moonbattery.gif


« The Big Lie | Main | Photographic Tribute to Moonbat Messiah's Megalomania »


May 1, 2009

Washington State Voters Disenfranchised

The audacity of arrogance that characterizes this nightmare of Democrat rule marches forward in Washington state, where Governor Christine Gregoire signed a bill pledging Washington's electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote — the will of Washington voters be damned.

This contempt for her own constituents' right to vote is a result of liberals' hostility toward the Electoral College, which serves to balance out the power of densely populated areas. By no coincidence, these areas vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, due to the social and moral decay prevalent in large cities.

Christine Gregoire has shown contempt for the will of the voters before. In 2004, she cheated her way into office, just as Al Franken has been doing in Minnesota.

chris-gregoire.jpg
Gregoire does her part to dismantle our republic.

On a tip from Kevin R.

Posted by Van Helsing at May 1, 2009 7:40 AM

Comments

Come oooon alarm clock, I gotta wake up.
This nightmare must end sometime.

Posted by: czuch at May 1, 2009 7:52 AM

I'm not a lawyer, so I may or may not be saying something stupid; but this seems extremely huge. Is this constitutional? I wonder, if the national popular vote goes R next time, will they say, "Oh, just kidding."

This looks like pitchforks and torches material to me.

Posted by: Karin at May 1, 2009 7:55 AM

This is just another step of the socialist coup detat of the US. Wresting control from the people in addition to disarming them should come as a surprise to no one.

Posted by: J W Wright at May 1, 2009 8:02 AM

I'm sorry but this begs the question... "Can she do that??????"

Posted by: Heather M at May 1, 2009 8:05 AM

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. There are not enough bloggers to keep track of all the idiots.

Posted by: KOOK at May 1, 2009 8:13 AM

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. There are not enough bloggers to keep track of all the idiots.

Posted by: KOOK at May 1, 2009 8:13 AM

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. There are not enough bloggers to keep track of all the idiots.

Posted by: KOOK at May 1, 2009 8:13 AM

The demacratic liberals seem to think were living in a monacry and their the privlaged arisacrats WELL I HOPE THEY GET VOTED OUT NEXT YEAR

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at May 1, 2009 8:26 AM

She's a real peach. We have one of the highest gas taxes in the nation and unable to increase them without a backlash she's now driving a move to tax each equivilant barrel of oil brought into the state.

So years back a local paper did a "what if" story about the creation of the state of Columbia which encompassed eastern WA, northern ID, and western MT, leaving Seattle to languish in it's self-congratulatory stew. Remember, this is the city that spent $1M each on eight hitech outdoor lavatories for the street people. Well they recently removed them because the bums still pissed outside and hookers used them as a place of business, lololol.

Posted by: metprof at May 1, 2009 8:28 AM

This can't possible stand up in court.

But...

Now we have to take it to court... and appeals... and counter appeals... and ad nausem. I wonder if this will settle before the next Pres election.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at May 1, 2009 8:30 AM

This one will come back and bite her and WA state on the ass. Right now it's all Obama and Dems, all the time. But in some future election, some Repub will get 51 % of the vote in a hotly contested race, and WA's votes will go to the Repub even though the state will have voted Dem. One could only hope that'd be what puts the Repubs over the top. I would laugh for days.

Of course, at that point, WA will go back to the electoral college system.

Posted by: mega at May 1, 2009 8:33 AM

Karin raised the point I immediately thought of: the delicious (and increasingly likely) possibility that in the next election the popular vote will go R, and Christine "Landslide" Gregoire will see all of Washington's electoral votes go to the anti-leftist candidate - surely not the scenario they now envision.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 1, 2009 8:34 AM

The state of (spit) Maryland did the same thing several years ago.

Posted by: V the K at May 1, 2009 8:51 AM

Here’s the money quote from the article:

No one has looked at the population growth rates of other states,” Anderson said. “Of the 10 fastest-growing states, eight are red states. Washington is going to lose in this thing.”

So forget all of this pap about “fairness” and “equality of every vote,” which is straight-up communist agitprop. This comrade let the cat out of the bag: the intent is to put a legislative thumb on the scales for the Democrats, since he’s warning them it could backfire and obligate WA to allocate its electoral votes to an American. (God how I’ll laugh when that happens.)

