Tea Party Of Louisiana Declares War On National Popular Vote Proponents
State Rep. Nickie Monica (R-LaPlace) has said he won’t be running for re-election this fall. A bill he introduced in the current legislative session would likely have made that decision for him if he hadn’t already announced it.
That’s because Monica is the author of HB 388, which would bind Louisiana’s electors to a national compact in which signatory states would give their electoral votes to the presidential candidate with a popular majority. Such a move would effectively destroy the Electoral College, and reduce the impact of less-populated states like Louisiana relative to more-populated states like New York and California.
Monica’s release upon introducing the bill goes in an entirely different direction. ”Louisiana is ignored in general presidential elections,” it read. “Candidates do not come to Louisiana and hear our concerns and needs. In 2008, candidates concentrated 99 percent of their general election visits on 16 states. States like Louisiana, and two-thirds of the country, have become simply spectators in the election of the President.”
Monica didn’t say why presidential candidates would be any more likely to chase votes out of Louisiana’s population of four million and change when there is a population of similar size in the Houston area alone should his bill become law – or why if Louisiana signed on to this compact and agreed to put its electoral votes toward whoever wins the national popular vote it would be even necessary for politicians to spend resources here at all.
Constitutional conservatives across the country are enraged at bills like this one, which are being introduced all over the country (eight jurisdictions – Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Washington and Vermont and the District of Columbia – have passed an NPV bill) . And the Tea Party of Louisiana is no different – as a release the group issued today makes crystal clear.
“This would be the end of the American republic, if this bill passes,” said Bob Reid, spokesman for the Tea Party of Louisiana.
“The founders of America created the most sophisticated system of government known to man – a government designed to give the people more power than the government. This national popular vote initiative would literally uproot our system of government and would destroy our country,” added Reid.
A National Popular Vote would allow Presidential candidates to win the White House by simply earning 50% + 1 of the popular vote. It would eliminate the role of the states in elections. Ultimately, it would allow presidential candidates to win the White House by only campaigning to New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago because of the massive populations of those cities. It would also give more power at the ballot box to special interest groups.
“Americans must stop this slow transformation of America into a socialist state and reject the bill for a national popular vote,” said Reid.
The Tea Party of Louisiana has promised to work against the re-election of any legislator who votes for this bill [HB 388], regardless of their party affiliation.
“We demand that all state legislators vote against HB 388. And for those who betray the Constitution and the cause of Liberty, and vote for this offensive legislation, we promise to recruit someone to run against you in October and we will send you home,” said Reid.
TPOL’s release fails to mention the number one reason why a National Popular Vote regime would be a terrible idea – the open invitation to voter fraud it represents. Without the ability to check the voting strength of certain states through the Electoral College, political machines and groups like SEIU, Project Vote and ACORN would run roughshod through the electoral process in places like Chicago, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Las Vegas and Seattle, where it’s been proven that through a combination of same-day registration and poisoned vote counts electoral sanctity is shaky at best. The current system prevents spillover of poisoned vote processes into other states; a straight-tally vote would unshackle the operators who gave us a Sen. Al Franken or Gov. Christine Gregoire through voter fraud to influence national elections with local action.
Unfortunately, TPOL will have a lot of work to do even within Louisiana’s Republican Party in opposing legislators who advance the NPV regime. Monica won’t be in the electoral mix this fall, but he has two co-sponsors for HB 388 – both Republicans. Noble Ellington, a converted Democrat from Winnsboro, and Joe Harrison from Gray both appended their names to the bill as sponsors.
And HB 388 sailed through the House and Governmental Affairs Committee on a 14-0 vote. Given that 11 of the 19 members of that committee are Republicans, at least six of them had to have affirmatively voted in favor of moving the bill. Debate on the House floor is scheduled for June 6.
Another National Popular Vote bill was filed in the Senate. SB 126 by Joe McPherson (D-Woodworth) was scheduled to be heard in the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee on May 25, but McPherson pulled the bill – at least temporarily.
