Another Attempt to Shred the Constitution

[PoliticalChic]

If you aren't familiar with investigative reporter Aaron Klein, let me point out that the man as an amazing record, amazing for accuracy.

Months ago he reported on Benghazi as the United States' office for running guns to the rebels in Syria via Turkey, and the movement of weapons was the motive for the attack on the consulate.

This is the story that is coming out now via CNN, and Drudge.

I point this out as the reason to pay attention to the following:




1. "DEVIOUS ELECTION PLOT BYPASSES CONSTITUTION

2. The National Popular Vote effort, which could see only 14 states – those with the largest populations – decide the presidency for voters in all 50 states, is fully partnered with a George Soros-funded election group.

3. Last week, the Washington Post reported NPV is “now halfway to its goal of electing future presidents via the popular vote, after Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (D) made his state the latest to sign on.”






4. The National Popular Vote, or NPV, is run by individuals with a history of support for the Democratic Party...

5. ...NPV as a campaign seeking to “get states that comprise a majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College –270, to be precise – to agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.”




6. The Founding Fathers firmly rejected a purely popular vote to elect the president because they wanted to balance the power of the larger states against the smaller.

7. ...NPV effort could change the way Americans vote without amending the U.S. Constitution. The plan simply requires that enough states sign up...

8. To bypass the constitutional amendment process, NPV minimizes the number of states that would need to agree. Instead, once enough states agree to allot their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, the Electoral College becomes irrelevant.





9. NPV is partnered with FairVote, a project of the Soros-funded Center for Voting and Democracy....Soros’s Open Society Institute funds the Center for Voting and Democracy, where FairVote is based.

10. With Obama on its board, the Joyce Foundation [which provided original seed money] also funded the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute; the National Council of La Raza and Physicians for Social Responsibility, among numerous other radical groups."
Devious election plot bypasses Constitution



Anyone still recognize the nation that was founded in the 18th century?

 

[OKTexas]

This is what you get when politicians put their own power ahead of their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Yet we the people keep giving them the money to destroy whats left of the country. Go figure.

 

[OriginalShroom]

It's the people being told that it isn't "Fair" that the electoral College exists.

They don't care why it is there. How it protects the rights of smaller States to have an important voice in the election of the President. They only hear the words "It isn't fair" and that is all they care about.

Little do they realize that if they get their way, all future Presidential nominees will campaign along the two coastlines and that will be it.

 

[Dutch]

U should be happy the country is not like it was when it was founded. You would not be able to vote or own property. Do not the candidates now only campaign in about 7 swing states? I mean whens the last time a candidate ever campaigned seriously in Alaska or California? I live in Ohio and it gets insane. How are all of these trips to Ohio, Pennslyvannia, or Virginia helping a Republican in New York or a Democrat in Texas?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's the people being told that it isn't "Fair" that the electoral College exists.

They don't care why it is there. How it protects the rights of smaller States to have an important voice in the election of the President. They only hear the words "It isn't fair" and that is all they care about.

Little do they realize that if they get their way, all future Presidential nominees will campaign along the two coastlines and that will be it.

As it is, they only campaign heavily in a handful of battleground states. What's the difference.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is what you get when politicians put their own power ahead of their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Yet we the people keep giving them the money to destroy whats left of the country. Go figure.

There is nothing unconstitutional about what they are doing. Each state has the authority to decide how it awards its electoral votes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Aaron Klein is a birther from the Worldnet Daily.

 

[OriginalShroom]

This is what you get when politicians put their own power ahead of their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Yet we the people keep giving them the money to destroy whats left of the country. Go figure.

There is nothing unconstitutional about what they are doing. Each state has the authority to decide how it awards its electoral votes.

It's the lie that the people are being told that bothers me.

 

[Plasmaball]

U should be happy the country is not like it was when it was founded. You would not be able to vote or own property. Do not the candidates now only campaign in about 7 swing states? I mean whens the last time a candidate ever campaigned seriously in Alaska or California? I live in Ohio and it gets insane. How are all of these trips to Ohio, Pennslyvannia, or Virginia helping a Republican in New York or a Democrat in Texas?

can you imagine her not being able to vote or own property?

that would be awesome

 

[OKTexas]

This is what you get when politicians put their own power ahead of their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Yet we the people keep giving them the money to destroy whats left of the country. Go figure.

