Thread: Publius Huldah - NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE: GOODBYE SWEET AMERICA

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE: GOODBYE SWEET AMERICA

By Publius Huldah
March 20, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Our Constitution is under constant attack.[1] One of the most pernicious attacks is being waged by those who seek to override the constitutional provisions under which The States, as political entities, elect the President; and to replace it with a national popular vote (NPV) under which inhabitants of major metropolitan areas will choose the President.

What Form of Government Did We Create In Our Constitution?

Before you can see why it is so important that The States elect the President, and why the NPV is so execrable, you must understand how our “federal” government was structured and intended to operate. “Federal” actually referred to the form of the national government created in our Constitution, and to the division of powers between the national government and The States.

The “Federation” created by our Constitution is an alliance of independent and sovereign States associated together in a “confederation” with a national government to which is delegated authority over the States in specifically defined areas ONLY (national defense, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery). Those enumerated powers are the only areas wherein the national government has lawful (constitutional) authority over The States. In all other matters, the States retained supremacy, independence, and sovereignty.[2]

So that The States - The Members of the Federation - could maintain their independence and sovereignty,[3] our Framers wrote these provisions into our Constitution:

• State Legislatures were to choose the two U.S. Senators for their State (Art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 1); and,
• The States, as separate political entities, were to elect the President (Art. II, Sec. 1, cls. 2 & 3).


The People were to elect only their Representatives to the House (Art. I, Sec. 2, cl.1).

James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, explains in Federalist No. 45 (7th para), why this ensured that The States would maintain control over the national government:

“The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government …Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. …Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them…” [boldface mine] [4]

State Legislatures Were To Choose The U.S. Senators!

So! The appointment of Senators by State Legislatures was to “secure the authority” of the State governments in the federal government, and to preserve “the sovereignty remaining in the individual States” (Federalist No. 62, 3rd & 5th paras).[5]

Federalist No. 62 goes on to show that another advantage of State Legislatures appointing U.S. Senators is

“…the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States …” (6th para) [boldface mine]

Do you see? Since Representatives to the House were chosen by popular vote of the People, and U.S. Senators were to be chosen by the State Legislatures, no law could get passed by Congress unless it was approved by the People (via their Representatives) and by The States (via the State appointed U.S. Senators).

This is what our Framers gave us to protect us from a usurpatious Congress

“Electors” Appointed by States Were To Choose The President!

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 2 provides that each State is to appoint, in such Manner as the State Legislature may direct, a Number of Electors equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives for that State. These Electors were supposed to be the ones who actually voted for President and Vice President!

Our Framers never intended for the President to be elected by popular vote. While they recognize in Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) that The People are the source of political authority,[6] they knew that all history demonstrates that The People lack the knowledge, wisdom and judgment to make wise choices when voting for politicians.

In Federalist No. 64 (3rd & 4th paras),[7] John Jay recognizes that People are ignorant and easily manipulated by small groups who take advantage of their “hopes and fears,” to steer them towards candidates favored by the small groups.

Accordingly, the Electors would be “select assemblies” “composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens” who would vote for those men who were “the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue.” Furthermore, Electors would not likely “be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism” which “sometimes mislead as well as dazzle.”

In all of Federalist No. 68, Hamilton explains the wisdom of having specially selected Electors who were “most likely to possess…information and discernment” elect the President. He also warns of

“… the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? ...” (5th para)

and shows why specially selected Electors in each State could best protect us from such scheming foreign powers.[8]

Now that we see why Our Framers provided that Electors from the Member States were to choose the President of The Federation, let us see how the voting was – and is - to be conducted.

The 12th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors

The long ignored 12th Amendment (ratified 1804) sets forth procedures for taking and counting Electors’ votes. This is what it requires:

The Electors in each State are to meet and cast their votes for President; and then vote separately for Vice President. Say a State has 13 Electors, and the voting goes like this:

For President:
Mr. Falconer – 6 votes
Mr. Lossie – 5 votes
Mr. Bell – 2 votesFor Vice President:
Mr. Cross – 5 votes
Mr. Duncan – 5 votes
Mr. Nichols – 3 votes.