It’s hard to imagine either bill could survive a debate on the floor of the House or Senate, and even harder to imagine that Gov. Bobby Jindal would sign on to such a plan. But as Charlie Davis posted here at the Hayride earlier today, killing HB 388 and SB 126 through public pressure before either can gain momentum wouldn’t be a bad expense of energy for the state’s politically active citizens.
And imposing the ultimate electoral punishment on state legislators too careless, stupid or misguided to see the dangers in embracing destructive legislation like NPV is a good goal to embrace as well.
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?”
NVP is unworkable with our prized local control of elections. Without a uniform nationwide election process, NVP would inevitably lead to a corrupting race to the bottom in terms of election fraud.
So why would The U.S. House of Repesentatives support a national popular vote?
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a constitutional
amendment in 1969 for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald
Ford, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and contemporary vice-presidential
candidates such as Bob Dole and Walter Mondale.
Dude! Repeating your points over and over on the same thread does not add any credibility to your nonsensical argument.
But what is wrong with one person, one vote, which is the end result of the NPV?
The National Popular Vote bill would
guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes
in all 50 states (and DC).
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.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and
equal in presidential elections. 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. Candidates would need
to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful
of swing states.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already
agree that Louisiana will be ignored (as usual), because, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current
winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the
candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the
50 states. Candidates will not care
about at least 72% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and
medium-small states like Louisiana, and in 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely
exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of
their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states
(CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4
states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). Candidates
have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the
voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Now, policies
important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as
policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing, too.
Since World War II, a shift of only a few thousand votes in
one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13
presidential elections. Near misses are
now frequently common. There have been 6
consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. 537 popular votes won Florida
and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 popular
votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated
President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.
The bill would take effect when enacted by
states that have a majority of the Electoral College votes–that is, enough Electoral College votes to elect a President (270 of 538). Then, all the Electoral College votes from
those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the
most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the
most popular votes in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia.
The Electoral College that we have
today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but,
instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the
emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all
laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed,
in the Constitution.
States have the
responsibility to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding
Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for
president. It does not abolish the
Electoral College.
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). The recent
Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows
72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. 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: Colorado– 68%, Florida – 78%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%,
New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%,
Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; 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%; in Southern and border states:
Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North
Carolina — 74%, Oklahoma – 81%, South Carolina – 71%, Virginia — 74%, and West Virginia – 81%; and in
other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74%,, Massachusetts –
73%, Minnesota — 75%, New York — 79%, Oregon – 76%, and Washington — 77%.
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 counted and mattered to their candidate.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31
state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large population
states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, The District of
Columbia, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and
Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has
been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11),
Massachusetts (10), Vermont (3), and Washington (13). These eight jurisdictions
have 77 electoral votes — 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into
effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
“The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), Massachusetts (10), Vermont (3), and Washington (13). ”
All BLUE states? I’m shocked, I tell you. Just shocked!
NPV effectively does away with the Electoral college. It would be masochistic for any small state to support it. Yet the trust-funders paradise of Vermont, with a population of 600,000, supports it. That tells you everything you need to know….NPV favors the Dems given the current US electorate.
Wake me up when Wyoming (3) or any other tiny, ultra-conservative state joins the fray.
National Popular
Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a “republican”
form of government or is a “democracy.”
A
“republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the
job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen,
Senators, and the President). The United States has a republican form of
government regardless of whether
popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has
been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine
and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
All people need to know about your asinine trolling comments and your idiotic initiative is that if it had been in place three years ago, Louisiana’s electoral votes would have gone to Obama.
End of story.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a constitutional
amendment in 1969 for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald
Ford, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and contemporary vice-presidential
candidates such as Bob Dole and Walter Mondale.
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.”
http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/05/16/national-popular-vote-is-good-for-republicans/
Former
Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), former
Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former Iowa Governor Chet Culver (D) 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.
http://www.thatssaulfolks.com/2010/04/01/national-popular-vote-why-i-support-it/
Some other supporters who wrote
forewords to “Every Vote Equal” 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 is a Republican 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.
