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE COMPACT
By Barbara Samuells
Disabling the Electoral College before the 2012 election?
National Public Vote Compact, NPVC, is the method.
The Presidency is the prize.
What a challenging debate we’re having! The National Popular Vote Compact, NPVC, is the talk of state capitals from Columbus, OH, to Albany, NY, to Austin, TX. Our state legislators are casting critical votes to change our electoral process and, of course, we the people have an important voice in it all.
No wonder we insist on being highly engaged in this decision. From American history we know our electoral system was designed by the Founding Fathers to insure the most careful balance possible of votes and voices for America’s Presidential elections, to protect minority rights while recognizing and empowering the majority.
We are well aware that state by state adoption of the NPVC, also known as the National Popular Vote, NPV, would change the founders’ design for our Constitutional Republic and could circumvent those minority protections from what Alexander Hamilton called the possibility of oppression by the majority. Oh, the talking and debating…the discussions about Constitutional design…the weighing of the pros and cons… a discussion merited by the enormity of the proposed change.
Whoa! Wait just a minute here! Did you say you haven’t heard these debates? Did you say the NPVC is just meaningless alphabet soup to you? The vigorous debate over a change to this so called “direct vote” or democratic vote” didn’t get your attention?
You should know that your state has probably already adopted NPVC or is in the process of doing so.
Of course you didn’t hear this important debate about NPVC only because there is none. The NPVC, or NPV, is sold as harmless and described as a more democratic electoral method to give each American a direct voice in the election of our president. However, in a legal memorandum, Oct 27, 2011, Heritage concludes that:
Consequently, the NPV scheme proposes an interstate compact in which participating states agree in advance to automatically allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, disregarding the popular vote results in their states or what the relevant legislatures might then desire. The NPV would “put the fate of every presidential election in the hands of the voters in as few as 11 states and thus…give a handful of populous states a controlling majority of the Electoral College,” undermining the protections of the Electoral College.
Passage of this insidious compact is very close because 170 of the required 270 votes are from states already signed on. States where NPV is being considered or is close to passing are more than sufficient to implement the NPVC. Then it will apply to the 2012 election and every one after that so that a candidate can be elected by a few of the most populous regions in the USA. Since this is likely to increase the number of third and even fourth party candidates, one could win as little as 30% or 40% of the popular vote and be awarded the necessary 270 electoral votes. We could see European type elections with so many candidates that none has enough support to govern effectively.
Who exactly would benefit from a change in the electoral college system that has worked effectively for so many elections? Who would want to circumvent our founders’ intentions for the most balanced and representative selection of the president? This has been in progress, on a state by state basis, with stealth and steely determination since 2006. Multiple websites push the “Direct Vote” and “NPV” and “Democratic Vote” to create the impression this is truly popular when, in fact, it is being funded and pushed by those with their own political agenda.
The RNC recently voted to condemn this change to our electoral system, but too much damage has been done already. Some conservatives have voted for this and their lack of understanding of the issue is deplorable.
NPVC will bring out the grizzly in many of us who will not stand for deception and the manipulation of our constitutional safeguards. Our first task is to educate ourselves by checking some links here, and then we must alert others. Next, our state representatives must be informed, in no uncertain terms, that we strongly oppose this unconstitutional compact.
Calls, handwritten letters and visits to our state legislators must make it clear that if in process, NPVC must be stopped. If already passed, NPVC must be repealed. If introduced, NPVC must be rejected at once. Any legislator who votes for this does not know the constitution and is not protecting our freedoms.
Also, search on “National Popular Vote” and you will find countless sites advocating this “logical and fair” change to an outdated system. Watch this topic wherever it is posted because immediately someone will post comments insisting the NPVC is a good thing for America. Who is so closely tracking the issue and attacking every negative? Who is so determined NPVC must succeed? What do they have to gain?
In the Federalist Hamilton explains the need to protect the public good and the rights of the minority from the possible oppression by the majority in a “direct democracy” or “popular” vote:
When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Alexander Hamilton; Federalist Papers # 68