The Electors sign and certify this list and send it to the President of the Senate. On the appointed day, and in front of a joint session of Congress, the President of the Senate counts the Electors’ votes from The Member States. The person with the greatest number of votes for President becomes the President (if he has a majority). The person with the greatest number of votes for Vice President becomes the Vice President (if he has a majority). If one or both don’t have a majority – well, here’s a novel idea: read the Amendment to find out what happens.

THIS is how Our Constitution – which all those in the political process took SWORN OATHS to obey - requires the elections of President and Vice President to be conducted.

So! THE STATES, as political entities and as THE MEMBERS of the Federation, are the ones who were to choose the President. This is what our Framers gave us to protect us from a usurpatious President. It also gave the smaller States a voice in the selection of President.

The Purpose Of Our Framers’ Two Gifts

So! Do you see? The result of The State Legislatures choosing the U.S. Senators and controlling the election of the President would be that The States would be able to control the national government and keep it in line.

The 17th Amendment

But we threw one of Our Framers’ Gifts away when, in 1913, we foolishly ratified the 17th Amendment and the popular election of U.S. Senators. This is how The States - The Members of the Federation - lost their representation in Congress and their control over that body.

And the Legislative Branch of the national government became a body for sale to campaign donors. U.S. Senators now answer to their campaign donors, not to their States.

Ignoring The 12th Amendment

We threw away Our Framer’s second Gift when we foolishly accepted a new system where national political parties handle the elections of President and Vice President. Thus, instead of being the small bodies of specially chosen wise and prudent men who actually made the selections; Electors became rubber stamps for the popular vote in their States. Instead of the Electors choosing the Vice President, party bosses - then party nominees - chose the “running mates.” Instead of the Electors’ votes being transmitted to the President of the Senate with the total votes listed for each person receiving votes, States began awarding all their “electoral votes” to the person who won the popular vote in their State.


This is how The States - The Members of the Federation - lost their control over the President.

The President became a person for sale to campaign donors. Presidents now answer to their donors, not to The Member States. And the small groups and “foreign powers” who got the President elected call the shots.How The National Popular Vote Will Work

Here is the nefarious 888-word interstate compact. It is written in the bureaucratic style favored by those who seek to confuse, confound and conceal. Their Explanation of National Popular Vote Bill expressly discloses, however, that

“Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.”

In other words, if the popular vote in Virginia is for James Madison, but the total national popular vote favors Adolf Hitler, then all of Virginia’s 13 Electoral Votes are given to Adolf Hitler.

Indeed, the winner of the national popular vote will end up with all the electoral votes for every State. Do you see? And do not think that the winner will fail to claim a “Mandate” for whatever he wants to do.

The States Can't lawfully Enter Into A Compact Which Violates The U.S. Constitution!

1. Every aspect of the NPV violates Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 2 and the 12th Amendment. So it’s altogether unconstitutional. Compare the detailed procedures set forth in Our Constitution with the proposed NPV! It sets up a method of electing the President and vice-President which is altogether repugnant to what Our Constitution requires.

2. Article V sets forth the exclusive methods of amending the Constitution. “Compact among the States” is not one of the authorized methods of amending the Constitution. So the NPV Compact also violates Article V.

3. Furthermore, Article I, Sec. 10, last clause, prohibits States from “enter[ing] into any Agreement or Compact with another State” “without the Consent of Congress.” So, whether the NPV Compact also violates Art. I, Sec. 10, last clause, depends on whether Congress consents to it. But Congress may not lawfully consent to unconstitutional compacts of the States!

Under The National Popular Vote Scheme, Votes From Major Metropolitan Areas Will Decide Presidential Elections

Most of the Population of these United States is located in a few major metropolitan areas. Under the NPV scheme, these major metropolitan areas would decide the elections for President!

Please look at this 3D map showing how these major metropolitan areas actually voted in the last presidential election:

They all voted for Obama.

The NPV is not about “making every vote count.” The NPV is about guaranteeing that every future presidential election is won by a Democrat.

Who Is Behind This Plot To Impose The National Popular Vote?

The organizations who have endorsed the NPV include four organizations (Common Cause, NAACP, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, and Public Citizen) which, according to this website, have received funding from George Soros and his Open Society Institute.

Our public school educated People are so woefully ignorant that they are incapable of making wise decisions in presidential (or senatorial) elections. Google ignorant stupid americans - you will get 65,000,000 hits.This review of Historian Rick Shenkman’s book, "Just How Stupid Are We?," points out that

“…Only 2 of 5 voters can name the three branches of the federal government. And 49 percent of Americans think the president has the authority to suspend the Constitution ….” [boldface mine]

These are the ones who are manipulated to vote the Will of the few, and of the “foreign powers” Hamilton warned us about, who fund and control the hard left.

