Progressives Attempt To Destroy Our Republic With Soros Funded National Popular Vote Group

A major push to circumvent our constitutional method of electing a president is currently being efforted by the 501(c) organization National Popular Vote Inc., a George Soros funded who’s who of the progressive left. With the recent addition of California to the list, nine eleven states have now signed into law a bill that awards all of the state’s electoral college votes to the winner of the “national” popular vote for president.

These states have provided this dangerous and unconstitutional movement 165 of the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. Once this group has 270 electoral votes, the electoral college will be rendered moot, the constitution will be undermined and the U.S. President will be elected based on popular vote.

Why is electing a president by national popular vote a bad idea?

Our founding fathers understood that pure Democracy (majority/mob rules) can lead to the curtailing or elimination of liberty for the minority or stated another way; pure Democracy leads to tyranny of the majority. 50%+1 of the population can impose their will on the remaining 50%-1 of the population. History has shown us that this can lead to, among other things, dictatorships, totalitarianism, discrimination and slavery.

Under a National Popular Vote, 100% of the citizens in a state could vote for candidate A and all of the state’s electoral college votes go to candidate B, rending small states powerless and the will of the people in the state irrelevant. It sounds crazy, but that is exactly what is being proposed.

It’s a ridiculous idea dreamed up by George Soros Stooges in an attempt to circumvent the constitution and ensure a progressive will always control the administrative branch.


There is also the issue of Federalism, state’s rights and state sovereignty. This concept can be easily understood by looking at the structure of the U.S. Senate. Each state, no matter the population in the state, sends two Senators to Washington to represent the interests of that state. No one state has more power in the Senate that any other state. This helps to ensure that larger, more populated states cannot impose their will on smaller, less populated states.

The same concept applies to the electoral college and the presidential election. We cannot allow a few large states to decide who our president will be. All states must be fairly represented and the electoral college helps to ensure that all states have a voice.

Collectivism, Progressives and Funding

The national popular vote movement grew out of the 2000 election, where George W. Bush won the presidency but Al Gore won the popular vote. This infuriated the left in America. So, they decided if they could convince the larger states to support a national popular vote for president, those larger, more progressive states, would control who is elected president, ensuring that a progressive would always control the administrative branch.

That’s when billionaire George Soros stepped in to fund and support the movement, via his myriad 502(c) groups, such as the Progressive States Network and Common Cause.

Common Cause has received $2 million from Soros’s Open Society Institute in the past eight years, according to grant data provided by Capital Research Center. Two panelists at Common Cause’s rival conference nearby — President Obama’s former green jobs czar, Van Jones, and blogger Lee Fang — work at the Center for American Progress, which was started and funded by Soros but, as a 501(c)4 nonprofit “think tank,” legally conceals the names of its donors. ref

A reprint of this WSJ article by Jonathon Soros appears on the National Popular Vote website.

It’s Time to Junk the Electoral College
We don’t need an amendment to do it.

The Constitution is no longer in line with our expectations regarding the role of the people in selecting the President.

Mr. Soros is the deputy chairman of Soros Fund Management and a supporter of the National Popular Vote.

The progressives in America have embarked on an effort to circumvent the intent of the constitution and take permanent control the presidency. Progressives are not concerned with Federalism or “Tyranny of the Majority”, as long as they are the majority.

Spread the word to your family, friends and neighbours. Educate them regarding this dangerous movement, a movement that could spell the end of our constitutional Republic.

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.


  1. oldgulph says:

    The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters.

    States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.

    The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

    Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

    The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.

    As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

    In a republic, the citizens do not rule directly, as in a direct democracy, but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections. That doesn’t change under National Popular Vote.

    The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case recently in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should get elected.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    • Scott says:

      Your copy and paste canned post is specious, and that is being kind.

      This nation is a collection of united states. The United States is not a nation state. Our form of government is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Under any stretch of the imagination, the office of President was never intended to be a national popularity contest. Please refer to the Federalist Papers for clarification.

      If a state ignores the will of the people in the state, in favor of a national popular vote, that is the very definition of “tyranny of the majority”. A situation could arise whereby a state casts 90% of their votes for a given candidate, but that candidate doesn’t receive the national popular vote, so by law that state would have to ignore the will of 90% of its citizens and allocate their electoral votes to some other candidate. That certainly was not the intent of the framers, nor is it fair to voters in any state.

