Obama Likely Remains President If NPV Becomes Law

0
Share

“…and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, for liberty and justice for all.”

~ Pledge of Allegiance

(You can remove the word “Republic”)

The National Popular Vote Compact (S4208/AB489 in NY)

Will Lead to the Elimination of the Electoral College

The NPV Target Date Is the 2012 Election

 

The National Popular Vote Compact provides that state election officials in all states participating in the plan would award their Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who receives the largest number of popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The National Popular Vote Compact is highly debated because no one knows for sure how it will turn out or what effect it will have. Given the lack of crisis in 134 years, the question arises as to why we would chance it until we have an Electoral College reform that give us a more certain outcome. The goal of the NPV is to make each vote count – one man, one vote – but it is unlikely this plan will do that.

The end result of the NPVC will likely be an unacceptable distortion of the Electoral College and the end of the Two-Party system.

While the NPVC claims it stands for one man, one vote, the Electoral College does that now.

In Martin Diamond’s brilliant essay, The Electoral College and the American Idea of Democracy, he wrote-

“In fact, presidential elections are already just about as democratic as they can be. We already have one man, one vote — but in the states. Elections are as freely and democratically contested as elections can be — but in the states. Victory always goes democratically to the winner of the raw popular vote — but in the states. The label given to the proposed reform — “direct popular election” — is a misnomer: the elections have already become as directly popular as they can be — but in the states. Despite all their democratic rhetoric, the reformers do not propose to make our presidential elections more directly democratic; they only propose to make them more directly national, by entirely removing the states from the electoral process. Democracy thus is not the question regarding the electoral college; federalism is. Should our presidential elections remain in part federally democratic, or should we make them completely nationally democratic?

Can you imagine a contested election where the entire process is national and the recount must go on in every state?

If NPV becomes law prior to this election, the lawsuits will be overwhelming and it is conceivable that President Obama will remain in office until decisions are rendered and a nationwide recount is complete. That could be quite a lengthy process.

It will come to a vote in New York any day and people who are opposed need to call their representatives in the state legislature. The state senate will vote first. The phone numbers and emails for the Senators are at the end of this article. Voters from other states need to check to see where the NPV stands in your state at this time – information below.

PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING LINKS FOR IMPORTANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION –

http://www.heritage.org/events/2011/12/electoral-college

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/curtis-gans/national-popular-vote_b_1189390.html

Important to read: Martin Diamond – his response to the exact movement during Carter’s era

 

WHY A REPUBLIC AND NOT A DEMOCRACY

This is how some of our Founding Fathers viewed a simple democracy: –

” …a simple democracy … is one of the greatest of evils.”

~ Benjamin Rush

“Democracies, in general, have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

~ James Madison

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

~ John Adams

“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”

~ John Quincy Adams

Maybe our Founding Fathers chose a republic over a democracy because they remembered the most infamous “democratic” vote in all history. The lesson of a bureaucrat many years ago who turned to a crowd and asked which prisoner should be released – the crowd yelled – “give us Barabbas”. The will of the people spoke that day. When the bureaucrat asked the people what should be done with this innocent man, this Jesus, the crowd responded with a loud cry, “CRUCIFY HIM!”

A democracy can override any law. Jesus was crucified by a majority vote even though they broke 17 laws exercising pure democracy to put him on the cross. This is the reason our founding fathers wanted a republic, a government based on the rule of law which could not be changed by the whims of the people.

The Greek philosopher Socrates was put to death by majority vote. He was not guilty of any human law that was worthy of death, but because a majority of men decided that he should die, he was put to death. [timetracts.com]

 

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, THE FOUNDATION OF THE REPUBLIC 

Our founding fathers gave us a republic. Benjamin Franklin wanted a republic, a government based on the rule of the law that could not be changed by the whims of the people. He wanted every voice to be heard in a fair and just manner. James Madison, father of the Constitution once said, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God”. These men succeeded in creating the framework of this great nation and in shaping it to what it is today.