Oh, State Legislators! Awake! The progressive leftists behind the NPV want a national popular vote for the same two reasons that our Framers opposed having Presidents elected by popular vote.What Should We Do?

Repeal the 17th Amendment. We must henceforth elect to Congress only those who are committed to repealing the 17th Amendment. This is the only way The Sates can regain control of Congress.
Return to the 12th Amendment. We must dismantle the present unconstitutional and corrupt system and return to the method of electing the President and Vice President established in our Constitution. State Legislators could restore to their States right now the power to control the President! All States have to do is obey the 12th Amendment! Also, specially chosen Electors are far more likely to choose good Presidents than are the ignorant masses which fill our major cities.

No State primaries. No national conventions. No expensive advertising which enriches liberal progressive TV networks, and excludes the man who is not wealthy. No tampered with voting machines. No cartoon characters or dead people voting. No Black Panthers intimidating white voters with impunity. No unconstitutional federal laws (e.g. McCain-Feingold) which unlawfully restrict political speech. No promises of future favors made by candidates to donors for campaign contributions. In short, the corruption which permeates our present system would be gone.

But in the meantime, even in its present perverted form, the “Electoral College” serves two important purposes. (1) It balances the influence of the heavily populated urban areas (which vote Democrat) with the more sparsely populated rural areas (which vote Republican). (2) And it gives the smaller States a voice in the election of President.

© 2012 Publius Huldah - All Rights Reserved

Endnotes:1- E.g., those clamoring for a con con and the Balanced Budget Amendment, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and other judges and politicians who despise Our Constitution.


2- In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), Madison says,“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” [boldface added]

Yet anarchists who have infiltrated libertarian groups maliciously assert that Our Constitution is a “statist document”!

3- Alexander Hamilton warned that we must not permit the States to be merged into one national government. In Federalist No. 32 (2nd para), he writes,“An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [the Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States….” [caps are Hamilton's; boldface mine]

See also Federalist No. 39, 6th para (Madison).

And from Thomas Jefferson’s letter of Feb. 2, 1816 to Joseph C. Cabell (1st para)

“…the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body…” [boldface mine]

4- See also Federalist No. 39 (4th & 11th paras) and Federalist No. 60 (3rd para).

5- Federalist No. 62: “… on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed…is recommended by … giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.” (3rd para at II) [boldface mine]

“…the equal vote allowed to each State is …a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty… [in order to guard] … against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.” (5th para) [boldface mine]

6- As opposed to the State itself being the source of political authority, as with the Western European “divine right of kings” model (which is based on a perversion of Scripture), and the German statists, such as Hegel and his progeny.

7- Federalist No. 64 (4th para): “As the select assemblies [Electors] for choosing the President … will … be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their … votes will be directed to those men … who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue. … the electors … will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which … sometimes mislead as well as dazzle. … it is fair to argue, that as an assembly of select electors possess …the means of extensive and accurate information relative to men and characters, so will their appointments bear at least equal marks of discretion and discernment…”


8- Federalist No. 68: If the appointment of the President depended on any preexisting body of men, they “might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes” in favor of the foreign powers. Accordingly, “… the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government…”(7th para)

Publius Huldah is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs.h


E-Mail: publiushuldah@gmail.com


Publius Huldah -- National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America

National Popular Vote is a nonpartisan coalition of legislators, scholars, constitutionalists and grassroots activists committed to preserving the Electoral College, while guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who earns the most votes in all fifty states.

Tom Golisano, billionaire Republican businessman and philanthropist, is a $upporter and spokesperson.

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.

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 . . . , 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), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.

National Popular Vote’s National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), and David Durenberger (R–MN) and former congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), and Tom Campbell (R–CA).

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.

Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:”A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.”

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote ” http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ 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 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.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
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 far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

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
http://tinyurl.com/3ra7elc

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.

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interest within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

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 Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their partys presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, in 2012 will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. 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.

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

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

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

The National Popular Vote bill PRESERVES the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states. That majority of ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins 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, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

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.

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning candidates in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote 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).

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally 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 the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

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.