Joseph Griffo has been a Republican
New York State Senator since 2007.
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.
By state (electoral college votes), by political
affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:
Alaska (3)- 78% among (Democrats), 66% among (Republicans),
70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and
69% among others.
Arkansas (6)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 79% (Independents).
California (55)– 76% (D), 61% (R), and 74% (I)
Colorado (9)- 79% (D), 56% (R), and 70% (I).
Connecticut (7)- 80% (D), 67% (R), and 71% others
Delaware (3)- 79% (D), 69% (R), and 76% (I)
District of Columbia (3)- 80% (D), 48% (R), and 74% of (I)
Idaho(4) – 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Florida (29)- 88% (D), 68% (R), and 76% others
Iowa (6)- 82% (D), 63% (R), and 77% others
Kentucky (8)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 70% (I)
Maine (4) – 85% (D), 70% (R), and 73% others
Massachusetts (11)- 86% (D), 54% (R), and 68% others
Michigan (16)- 78% (D), 68% (R), and 73% (I)
Minnesota (10)- 84% (D), 69% (R), and 68% others
Mississippi (6)- 79% (D), 75% (R), and 75% Others
Nebraska (5)- 79% (D), 70% (R), and 75% Others
Nevada (5)- 80% (D), 66% (R), and 68% Others
New Hampshire (4)- 80% (D), 57% (R), and 69% (I)
New Mexico (5)- 84% (D), 64% (R), and 68% (I)
New York (29) – 86% (D), 66% (R), 78% Independence Party
members, 50% Conservative Party members, 100% Working Families Party members,
and 7% Others
North Carolina (15)- 75% liberal (D), 78% moderate (D), 76%
conservative (D), 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), and
80% (I)
Ohio (18)- 81% (D), 65% (R), and 61% Others
Oklahoma (7)- 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Oregon (7)- 82% (D), 70% (R), and 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20)- 87% (D), 68% (R), and 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4)- 86% liberal (D), 85% moderate (D), 60%
conservative (D), 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), and 78%
(I),
South Dakota (3)- 84% (D), 67% (R), and 75% others
Utah (6)- 82% (D), 66% (R), and 75% others
Vermont (3)- 86% (D); 61% (R), and 74% Others
Virginia (13)- 79% liberal (D), 86% moderate (D), 79%
conservative (D), 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), and 54% conservative (R),
and 79% Others
Washington (12)- 88% (D), 65% (R), and 73% others
West Virginia (5)- 87% (D), 75% (R), and 73% others
Wisconsin (10)- 81% (D), 63% (R), and 67% (I)
Wyoming (3) – 77% (D), 66%
(R), and 72% (I)
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php
The Hayride New Post – Tea Party Of Louisiana Declares War On National Popular Vote Proponents. Read it now at http://tinyurl.com/3p6vwmn
Does the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 have something to do with the Tea Party’s opposition?
Absolutely not. The Founding Fathers knew the threat of Urban areas controlling the rural areas. Its a major reason for them adopting this policy. The adoption of the 17th Amendment by Progressives and their hope of ending the Electoral College are attempts to destroy the American republican form of government. State’s are addicted to Federal money and are scared to oppose them.
Here’s what my Rep thinks of the NPV:
“As of today I am opposed to HB 388 and
waiting for debate on the House Floor. Thank you for taking the time to email
regarding this issue which is very important for several reasons as you
stated. Have a great weekend!
Sincerely,
Rep. Clif Richardson
(225)261-5739
(225)261-5741 Fax”
I do like his “As of today” statement…. leaves wiggle room during/after debate.
NPV is a solution in search of a problem. Any complaint one might have with the current system can be rectified, and easily, through the current system without this legislation. See http://jeffsadow.blogspot.com/2011/05/electoral-bills-redundant-subvert.html.