VIEW from behind the plow

Comments by Trent England, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (our most trusted think tank) regarding the sneaky (in our opinion) National Popular Vote scheme to undermine the Electoral College deserve repeating.

He was discussing a threat to the Electoral College outside an outright change to the Constitution.

The left in America, including the big media, who are being manipulated by international interests in our opinion, are determined to destroy America’s extensive influence for individual freedom and opportunity throughout the world.

America thwarts their goal of world domination, returning all normal people to the status of serfs.

(The promises of “free stuff” undoubtedly would be rescinded quickly after the system was changed turning control over to elitist power brokers.)

President Donald Trump’s election presented a major blow to the plan to elect Hillary Clinton, who was poised to continue the nation’s slide into ever-more centralized government.

Former President Obama, who served as a puppet for proponents of such a system, greased the skids to “fundamentaly change” America.

Left Clamors for End of Electoral College

Current leftists in government, who seem to be all in for that change, are clamoring for an end to the Electoral College.

England’s thoughts on the National Public Vote plan explains the threats to our system of government. He wrote:

“…The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV, takes advantage of the flexibility granted to state legislatures in the Constitution: ‘Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.’ The original intent of this was to allow state legislators to determine how best to represent their state in presidential elections. The electors represent the state–not just the legislature–even though the latter has power to direct the manner of appointment. By contrast, NPV supporters argue that this power allows state legislatures to ignore their state’s voters and appoint electors based on the national popular vote. This is what the compact would require states to do.

“Of course, no state would do this unilaterally, so NPV has a ‘trigger:’ it only takes effect if adopted by enough states to control 270 electoral votes—in other words, a majority that would control the outcome of presidential elections. …

“Until this year, every state that had joined NPV was heavily Democratic: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The NPV campaign has struggled to win other Democratic states: Delaware only adopted it this year and it still has not passed in Oregon (though it may soon). Following the 2018 election, Democrats came into control of both the legislatures and the governorships in the purple states of Colorado and New Mexico, which have subsequently joined NPV.

“NPV would have the same effect as abolishing the Electoral College. Fraud in one state would affect every state, and the only way to deal with it would be to give more power to the federal government. Elections that are especially close would require nationwide recounts. Candidates could win based on intense support from a narrow region or from big cities. NPV also carries its own unique risks: despite its name, the plan cannot actually create a national popular vote. Each state would still–at least for the time being–run its own elections. This means a patchwork of rules for everything from which candidates are on the ballot to how disputes are settled. NPV would also reward states with lax election laws–the higher the turnout, legal or not, the more power for that state. Finally, each NPV state would certify its own “national” vote total. But what would happen when there are charges of skullduggery? Would states really trust, with no power to verify, other state’s returns?

Another Voice on NPV

Norman R. Williams, associate dean and professor of law at Williamette University, explained his view on NPV on the Harvard Law Review blog.

Although he expressed favor with doing away with the Electoral College later in his comments, he listed two major problems with the plan currently being pushed, writing:

“To raise just a few practical questions, how would a nationwide recount be ordered or conducted if the national popular vote is close? And, if a nationwide recount were not conducted—if only some states conducted a recount in that situation—would not that violate the Equal Protection Clause for the same reason that the lack of uniformity in Florida’s county-by-county recount in Bush v. Gore did? Equally important, would not the absence of a uniform, nationwide recount call into question the legitimacy of the President so elected? Supporters of the NPVC do not have even remotely convincing responses to these problems. Even they acknowledge the need for a nationwide recount and that no individual state can order other states to undertake a recount. They merely respond that Congress theoretically could enact a statute ordering a nationwide recount even though the NPVC, as an interstate compact, does not and cannot require Congress to enact such a statute.”

Two Flaws Cited

He then added two flaws that have become more apparent since the NPVC was first proposed in the wake of the 2000 presidential election.

“First, the partisan divide regarding the NPVCthe fact that supporters of the NPVC have so closely tied the NPVC to the fate of Democratic presidential candidates–ironically makes it more difficult for the NPVC to come into effect. Even if every state that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 joined the NPVC (and not all of them have to this date) it would still be well short of the necessary 270 electoral votes to come into effect. But what about the states that Barack Obama carried in 2012 that Secretary Clinton lost. There are five such states: Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Even after the 2018 election in which Democrats performed so well nationally, Republicans still hold the majority of both houses of the state legislature in all five of those states, and they have legislative supermajorities in several of those states. In short, it seems incredibly unlikely that the NPVC will garner the necessary 270 electoral vote majority–let alone do so in time for the 2020 Presidential election–while it is portrayed so transparently as an effort to stop Republican candidates from winning the White House. Supporters of the NPVC have made a fatal political error in this regard.

Partisan Divide Problem

“Second, even if the NPVC somehow comes into effect at some point well down the road, the partisan divide makes it far more likely for the NPVC to unravel in a future presidential election. Suppose that a few of those Democratic-leaning (at least in Presidential elections) states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin join the NPVC, and it comes into effect. Now suppose that in some future presidential election, it looks like the Republican presidential candidate may win the popular vote. In that scenario, there will be overwhelming political pressure in signatory states, which, remember, include heavily Democratic states such as California and New York, to withdraw from the NPVC. To be sure, the NPVC anticipates this problem, nominally forbidding states to withdraw from the compact after July 20th in a presidential election year. But here is the rub: that limitation is unenforceable both as a legal and practical matter.

Political Suicide

“Article II of the Constitution empowers the state legislatures to decide how the presidential electors from their state are selected. That power exists regardless of when it is used; state legislatures retain the power to change the presidential election process in their state at any time before the electors vote. Indeed, under Article II, a state legislature can chose to appoint the electors itself even after the popular election in November. Does anyone believe that California or New York will refrain from withdrawing from the NPVC if the Republican candidate narrowly wins the national popular vote but the Democratic candidate overwhelmingly wins the state popular vote in those states? To adhere to the NPVC in that scenario would be political suicide for Democratic legislators in those states, who would surely get ‘primaried’ in the next election.”