The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Is Unconstitutional.. And Worse
You have probably heard of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVC). This is legislation now signed by 15 states and DC which institutes an agreement whereby electoral votes will be allotted to the national popular vote winner, no matter who wins the popular vote in a given state. It would be used to garner the necessary 270 electoral college votes to win an election.
First, this is unconstitutional. It strips any validity from the popular vote at all in any state where the winner of the popular vote is anyone with a lesser number of votes.
Second, it could be withdrawn from at any point by any state. It is primarily being implemented by Democrat-leaning states. Not one state which Trump won in 2016 has signed onto the NPVC. While the NPVC stipulates that any signatory states may withdraw after July 20th of a national election year, under article 2 of the Constitution, a state may change the method of tabulating electoral votes at any point before the electoral college votes. Even after the national popular vote in November. Thus, if the winner of the national popular vote were Republican, a blue state could withdraw to allot their electoral votes as the state legislature chooses to defeat the Republican popular vote winner.
Partisan squabbling. Since 2016, we have been hearing the discussion about eliminating the electoral college. That discussion is only among Democrats and is not the least bit for altruistic reasons. This discussion among Democrats would not be taking place if Hillary had lost the popular vote yet won the electoral college.
Like it or not, the electoral college serves a purpose, even today. Without the electoral college, only four states would determine the results of every national election. Those states are New York, California, Texas and Florida. Together, these four states account for 32.99% of the US population. In 2016, Trump won two of those four states. The fourth most populous state accounts for only 3.87% of the national population. Those four states that would determine all national elections also account for nearly all of the population of the top 0.1% income earners in the country. They also contain 100% of the corporate media ownership and management of the country.
Prone to challenge. Without implementing a valid system to replace the electoral college, this system is the best we have at the moment. The NPVC is not a valid system. It is a system which would rightly be challenged if implemented.
No recount contingency. The NPVC has no contingencies for a national recount if it were implemented. How can you recount votes from states which had a majority vote for a candidate other than the national majority winner, yet those votes were overturned by legislature?
Intimidation of third parties. The real point of the NPVC is not intended to make the popular vote more fair. The point of the NPVC is intended to suppress and intimidate third party voters and candidates. This system absolutely insures that no third party candidate gains even the necessary 5% of the national vote required for federal funding in future elections. If the NPCV were implemented, a third part candidate may win 10 states, yet they would gain exactly ZERO electoral college votes.
Ranked Choice Voting. A much more fair system which could truly replace the electoral college would be Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). If you don’t understand RCV, it works like this:
Your ballot offers all available choices for office. To win, a candidate must achieve greater than 50% of the popular vote. Say there are three candidates. You mark all three by order of preference. For example, your preference would be candidate C, then A, then B . First round results are:
With these results, candidate C is disqualified. This means the first preference of those listing candidate C are discarded and their second choice is counted. Second round results are:
The vote always totals 100% and every first preference is counted. With more candidates, the process would be repeated, with the lowest first preference being discarded and next choice counted until one candidate reaches over 50%.
This system can be used at all levels and would include primaries. It would give third parties a much greater chance in elections.
Something to notice about the NPVC is that the states implementing it have absolutely no suggestion for increased funding, ballot access, media access or debate access for third parties.
At this point I am genuinely hoping that either the ACLU or the RNC challenges the NPVC in court to have is invalidated at the national level. They could introduce federal legislation for the purpose but the DNC would turn that into pure theater. It would be much better to take it to court and have it determined to be unconstitutional.
Security theatrics. If you doubt the DNC theatrics on the issue, consider the legislation they introduced for election security. While if it were simply introducing election standards, that would be fine. I find it interesting they did not do that while they held a majority House and Senate a few years ago. Instead, the legislation they introduced included federal funding for the purpose. Still, just the standards are contentious. Both standards and funding for elections are state functions, not federal. This is why some states have paper trails and others do not. It is also pointless. The debate about election integrity completely involved the Democratic primary and Democratic or Independent voter registrations which were altered in some ways. We know Hillary won the national popular vote in the general election.
So, by trying to pass legislation regarding election security, the DNC has nothing to gain. They still keep their superdelegates and consider them valid, even when they vote against the popular vote as they did several times in 2016. Notice they do not even mention the term election “integrity”, only election “security”.
I’ve seen too many people cheering for the NPVC, eliminating the electoral college, for censorship and for Russiagate. I’ve said it thousands of times and cannot keep saying it enough. Stop cheering for things which strip away your own rights. Start looking at what legislation, policies and corporate actions really mean to your own rights, both human and constitutional. If you don’t understand what something means, ask someone who understands. Stop reacting emotionally rather than thinking critically. Stop being ruled by your hormones, including stress hormones. You’re being manipulated and letting yourself be manipulated, choosing to be manipulated, actively seeking to be manipulated. Stop making excuses. Start thinking. Start demanding answers, evidence, proof. Until you do, you have absolutely no right to criticize others who do exactly the same thing on the other side of the duopoly. Because what you are doing is truly no better.