The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to the states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person.

For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for a population of 493,782 and Texas has 32 Electoral votes for a population of over 20 million people. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has an “Elector” for every 165,000 people and Texas has an “Elector” for every 652,000 people.

But here’s the important part!

The small states were given additional power to prevent politicians from only focusing on issues that affect the larger states. The fear was that without this power, politicians would only focus on the big states and major cities. A national popular vote would be a backdoor way of amending the Constitution, it would shift the center of gravity in presidential election from the Founding Fathers’ vision of an urban-rural, large-small states balance to one with a much more urban — and a likely leftist tilt. Union members, welfare recipients and others dependent on government tend to vote Democratic and are mainly in city centers.

Our founding fathers, when writing the Constitution and setting up the Electoral College, had just gotten rid of an all-oppressive controlling government. The Constitution and the Electoral College were put in place to prevent an all-powerful intrusive government from taking over America.

They knew the rural less populated areas where people lived far away from the system (Washington) would always vote for freedom and less government. They also knew that the more populated states where people relied more on the government would always vote for more government control.

The Constitution is a set of laws that protects individual and states rights  (Example: the first Amendment protects us from the government taking our freedom of speech away). Just Like the Constitution and everything else our forefathers did the, Electoral College was set up to keep the government from growing out of control and becoming oppressive.

Sources: Washington Times and Fair Vote

 

THE NPVC MOVEMENT HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND IT IS NOT A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC ISSUE

One concern for Conservatives that has arisen is that George Soros’ son Scott (with backing by his brother Jonathon Soros who said “it’s time to junk the electoral college”)  and two eccentric Constitutional lawyers,  Vikram Amar & Akhil Reed Amar,  initiated the movement.

Demand Progress sent me (Independent Sentinel) the original letter asking me to send letters to our representatives in New York and urging me to vote FOR the National Popular Vote Compact.

The activist site, Demand Progress, was founded by Aaron Swartz, the 24-year-old political activist, prominent computer programmer, and former ethics fellow at Harvard arrested in January for computer hacking. In January 2009, Swartz also co-founded the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which is a George Soros-funded MoveOn.org “project.” Schwartz is also tied into Free Press led by admitted-Marxist, Robert McChesney. Schwartz’ mentor, Lawrence Lessig, serves on its board of advisors. [Source Aaron Klein et al]

Some socialist and progressive groups who support the NPVC and are included here: The National Popular Vote bill is endorsed by the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, FairVote, Sierra Club, the Brennan Center for Justice, NAACP, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, ACLU, the National Latino Congreso, Asian American Action Fund, DEMOS, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, and Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.

The bill has been endorsed by liberal newspapers such as the Hartford Courant, New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, Boston Globe, Sacramento Bee, and many more.

As the Sarasota Florida Herald Tribune said: “The most compelling and practical alternative is promoted by a bipartisan group called National Popular Vote.

This should give Conservatives pause not out of any conspiracy theory but because of the reality of who many of these people are and what they represent.

The question really becomes do you want a Republic or a Democracy?

IS NPVC A TROJAN HORSE

It will be the beginning of the end of the Electoral College by turning the college into a system by which states that agree to form a compact share all their electoral votes within their group and are forced to give their votes to the candidate with the largest number of popular votes within the compact.

Check out the map above for one very reasonable scenario. Imagine a compact with liberal states, one conservative and a couple swing states. All the donors/ACORNers will descend on the populated areas that will win and drag the conservative and swing states with them. The eleven states in this scenario, pictured on the map, will carry the necessary electoral votes to win the election.

That is how an election can literally be won by 11 states, leaving the other states disenfranchised with no chance of having their votes counted – they are forced into giving their votes to the states that come out ahead. If the 11 states include liberal, one conservative, and some swing states as in this scenario, the swing states and conservative states will be forced to hand over their electoral votes to the liberal winners simply because they had the largest voter count.