For my part, for a number of reasons, I think the Electoral College is a brilliant mechanism (quite apart from the partisan political impact in any given election).

First, it sharpens the electoral result, leading to a more definitive outcome. Presidential elections typically are decided by a few percentage points difference in popular vote, whereas Electoral College outcomes are much more definitive, which gives the winner greater legitimacy.

Second, by compartmentalizing results, it limits vote recounts to at most one state, as in Florida, and thereby keeps any recount more manageable and localized, where it can also be monitored more effectively. Imagine the hassle and opportunities for skulduggery (I’m not looking in any particular direction here, Democrats) if a recount involved the entire Nation. Boxes of previously uncounted votes would be “found” left and further left. Pretty much the way Gregoire “won” in Washington, in fact, when lots of boxes of votes that had gone walkabout miraculously turned up from King County to tip the balance in her favor. King County ended up returning more votes than registered voters, but hey, Dems have always had the dead voter demographic sewn up.

Third - and this the crunch – the Electoral College obviates the point of ballot box stuffing. Let’s face it, I think even our liberal trolls will have to admit this, the Democrats are past masters of electoral fraud, from Tammany Hall through the election of 1960 right to the present (Gregoire, Franken) . It’s not that the Republicans wouldn’t do it, but that it’s unproductive for them because their voters tend to be dispersed geographically. Electoral fraud works best in large cities, and those are Dem strongholds. With the Electoral College, there’s no point in running up fraudulent votes in, e.g., Detroit, St. Louis (notorious for this in the last two elections), or Chicago (no comment necessary). With popular vote, there would very much be a point in electoral fraud. ACORN would have a field day.

Even Democrats, if they’re fair-minded, should oppose this. It’s kind of like saying that the winner of the National League is the team that scores the most runs, rather than the team that wins the most games.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 1, 2009 9:06 AM

But in some future election, some Repub will get 51 % of the vote in a hotly contested race, and WA's votes will go to the Repub even though the state will have voted Dem. One could only hope that'd be what puts the Repubs over the top. I would laugh for days.

I kinda hope this doesn’t happen, mega, because I’d stroke out laughing, and I’m not ready to go yet!

Fascinating – and in some respects typical - that Dems don’t think far ahead to recognize that their good intentions (in this case, for Dems, not for the country) could easily have some nasty outcomes (again, for Dems, not for the country). And when it does, as it will someday (2012 is a distinct possibility; attaboy, Barack, spend and tax), how they’ll bleat. The rafters of Heaven will shake!

Of course, at that point, WA will go back to the electoral college system.

Guaranteed. And, just as likely, try to find a way to weasel out of the pact on the spot to avoid the calamity above.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 1, 2009 9:21 AM

There seems to be a full blown stampede of Americans rushing to give away sovereignty, money and rights/responsibilities.

Posted by: forest at May 1, 2009 9:27 AM

What the Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution is "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."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) 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, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.

In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.

There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule (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 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 rule.

As a result of changes in state laws, 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 winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.


The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

Posted by: mvymvy at May 1, 2009 11:30 AM

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, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2009 11:31 AM

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Washington is not one. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule 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.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2009 11:32 AM

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,659 state legislators — 763 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 896 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

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. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, 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): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 27 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, 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 Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2009 11:33 AM

The potential for political fraud and mischief is not uniquely associated with either the current system or a national popular vote. In fact, the current system magnifies the incentive for fraud and mischief in closely divided battleground states because all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state.
Under the current system, the national outcome can be affected by mischief in one of the closely divided battleground states (e.g., by overzealously or selectively purging voter rolls or by placing insufficient or defective voting equipment into the other party's precincts). The accidental use of the butterfly ballot by a Democratic election official in one county in Florida cost Gore an estimated 6,000 votes ― far more than the 537 popular votes that Gore needed to carry Florida and win the White House. However, even an accident involving 6,000 votes would have been a mere footnote if a nationwide count were used (where Gore's margin was 537,179). In the 7,645 statewide elections during the 26-year period from 1980 to 2006, the average change in the 23 recounts was a mere 274 votes.

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."

Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2009 11:34 AM

The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.

Under the current system, there are 51 separate vote pools in every presidential election. Thus, our nation's 55 presidential elections have really been 2,084 separate elections. This is the reason why there have been five seriously disputed counts in the nation's 55 presidential elections. The 51 separate pools regularly create artificial crises in elections in which the vote is not at all close on a nationwide basis, but close in particular states.

