Trashing the 12th Amendment with the National Popular Vote « Publius-Huldah’s Blog

By Publius Huldah

The compact for a National Popular Vote (NPV) is a destructive scheme. Yet it’s been approved by several States; and is pending in others. Since the text of the compact no longer seems to be set forth on the NPV website, we’ll look at the NPV bill now pending in Tennessee.

In a nutshell, the compact seeks to evade the 12th Amendment to our Constitution (where the States elect the President); and substitutes a national popular vote where inhabitants of major metropolitan areas elect the President.

Source: Trashing the 12th Amendment with the National Popular Vote « Publius-Huldah’s Blog

As Publius Huldah reveals so brilliantly in the article linked directly above, the National Public Vote (NPV) violates the Constitution (which our federal government so loves to do) on every level. It is being promoted as a more democratic method, however the real motivation for pushing this idea is to give more weight to the major metropolitan areas which tend to vote for the Democratic party.

Furthermore, it would further erode the sovereignty of State governments and weaken their control over the federal government. Instead of a union of sovereign states, this country would have an even more powerful central government in Washington DC.

Every unconstitutional action taken by the federal government serves to concentrate more power there by usurping it from the States and the people, and the people lose a little more liberty. Sycophantic State legislators, bought off by money and promises of power, are collaborating with the tyrants in Washington.

If the people want to retain their voice, their liberty, and their voice in the government of their State and their federal government, they must vote against the NPV, and urge their representatives to abolish the 17th amendment and return to the 12th amendment.

This entry was posted in Constitution, Government related, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Trashing the 12th Amendment with the National Popular Vote « Publius-Huldah’s Blog

  1. oldgulph says:

    There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

    With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states.

    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.”

    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 National Popular Vote bill retains the Electoral College and state control of elections. It again changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

    When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

    The bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).


    • topcat1957 says:

      Sounds like this was copied straight from the NPV promotion material. Where did you copy this post from?


    • topcat1957 says:

      You are intentionally missing the point. Each sovereign state has its own interests. This nation is a union of different states. There would never have been a union of these different states unless the states with with lower populations could be assured of having a significant voice in choosing the President.

      The NPV would make a sham of the electoral college and destroy the voice of less populous states and people who live in rural areas of the country. Your assurance that the candidate would still receive “the majority of Electoral College votes” is meaningless since the function of the electoral college is destroyed by the NPV.

      The NPV betrays the smaller and less populous states, robbing them of the device which gives them parity in Presidential elections. So that The States – The Members of the Federation – could maintain their independence and sovereignty, the authors of the Constitution stipulated that The States, as separate political entities, elect the President. This ensures that the unique interests, needs, and views of the people of each State have an equal voice in the election of the President.

      The founders created a constitutional republic instead of a democracy, where majorities run roughshod over minorities. In the same way, by treating each State as a separate sovereign political entity with equal weight in the election of the President, States with larger populations are prevented from robbing other states of their status as separate but equal members of the Federation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s