      Using the popular national vote to elect a president shifts power from the less populated states to the more populated states. That’s something the progressives would really like to see, being that progressive states are the most populated states.

  2. oldgulph says:

    I find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. Presidential campaigns spend 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they aren’t hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and can win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. Once the primaries are over, presidential candidates don’t visit or spend resources in 2/3rds of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states. So they are ignored. More than 85 million voters have been just spectators to the general election.

    Under a national popular vote, with every voter equal, and politically relevant to candidates, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes… Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.

    Most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    • Scott says:

      All states are relevant in the process of electing our President. The fact that presidential candidates spend most of their time in battleground states is simply the nature of our system. Some states usually vote Democrat and some states usually vote Republican. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as the electoral votes of the state reflects the will of the people in the state. As per the example in my last response, it would be very troubling to most people if a state voted in opposition to the will of the citizens of the state. The framers created our Constitutional Republic the way they did for a reason.

      The fact that individual voters might not care who wins their state is irrelevant. You are falling back on the “mob rules” argument again, as you did by previously citing a national Gallup poll. Thanks to our framers, the mob doesn’t rule in America.

      We have popular elections within our states and the citizens elect representatives of their state. Those elected officials then represent their state in the legislative branch. That is the basis of Federalism and the governing principle of our Constitutional Republic.

      There are no national referendums or national popularity contests in our system of government. It’s representative government, citizens electing STATE representatives, who then represent the STATE at the federal level. It’s not the United Individuals of America. It’s the United States of America. Get it?

    • Paul says:

      The values, needs, and even cultures of rural conservative communities and minorities cannot be reflected fairly in a popular vote PERIOD. Thats why we have a representative republic. The systme is the way it should be given that people and states behave in a responsible way. The values and character of the Founding Fathers was different and more honorable than most of the general public today. When States Conspire to control any branch of government its disgraceful and ground for secession or for the calling of a Constitutional Convention IMHO.

  3. I do have somewhat of a problem with a winner-take-all regarding electoral votes in the Presidential election.

    For simplicity sake, would it not be more equitable to allow the number of electoral votes to be awarded based on the percentage of the vote they garner. Eg. State A = 100 electoral votes. Finial vote count (R) 20% =20 electoral votes, (D) 15% =15 electoral votes, and (I) 65% =65 electoral votes.

    Of course, there seems to be a problem with this resulting in a potential tie. Also, the electoral votes required to claim victory would have to be changed.

    I always thought it odd that if the vote totals in a state’s Presidential election were 50% to 49% or some others totals with a small percentage difference, one side loses all together.

    At the political party’s National Conventions, there is the chance to have some delegates buck pressure from the state’s dominate party and cast electoral votes to the minority. That seems to be an unusual occurrence. Besides, it seems most state’s delegates are political establishment insiders who just play the left/right game so the sheep can joust amongst themselves.

    Do you think there should be some way to split the electoral college votes relative to percentage of total votes? Then no one could ever claim their vote didn’t count.

  4. oldgulph says:

    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 the whole-number proportional approach 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 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 guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.

    • Scott says:

      I find it telling that during this entire discussion, you have argued that even if 100% of citizens in a state were to vote for a candidate A, that state’s electoral votes should be summarily cast for candidate B, because candidate B wins the national popular vote.

      How is it that you are now concerned with smaller, less populated state’s not having influence, when the entire purpose of a national popular vote is to ensure that smaller states have little or no influence on the election?

      Your positions are very contradictory. I can only surmise that your specious arguments are designed to obfuscate. Either that, or you really don’t understate the concept of Federalism and the underpinnings of our Republic. I say it’s the former.

      • oldgulph says:

        Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.

        Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.

        Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.

      • Scott says:

        Federalism is an American invention worth preserving

        The balance of power between state and national governments was one of the most contentious issues for the American Founders.

        The states were important historically, but also as a way to keep government close to the people and to divide government power into as many hands as practical in order to preserve liberty.

