#rsrh Mitch McConnell… discusses… National Popular Vote.

(Via Hot Air Headlines) I don’t particularly want to muck with the Senate Majority Leader’s play, here – but I’m not particularly worried about the National Popular Vote*, and here’s why:

So far, California, seven other states, and the District of Columbia (all of which have large Democratic majorities) have passed legislation taking the National Popular Vote pledge. Those states and D.C. account for 132 electoral votes. The compact says it is to take effect when states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes have agreed to it.

Those states/Districts are California, Washington DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, & Washington State.  Which is to say, blue to deep-blue territory.  Call me when reliably Republican states look likely to sign off on this nonsense – because right now the only thing that these people are doing are promising to throw their EVs to a Republican candidate under certain circumstances.  Which is… nice of them; and I have absolutely no intention of reciprocating, or even refraining from laughing in their faces as I take advantage of their offer.

I need hardly mention that any Republican legislature in a Red state that thinks about going with this will find that there’s going to be pushback on this, do I?

Moe Lane

*Short version: a bunch of liberals who are still whining about the 2000 election want to back-door eliminate the Electoral College by having states agree to throw their EC votes to whoever wins the popular total.  Whether or not this is even legal is still being argued, but at the moment it’s academic.  As my sneering above suggests, without Republican support this initiative goes nowhere, and shockingly there is a limit to how many names you can call us – and the Democrats are already over quota.


  • qsclues says:

    It would seem to violate some Amendment or other. As a Minnesotan, my vote would count in 8 different states, but none of their votes would count in mine. Doesn’t make sense. It would have to be an all-or-none thing or else some votes would count for more than others.

  • countrydoc says:

    This is one of those ideas that’s only great when a Democrat benefits and horribly unconstitutional when a Republican does. It won’t survive the next election.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by