All the electioneering can be done in the handful of states and all the ACORN organizers can focus on the handful of states. The election will be decided by the liberal cities where the heaviest concentrations of people reside.

 

IS NPVC A FORCED STATE MERGER THAT TAKES AWAY STATES’ RIGHTS

“The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the wisdom, and resting on the will of the people.”~ Thomas Jefferson

NPVC creates a “forced merger” between heavily populated states and less populated states.

The NPV state-by-state initiative will force states to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the popular vote in their state.

If a state decides that it doesn’t like the fact that its votes went to a particular candidate, it can’t pull out until the next election. There will be lawsuits over the constitutionality and other issues.

NPV will reduce the power of most states in that the highly populated states will be able to gain the electoral votes and decide the Presidential election.

California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and New Jersey have 57% of the votes cast in 2008, and together they have 270 electoral votes, the amount necessary to win the election. Do you want these states to decide who is President while other states have no say? The complaint now is that elections come down to swing states so we will risk this messy system with potential lawsuits to have the same problem or worse?

Is this what the Founding Fathers wanted? An election based on demographics and geographics?

Why is the current structure of the electoral college so important? Our Founding Fathers believed that the state by state disbursed system maintained the sovereignty of the states and disallowed Nationalism. The containment of “mischief” or voter fraud of the ACORN type is contained within states instead of being spread nationally. The Electoral College provides balance and firewalls against voter fraud.

Do you believe all states should be purple and not red or blue? Then you do NOT want the NPV. Supporters of the NPV claim it will favor Republicans in that there are more underutilized Republican votes than Democratic votes, which I doubt since the heavily populated states are predominantly liberal. Whether this is true or not does not matter.

We should not favor one side or the other in the United States of America.

The initiative has been approved by half the states necessary to pass it. The states that have approved it equal 70 electoral votes and only 138 are needed for it to pass. It is well on its way to becoming law.

NPV possibly circumvents the Constitution by allowing individual states to change the Constitution without an amendment. However, the compact clause of the Constitution does not allow any state to “enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.” Liberal states like California could join with Illinois, New York, and another 8 other liberal states forming a super bloc that would give all their electoral votes to the winner, forming the bloc that could take the election.

Article V specifically states that the Constitution must be amended, “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” The NPV as structured will immediately take effect without an amendment and it will probably be in time for the 2012 election.

NPV has bipartisan support and the opposition is bipartisan as well. It is not a partisan issue, it is about states rights and the power of each individual as guaranteed by the Electoral College.

NPV will have many unwanted side effects. The states that decide the election will probably be the states that receive the federal dollars because their votes count. They will likely be the only states that candidates will visit.

Source: Soros NPV site: Status of NPV in New York: NPV Passage. Progress by state: NPV by State.

 

VOTER FRAUD AND NATIONALIZATION OF THE VOTE

The nationalization of voter fraud – some states require proof of citizenship, photo ID’s, no ID’s, but NPV will eliminate that choice and the containment of fraud that states provide.

I personally experienced absentee voter fraud. For example, one woman voted from Canada and used the address of a local middle school. The courts in NY let these votes stand. Even the dead people we found were counted because you only have a few days to prove they are dead, and courts want a death certificate, which is hard to get on hundreds of people in a matter of days. So, in NY, dead people vote. I happen to know of a number of illegal aliens who voted as well.

In Kansas, the Democratic primary of Rizzo vs. Royster shows the seriousness of voter fraud. A group in support of Rizzo brought in 50 Somali nationals to vote. Rizzo won by one vote.

ACORN often mobilizes aliens to vote.

In Mississippi, 23 counties had more people registered to vote than were alive.

Examples are endless though some would have us believe fraud is not a widespread problem.

 

LITIGATION

There is the costly and lengthy litigation that will ensue if NPV passes.

Examples are –

What happens constitutionally, if a state in the NPV doesn’t like the candidate they are forced to give their electoral votes to and pulls out of the compact though they are not free to do so?