        At the Constitutional Convention small states wanted every state to have an equal voice in the national government. Large states desired just the opposite—representation based on population would give them more power.

        It was a compromise that created the U.S. Congress, where states are represented equally in the Senate but according to population in the House. That compromise not only broke the deadlock that threatened to derail the Constitution—it became the foundation for the unique American system of Federalism.

        The national government was set up to provide national defense, manage foreign trade, and referee disputes between the states—in short, to provide the states with safety and commerce similar to the way the British Empire did for the 13 original colonies. The states were left to manage their internal affairs and to compete with one another; thus the states are sometimes referred to as our “fifty laboratories of democracy.”

        Federalism fosters diversity by allowing groups of people in different states to manage their affairs differently, to innovate or remain the same, to address local needs. And by keeping government local, dividing it up, and making it compete, Federalism protects freedom.

        The American system of states is not just unique—it has been uniquely successful. Federalism is an American invention worth preserving.

  5. So, after some research, I see you been making your cut and paste presence known all over the Internet. I even found the same cut and paste argument here from 2009.

    This entire scam is to allow the large, poor, broke, and uneducated voters in your typical large poverty-stricken-ran-in-the-ground-by-Progressives cities to be herded up, incentivized with food, cigarettes, free something, etc.. (typical Soros schemes) to vote en bloc. This will lead to massive voter fraud, considering your man, Soros, is out to kill any effort to require a legitimate id to cast a vote. Hell, Soros then could sponsor mass visitors from American-hating countries to line up behind the most radical, Progressive, Republic-destroying agenda. If you hate a Representative Republic so much, there are plenty of Socialist countries in the world who would welcome you to their failed state.

    Since you Soros-clones seems addicted to cut and paste, I’ll do a bit of my own. I found an argument that should make any true America take pause.
    Stick with the Founders, oppose National Popular Vote

    As the “National Popular Vote” (NPV) bill is currently being considered by the Oklahoma Legislature, the proponents of NPV have distributed a tome of more than 800 pages explaining their position. However, the reasons to oppose NPV can be summed up in much fewer words. Here is what you need to know about NPV.

    Supported by Soros

    A bill can be known by the company it keeps. NPV is endorsed by left wing groups like ACLU, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, and Common Cause, an organization that receives its funding from groups like George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the Tides Foundation. Obviously, these groups would not be supporting NPV if they did not stand to benefit from it. Meanwhile, no major conservative figures have come out in support of NPV.

    A good rule of thumb for deciding whether a bill is good or bad is to see if Soros supports or opposes it. Soros has funneled money into nearly every major radical leftist group in the country, and is bent on shaping the United States into a European-style social democracy.

    The reason these groups have flocked to the NPV movement is their radical agenda is much easier to advance without the Electoral College standing in the way. It is becoming increasingly difficult for liberal presidential candidates to draw electoral maps where they can win without having to compromise on many of their positions.

    Under a NPV scheme, a candidate like President Obama could run on a much more extreme platform and focus all of his efforts on getting voters to the polls in liberal strongholds rather than having to come to the middle and persuade more moderate voters to vote for him.

    • oldgulph says:

      By state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:

      Alaska (3) — 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters
      Arkansas (6) — 71% (R), 79% (Independents).
      California (55)– 61% (R), 74% (I)
      Colorado (9) — 56% (R), 70% (I).
      Connecticut (7) — 67% (R)
      Delaware (3) — 69% (R), 76% (I)
      DC (3) — 48% (R), 74% of (I)
      Idaho(4) – 75% (R)
      Florida (29) — 68% (R)
      Iowa (6) — 63% (R)
      Kentucky (8) — 71% (R), 70% (I)
      Maine (4) – 70% (R)
      Massachusetts (11) — 54% (R)
      Michigan (16) — 68% (R), 73% (I)
      Minnesota (10) — 69% (R)
      Mississippi (6) — 75% (R)
      Nebraska (5) — 70% (R)
      Nevada (5) — 66% (R)
      New Hampshire (4) — 57% (R), 69% (I)
      New Mexico (5) — 64% (R), 68% (I)
      New York (29) – 66% (R), 78% Independence, 50% Conservative
      North Carolina (15) — 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), 80% (I)
      Ohio (18) — 65% (R)
      Oklahoma (7) — 75% (R)
      Oregon (7) — 70% (R), 72% (I)
      Pennsylvania (20) — 68% (R), 76% (I)
      Rhode Island (4) — 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), 78% (I),
      South Carolina (8) — 64% (R)
      South Dakota (3) — 67% (R)
      Tennessee (11) — 73% (R)
      Utah (6) — 66% (R)
      Vermont (3) — 61% (R)
      Virginia (13) — 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 54% conservative (R)
      Washington (12) — 65% (R)
      West Virginia (5) — 75% (R)
      Wisconsin (10) — 63% (R), 67% (I)
      Wyoming (3) –66% (R), 72% (I)