A recount is not an unimaginable horror or logistical impossibility. A recount is a recognized contingency that is occasionally required (about once in 332 elections). All states routinely make arrangements for a recount in advance of every election. The personnel and resources necessary to conduct a recount are indigenous to each state. A state's ability to conduct a recount inside its own borders is unrelated to whether or not a recount may be occurring in another state.

If anyone is genuinely concerned about the possibility of recounts, then a single national pool of votes is the way to drastically reduce the likelihood of recounts and eliminate the artificial crises produced by the current system.

The U.S. Constitution, existing federal statutes, and independent state statutes guarantee "finality" in presidential elections long before the inauguration day in January. These constitutional provisions, statutes, and precedents apply equally to a presidential election conducted under the National Popular Vote legislation and an election conducted under the current system.

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) provides:
"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."[Spelling as per original]

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets (the so-called "safe harbor" date established by section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code).

In addition, in almost all states, state statutes already impose independent (typically earlier) deadlines for finalizing the count for the presidential election. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that state election officials and the state judiciary must conduct counts and recounts in presidential elections within the confines of existing state election laws.

It may be argued that the schedule established by the U.S. Constitution may sometimes rush the count (and possibly even create injustice). However, there can be no argument that this schedule exists in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes; that this schedule guarantees "finality" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December. This existing constitutional schedule would govern the National Popular Vote compact in exactly the same way that it governs elections under the current system.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2009 11:35 AM

National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences. It is a simple matter that your vote should count as much as everyone else's. All the votes cast in Washington would be added to the national total for those candidates and would contribute to the overall winner.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2009 11:36 AM

Strong protection is provided by the National Popular Vote compact against the hypothetical maneuver of changing a state’s method of awarding its electoral votes in the five-week period between the day when the people cast their votes for President in November and the day when the Electoral College meets in December.

Like most interstate compacts, the National Popular Vote compact permits a state to withdraw from the compact (i.e., repeal the law by which the state joined the compact). However, like most compacts, the National Popular Vote compact imposes a delay on the effectiveness of any withdrawal. Clause 2 of Article IV of the National Popular Vote compact provides:

“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.”

That is, no withdrawal from the National Popular Vote compact can become effective between July 20 of a presidential election year and the inauguration on January 20 of the following year. This six-month “blackout” period was chosen because it encompasses six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the national nominating conventions, the fall general election campaign period, election day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, the meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, the counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and the inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

Although it is true that a state legislature may not, by an ordinary statute, bind the hands of a future legislature, an interstate compact enacted by a state legislature does bind a future legislature. In fact, interstate compacts are among the few ways by which the actions of a future state legislature may be restricted. The National Popular Vote compact is an interstate compact, and an interstate compact is a contract. Withdrawal from any contract may only be made in accordance with the contract’s own terms. It is settled law that, once passed, an interstate compact takes precedence over all existing or future state laws. A compact takes precedence over all existing or future state laws until a state withdraws from the compact under the terms provided in the compact.

The reason that the state legislature is bound to the terms of an interstate compact is the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, section 10, clause 1):

“No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”

The Council of State Governments summarizes the nature of interstate compacts as follows:

“Compacts are agreements between two or more states that bind them to the compacts’ provisions, just as a contract binds two or more parties in a business deal. As such, compacts are subject to the substantive principles of contract law and are protected by the constitutional prohibition against laws that impair the obligations of contracts (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10).

“That means that compacting states are bound to observe the terms of their agreements, even if those terms are inconsistent with other state laws. In short, compacts between states are somewhat like treaties between nations. Compacts have the force and effect of statutory law (whether enacted by statute or not) and they take precedence over conflicting state laws, regardless of when those laws are enacted.

“However, unlike treaties, compacts are not dependent solely upon the good will of the parties. Once enacted, compacts may not be unilaterally renounced by a member state, except as provided by the compacts themselves. Moreover, Congress and the courts can compel compliance with the terms of interstate compacts.”

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.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2009 11:40 AM

77% OF WASHINGTON VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL

A survey of 800 Washington state voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support was 77% among independents, 85% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.

By age, support was 80% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 84% among women and 69% among men.