NPV does not meet equal protection under the 14th amendment for the states that do not sign on to the NPV and they will be forced to join – that will mean lawsuits.

The compact clause, Article I, suggests it needs congressional approval – more lawsuits.

Article II delegates power to the states that the NPV overrides. Again, more suits.

What happens if an election is contested? Does the current President remain in office until the litigation is decided?

 

NPVC ALLOWS FOR UNQUALIFED PEOPLE TO BE ON THE BALLOT AND FOR A PRESIDENT TO WIN BY A PLURALITY

Administratively, a non-qualified person, not even on the ballot, could win; it will force states with solid voting requirements to go with those who allow rampant fraud if they have higher population density; the individuality of states that includes early voter registration, felons voting, voting by mail, et cetera, will dissolve into the requirements of the heavily populated states. Close elections will cause inevitable and lengthy delays.

There is even a question of whether some states will be able to vote under the compact.

If there are more than two candidates, and we know that Democrats are currently pushing for a sham third party candidate with organizations such as Americans Elect, then the President will win by a plurality instead of each vote counting – it could be as little as 30% of the vote. It will lead to the collapse of the two-party system.

WHO REALLY BENEFITS?

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 much damage has been done already.  Some conservatives have voted for this and there is a lack of understanding of the issue.

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.

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

SUMMARY

Likely effects of the NPVC  –

  • It appears to amend the Constitution without a constitutional amendment by using the states’ current rights to decide how to handle their electors. There will be lawsuits to consider the question. Such protracted lawsuits will be costly and time-consuming. They will most certainly be disruptive to the Presidential election and the election results.
  • Circumvents the Electoral Process and the protections it affords in balancing the rights of smaller states.
  • Allows a candidate with as little as 25% or 30% of the vote to win. A popular vote would possibly necessitate a presidential runoff election. A third party rarely gets any electoral votes, but it’s not uncommon for third parties to get enough votes that although there is a clear presidential winner, the winner didn’t get a majority of the total popular vote. If this did happen under a national popular vote system as it is currently written, it would require a runoff election. Interestingly, the Democrats are currently trying to set up a sham third party candidate through their website, “Americas Elect.” The U.S. could become like a Banana Republic with 20 people running and a candidate could win with a plurality. This recently happened in the New York Gubernatorial where absurd candidates entered the race, embarrassing New York’s election. NPV allows for that eventuality int he Presidential. It would lead to the collapse of the two-party system.
  • As few as eleven highly populated states could decide the election in that their electoral votes would add up to 270 electoral votes, the amount necessary to win the election.
  • Make states with the largest populations subject to all the campaign financing and electioneering because they will be the only ones that will count.
  • Reduce the vote to the lowest common denominator. Grass roots will no longer exist. Money will determine the election far more than it does now.
  • Since few will bother with the less populated states, voters will be continue to be disenfranchised.
  • It is believed that the NPV will encourage more people to vote in states that are not battleground states. The problem with this is that it also encourages increased fraud. Fraud could run rampant because it can be concentrated on only those states with the largest populations.
  • The needs and involvement of smaller states, the character of which is so vital to our nation’s success, will be dismissed.
  • Recounts won’t take place in one state as they did in Florida in 2000, they will cover every state in the compact. What a mess!
  • Since its constitutionality will be challenged with lawsuits, what happens in the meantime? We know how long it takes for these cases to get through the court system. Does the current President stay in power until it is decided if the entire election is contested, as we know it will be?
  • It destroys states’ rights by using a state initiative. It will destroy state sovereignty in the Presidential election and cede it to a compact. It is equivalent to a country voting for a dictator and basically voting to lose their rights. It will nationalize the vote, negating a states right to choose how its electoral votes will go.

There are far better options for reforming the Electoral College.