      • Scott says:

        National Popular Vote’s dubious polling

        The National Popular Vote Campaign (the folks looking to do away with hundreds of years of sanity with the Electoral College) spent a lot of time and money polling thousands of people state-to-state, asking them what they thought of the Electoral College.

        They were very careful how the question was framed or worded, and therefore often got a 3-to-1 split in their favor. This is then used as hard evidence, funneled through highly-paid lobbyists, to persuade legislators that their constituencies vastly support this cause.

        NPV’s numbers are clearly bogus and copied directly from the NPV website (with no links to who took the polls and how they were conducted). I can guarantee that once the issue is discussed openly and rationally, a national popular vote for President would attract very little support in SC and in other red states. Only progressives and uninformed sheep would support the measure.

      • Scott says:


        Not to be outdone, we then created another simply worded survey and polled another couple hundred folks. The question didn’t slant the result in any way, simply asking “Do you support the Electoral College?” What’s funny about this is that one would think if 75% of folks go on the record against the Electoral College, one wouldn’t expect a flip in results with the question phrased differently.

        Wrong. Just a simple rephrased question resulted in a majority of the people supporting the electoral college. (70 %; Full results here) If you reject our methodology and results, then you have to at least reject the numbers coming out of the NPV. If you accept our phrasings, then you accept that neither are correct. Whatever logical path you take, the NPV numbers cannot and must not be relied upon for decision making.

    • oldgulph says:

      In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole.

      On June 7, 2011, the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47–13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21–11. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17–7.

      Billionaire Republican Tom Golisano is a $upporter.

      Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: “I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives, it is good for California, and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
      It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.

      National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . .Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it.”

      Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), and former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.

      Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

      Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote ” include:

      Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

      James Brulte who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

      Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

      Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

      Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

      • Scott says:

        Excerpts from National Popular Vote – A Clear and present danger.

        It’s no accident that the first six state legislatures to approve laws to effectively do away with the Electoral College were in Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois and Washington. These states went solidly for Al Gore in 2000 and many of the liberals who dominate those legislatures have not forgiven or forgotten the debacle of Election 2000. That election saw vote canvassers in Miami holding up partially punched ballots to discern the difference between “hanging chads,” “dimpled chads” and “pregnant chads.”

        Vengeful liberals believe they can undo the Electoral College without amending the Constitution, which gives each state the power to appoint “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” a number of electors equal to the state’s combined number of representatives and senators. Liberals want state legislatures to direct those electors to vote for the candidate who wins the national popular vote (NPV).

        Liberals are inviting a constitutional crisis. The Constitution gives the states the power to determine how the electors shall be chosen. Does it also give states the right to tell those electors who to vote for?

        But, worse, this attempt to undo the founders’ brilliant idea — the Electoral College — is a danger to the country. It threatens our peace and stability as a nation.

        Most often, the Electoral College functions to amplify the popular votes of the American people. In the vast majority of our presidential elections, that’s what it has done. Take Bush and Clinton in 1992. Bill Clinton won only 43% of the popular vote, hardly a mandate. But he carried the Electoral College with a massive 379 electoral votes to George H.W. Bush’s 160. Many worried about a Clinton presidency, but no one seriously disputed his election. Similarly, the election of 1988 produced a lopsided Electoral College win for the senior Bush. He beat Michael Dukakis 426 electoral votes to 111, although the popular vote was just 53% to 46%.