There is nothing unconstitutional about what they are doing. Each state has the authority to decide how it awards its electoral votes.

And there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the states the authority to tell electors how they must vote.

 

[candycorn]

I'm quite happy with the Electoral College the way it is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is why we won't last as one nation, the Left wants nothing to do with our founding

 

[Locke11_21]

This is why we won't last as one nation, the Left wants nothing to do with our founding

It's hard to say if we last as a nation. In Colorado, the so called open minded and tolerant left in the Democrat party won't even give the other side the any say, completely shutting them out and ignoring them. It has gotten so bad, that there is a rapidly growing secession movement in Colorado amongst conservative counties. If this movement succeeds, we will have 51 states due to Colorado being divided into to separate states. This has happened before. If this happens in Colorado, look for it to happen in California next.

Colorado Secession Movement Grows

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's the people being told that it isn't "Fair" that the electoral College exists.

They don't care why it is there. How it protects the rights of smaller States to have an important voice in the election of the President. They only hear the words "It isn't fair" and that is all they care about.

Little do they realize that if they get their way, all future Presidential nominees will campaign along the two coastlines and that will be it.

Well, Barack Obama's 68% of the electoral vote in 2008 reminds of what a landslide his victory was.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm quite happy with the Electoral College the way it is.

I'm not happy the way it is, I think all states should do a proportional allotment based on votes within the state. This would destroy the current system where a few swing states decide the election and the politicians ignore the rest of the country.

 

[candycorn]

I'm quite happy with the Electoral College the way it is.

I'm not happy the way it is, I think all states should do a proportional allotment based on votes within the state. This would destroy the current system where a few swing states decide the election and the politicians ignore the rest of the country.

That would favor some states more than others;

The only change I would make is that we force the President-Elect to win both the current Electoral Vote as well as the popular vote.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm convinced that it was George Soros who called Al Gore and made him retract his concession to George Bush

 

[PoliticalChic]

U should be happy the country is not like it was when it was founded. You would not be able to vote or own property. Do not the candidates now only campaign in about 7 swing states? I mean whens the last time a candidate ever campaigned seriously in Alaska or California? I live in Ohio and it gets insane. How are all of these trips to Ohio, Pennslyvannia, or Virginia helping a Republican in New York or a Democrat in Texas?

I'll assume that you are not devious, but rather that you are....short-sighted, and fail to understand what is going on.

So...let me help:

1. The methods used by the Left are designed to have a nation run by the elites, without recourse to the Constitution or the people.




2. The people vote....and a few Leftist judges throw out the vote.
And the Left has the nerve to claim that it is the right is all about 'voter suppression.'

3. FDR perfected this method....e.g., Fannie and Freddie.
Where does the Constitution authorize control of the private sector, housing?
BTW....this illegality is the cause of the mortgage meltdown.

4. If it is such a good and important idea.....why didn't FDR support a constitutional amendment, as is prescribed in the Constitution?




5. Now....re-view the OP:
If it is such a good and important idea.....why don't Obama/Soros ...and you....support a constitutional amendment, as is prescribed in the Constitution?



It is the only correct way to change the Constitution.




Lesson for today:
"I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University."
Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.

 

[OriginalShroom]

The idea that the Iowa's EC Votes should go to Nominee "A" when the people of the State actually voted for Nominee "B" simply because New York, California, and the rest of the Coastal States voted for "A" is not only obscene, but disrespectful of the people of Iowa.

 

[mvymvy]

I'm quite happy with the Electoral College the way it is.

I'm not happy the way it is, I think all states should do a proportional allotment based on votes within the state. This would destroy the current system where a few swing states decide the election and the politicians ignore the rest of the country.

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections.

The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

If the whole-number proportional approach, the only proportional option available to an individual state on its own, had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.