SOURCES: Heritage – National Popular Vote , GulagboundThomas Washington PostRealClearPoliticsRed StateNC League of Women VotersThe Orange County Register, Progressive Arkansas, Hot AirUS Election Atlas, Occupy Wall Street, State University.comLeague of Women VotersDesert News

 

The National Popular Vote is on the calendar in the New York state senate. It could come up for a vote at any time. It is very important to call the Senators, especially Dean Skelos. Please tell them not to vote for the NPVC. People in other states, check this Soros site to see where your state is at the current time – it is coming to a state near you. Once they get 270 electoral votes, the states that didn’t vote for it will be dragged into it.

NY SENATOR’S NAME AREA PHONE EMAIL
ALESI Fairport 585) 223-1800  &(518) 455-2015   alesi@senate.state.ny.us
BALL Brewster (845) 279-3773 & (518) 455-3111 gball@nysenate.gov
BONACIC Middletown & Delhi (845) 344-3311 & (518) 455-3181 bonacic@nysenate.gov
DEFRANCISCO Syracuse (315) 428-7632 & (518) 455-3511 jdefranc@nysenate.gov
FARLEY Amsterdam & Johnstown (518) 843-2188 & (518) 455-2181 Farley@nysenate.gov
FLANAGAN Smithtown 631-361-2154 & 518-455-2071 flanagan@nysenate.gov
FUSCHILLO Massapequa 516-882-0630 & 518-455-3341 fuschill@nysenate.gov
GALLIVAN Warsaw 716-656-8544 & 518-455-3471 gallivan@nysenate.gov
GOLDEN Brooklyn (718) 238-6044 & (518) 455-2730 golden@nysenate.gov
GRIFFO Utica (315) 793-9072 & 518-455-3334 Albany griffo@nysenate.gov
GRISANTE Niagara Falls & Buffalo 716-283-0741 & 518-455-3240 grisanti@nysenate.gov
HANNON Garden City k 516-739-1700 hannon@nysenate.gov
JOHNSON Babylon (631) 473-1461 & ojohnson@nysenate.gov
LANZA Staten Island (718) 984-4073 & (518) 455-3215 lanza@senate.state.ny.us
LARKIN New Windsor 845) 567-1270 &(518) 455-2770 larkin@senate.state.ny.us
LAVALLE Riverhead (631) 473-1461 & (518) 455-3121 lle@nysenate.gov
LIBOUS Johnson City, Norwich 877) 854-2687 & (518) 455-2677 tor@senatorlibous.com
LITTLE Plattsburgh (518) 561-2430 & 518) 743-0968
MARCELLINO Oyster Bay 516-922-1811 & 518) 743-0968 marcelli@nysenate.gov
MARTINS Garden City 518-455-3265Albany jwisniew@nysenate.gov
MAZIARZ Lockport 716) 434-0680 & 518) 455-2024 maziarz@nysenate.gov
MCDONALD Troy, Mechanicville 518) 274-4616 & 518) 455-2381 mcdonald@senate.state.ny.us
NOZZOLIO Ontario, Geneva (315) 568-9816 & 518) 455-2366 nozzolio@nysenate.gov
OMARA Southport, Corning 607-776-3201 & 518-455-2091 omara@nysenate.gov
RANZENHOFER Clarence, Batavia (716) 631-8695 & 518) 455-3161 ranz@senate.state.ny.us
RITCHEY Watertown 315-782-3418 & 518-455-3438 ritchie@nysenate.gov
ROBACH Greece, Rochester (585) 225-3650 & 518) 455-2909 robach@nysenate.gov
SALAND Poughkeepsie 845-463-0840 & 518-455-2411 saland@nysenate.gov
SEWARD Oneonta 607) 432-5524 & 518) 455-3131 seward@nysenate.gov
SKELOS RVC 516-766-8383 & 518) 455-3171 skelos@nysenate.gov
YOUNG Olean 716) 372-4901 & 518) 455-3563 cyoung@senate.state.ny.us
ZELDIN (opposed) Ronkonkoma 631-585-0608 & 518-455-3570 zeldin@nysenate.gov

 

 Please sign the petition against the NPVC – New Yorkers Against National Popular Vote Petition

Share