    • Scott says:

      libertypatriot, you’ve got gulph pegged. He’s appears to be a Soros stooge, who copies and pastes his way through a blog thread, while never addressing legitimate issues that are raised. His answer to every concern is that the mob wants “mob rules” so the mob should have it. How absurd is that?

  6. oldgulph says:

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

    Senator Birch Bayh (D-Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, “one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes.”

    Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .

    For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

    Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?”

    • Scott says:

      Real fraud would be committed if the majority of citizens in a state voted for candidate A, but the legislators ignore the will of the citizens and award all of that state’s electoral college votes to Candidate B. That is exactly what would occur if we institute a national popular vote for President.

      • oldgulph says:

        Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.

        National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate. With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.

        • Scott says:

          Nonsense!! I just pointed out how citizen’s votes would NOT be counted. The votes of citizens in a state would be made irrelevant if the electoral votes for their state were cast in opposition to their will. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. That is not going to change, just because you wish it to be changed. What don’t you understand about that?

          If you want to change the U.S. into a Democracy and eliminate the power of individual states by dissolving the electoral college, we have a constitutional amendment process, so why not give that a shot? This backdoor attempt to circumvent our republic is doomed to failure, as long as there are those of us who are willing and able to expose your movement for the fraud that it is.

  7. Lyle says:

    The electoral college has served us well since the beginning of our Republic. When I was younger and didn’t know or understand things as I do now, I use to be for the popular vote, but then I’ve come to my senses. I also understand why our founders wanted the Senators to be chosen by State Representatives rather then by popular vote since the Senators can get elected by acquiring money (thus their power) from outside entities not from the State that they represent and as such can vote as they will and use said money to destroy whatever competition they may have, but, if they had to answer to the state legislature, they wouldn’t have such clout and would indeed do the bidding of their respective states. Case in point: Obamacare. The majority of states did not want this monstrosity to pass, but the Senators from these states voted against the will of their respective states because they no longer have to worry that their position is solely depended upon those in the state legislature. It’s time to amend the Constitution to repeal the 17th amendment no doubt. I’ll keep my words just on this topic (even though I have much more to say; trust me). States can not be properly represented if decisions were solely made by popular vote since only those from states that have the majority will get all the benefits and none left for the rest. Our founders knew this. We have forgotten this lesson.

    Also, remember what Lincoln said:

    You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

    The part I fear the most is that you can fool all the people some of the time. The Electoral college may help to protect us from that fupah sometimes where no protection at all exists otherwise. Keep the Electoral college; again it’s served us well throughout our Republic and we have the best form of government currently on this planet. :)

    • Scott says:

      You make an excellent point Lyle. In keeping with original intent, Senators should be appointed by state legislatures. Your example of the unconstitutional mandated health insurance purchase clause in Obamacare typifies the need to follow the original intent of the constitution.

  8. I see it like this with you Progressives. Here’s a scenario to chew on.

    California, by a landslide of 95% to 5% votes for the Democrat candidate. The national popular vote results in a win for the (R) or even (I) candidate with a margin of 50% to 48.9%. The majority of CA Delegates are Democrats. This group of electors would be committed to casting all of CA electoral votes at the National Convention for (R). There is no contract that guarantees how these electors will cast the electoral votes.

    Under your scenario, the CA Delegates would be committed to pledge electoral votes for the (R) or (I) candidate, even though the (D) candidate got 48.8% of the popular vote.

    I bet dollars to doughnuts that those electors would claim a Constitutional mandate to cast the electoral votes for the (D)candidate, since the popular vote totals are so close and that having to cast all those electoral for the (R) or (I) candidate would not represent the voice of the people and their vote wasn’t counted, blah, blah, blah, infinitum.

    Progressives will do anything to bring about mob rule, which is prevalent under pure Democracy. You know, the same kind of Democracy they have in France, Spain, Greece, Mexico, etc..

  9. oldgulph says:

    The bill says: “Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”

    Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

    The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

    There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

    An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

    Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

    • Scott says:

      LibertyPartiot is 100% correct. State compacts can easily be ruled unconstitutional so nothing is struck in rock here. The scenario he outlined would only have to occur once and the NPV movement would be dead. My prediction is that it will occur in 2012 and we will all see what happens. ;)

      In Defense Of The Electoral College

      There appears to be a fairly good argument that the NPV would be unconstitutional if it ever went into effect. While it’s true that the Constitution largely leaves up to the individual states how Electors are chosen, Article I, Section Ten clearly prohibits states from entering into inter-state compacts without the approval of Congress:

      No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

      The National Popular Vote “compact”, therefore, would clearly be unconstitutional unless it also received the approval of Congress, which seems unlikely.

      But the fact that something is unconstitutional doesn’t stop some people. Basically, the NPV is a blatant end run around the Constitution because, well, it’s too hard to amend the Constitution.

      • oldgulph says:

        Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states to enter interstate compacts. In fact, there are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones), as can be seen at

        • Scott says:

          Did you even bother to read my previous post? I just posted the text from Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 and it specifically states that you must have the consent of Congress.

          The National Popular Vote “compact”, is clearly unconstitutional unless it also receives the approval of Congress, which is highly unlikely.

          In addition, I’m sure that when the scenario LibertyPatriot outlined actually plays out, that is the exact clause liberal states will use in their attempt to back out of the deal.

          • oldgulph says:

            Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

            The U.S. Constitution provides:

            “No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state….”

            Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has method, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can “not be read literally.” In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:

            “Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

            “The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta.”

            Specifically, the Court’s 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:

            “Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”

            The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:

            “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

            In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:

            “The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States”

            The National Popular Vote compact would not “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States” because there is simply no federal power — much less federal supremacy — in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

          • Scott says:

            Nice try and good luck with that 1893 “opinion”. It will never hold up to scrutiny, unless SCOTUS is packed with liberal activist judges.

            Yes, I’m well aware of Soros backed lobbying efforts to pass legislation seeking congressional approval for the unconstitutional NPV movement.You will most certainly need congressional sign off or NPV will be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

  10. John C says:

    DEMAND that your state legislators explain to their constituents that, because of a little “side-deal” that THEY cut with 14 or 15 other States, that the STATE Popular Vote for President has been negated and reversed by the NATIONAL Popular Vote! IN WHAT UNIVERSE IS THIS A GOOD IDEA?

    On the 6 o’clock news on Wednesday, November 7, 2012, THE LEAD STORY WILL BE “In yesterday’s Presidential election, 54.7% of our State voters decided to cast all of our Electoral votes for Republican candidate Rick Perry.

    “But the Perry campaign celebration here was a bit short-lived when it was learned that Barack Obama has won 50.1% of the Nation’s popular vote. Because of a “side-deal agreement”, called a compact, agreed to by our legislature late last year, the legislature is over-turning the STATE Popular Vote in favor of the NATIONAL Popular Vote and casting ALL of our State’s Electoral Votes to re-elect Barack Obama to a second term in office.”

    “In OTHER unrelated news, the cities of Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit and New York have all reported record voter turn-out, with each city turning out more than 96% of all eligible voters. The previous voter turn-out record was 73.1% set in the 1980 election of ROnald Reagan.”

  11. John C says:

    The U.S. Constitution has never even called for ANY Popular vote to elect the President of the United States!

    It is because we are the United STATES! We are not the United STATE! We are a unique Federation of States and the Federal government is supposed to serve the 50 member States of the “club” or Federation! Federation. Federal. Get it?

    It is the STATES that elect the Presidents – not the People! It is the ONLY office in the land elected in this fashion and for very good reason!

    We are not electing a Mayor here, folks!

  12. My main problem with the 2000 election is the same that I have had with the 2008, 2004, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980 and 1976 elections: the influence of political parties in producing a poor selection of candidates and in giving the greatest visibility to their own incompetent candidates. I think we should thank our lucky stars that the office of the Presidency is not all that powerful.

    I am of the opinion, then, that the most grievous damage done to our way of electing the President came by way of the Twelfth Amendment and I would heartily support its immediate repeal.

  13. […] that both the right and left are together in this push to eliminate the Electoral College and a Soros funded “popular vote” group is behind it.  If you’ll recall in Part 2 of the Tea Parties, I mentioned that one of the […]

  14. Glenn C. says:

    The Electoral College has been obsolete, for a VERY long time. Actually, it should never have been used at all.

Leave a Reply