By race, support was 78% among whites (representing 87% of respondents), 57% among African-Americans (representing 4% of respondents), 60% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 78% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).

see www.NationalPopularVote.com

Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2009 11:41 AM

"By no coincidence, these areas vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, due to the social and moral decay prevalent in large cities."

LOL

...and how can large cities even exist if social decay is prevalent?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2009 11:48 AM

A trolling we will go,
a trolling we will go,
hi ho the lefty-o's,
a trolling we will go.

The electoral college stands in the way of mobocracy. For those trolls who have been posting above, that means you. Obviously our "educational" system has fallen completely on its butt in terms of knowledge and history of the American founding and why.

The Washington state Supreme Court has to throw this out as it disenfranchises the voters of the state in favor of 'foreigners' from outside the state. If the votes in Illinois supercede my vote in Washington there's going to be a tar and feathers moment. I don't think the citizens of Washington have really grasped this yet. But... they will.

America is not, nor has it ever been a democracy. It is a democratic federal republic. There's a huge and very important difference. This is just another attempt to subvert the very things that have made America great. Only the ignorant or the ingenuous would pimp for a national popular vote instead of the current system. I think we have both here.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at May 1, 2009 12:25 PM

Oh yeah, anonymous @ 11:48 you haven't been to Detroit lately have you? or East L.A., or south Chicago, etc., etc.

And to answer your question, they rip money from the pockets of people outside the city and ouside the state to feed the disaster they call a city. How can you not know that? But then you appear to be a troll from the vacuousness of your post.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at May 1, 2009 12:31 PM

Champion job, anon!

More misdirection. The people supported this bill. The legislature voted on it. The governor could be the antichrist cloned daughter of Charles Manson and Hitler who signed it with the blood of puppies. It is the "will of her constituents".

Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2009 12:40 PM

The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.

So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be "mob rule" in presidential elections, but whether the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. In 2004, candidates spent over two thirds of their visits and two-thirds of their money in just 6 states and 99% of their money in just 16 states, while ignoring the rest of the country.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2009 1:05 PM

More misdirection. The people supported this bill. The legislature voted on it. The governor could be the antichrist cloned daughter of Charles Manson and Hitler who signed it with the blood of puppies. It is the "will of her constituents".

Kinda like the Nuremburg laws, in that respect.

But seriously, go ahead and enact it. Just don’t whine (look who I’m asking) when it bites you in the butt, which it will, probably sooner than you think (2012 leaps to mind in this connection). And don’t even think about welshing when that happens, or finding some bogus excuse for not living up to the compact when a bunch of blue states’ electoral votes put a Republican candidate over the top. All it would take is a viable Naderesque third party candidate for that to happen. Think that’s unlikely? If Obama is still carrying on with Bush’s policies in 2011 (wrt Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, FISA, extraordinary rendition, wiretapping, Gitmo) as he is now, it’s pretty likely, methinks.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 1, 2009 1:11 PM

The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The details of the mechanism are not the point. The point is the “chunking” of votes, a compartmentalization that prevents a problem in one state from infecting others. I’ll go for abolishing the Electoral College, if you’ll go for making electoral fraud a capital offense. Deal?

Put another way, why do Dems resist checks of identification at the polls? What reason on God’s earth could possibly justify that – except that it makes electoral fraud that much easier to perpetrate?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 1, 2009 1:17 PM

The problem with proposals of this nature is the same as those proposing proportional representation: their destabilizing impact.

Proportional representation (as in, e.g., Italy) gives a disproportionate amount of influence to minor splinter parties, which all too often are composed of lunatics, because they represent the swing votes between two more rational parties. By virtue of holding the swing votes, they can extract concessions far out of proportion to their electoral support.

Similarly, this silly notion gives great and disproportionate power to anyone unhappy with his party's policies could threaten to mount a third party campaign. Doing so could split the vote of that party, making them lose the popular vote, and (with this proposal enacted in several states) the Electoral College vote.

As a consequence, a major party will go to even greater lengths than now to prevent third party challenges, thereby giving nutjobs (Nader, Kucinich, Perot) disproportionate influence.

All in all, a bad idea.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 1, 2009 2:11 PM

100% of the voters in Washington votes for "A", but 51% of the voters in the other states vote for "B". Therefore, Washington's electorial votes go to "B".

So why should the people of Washington even bother to vote? That's the REAL question.

Posted by: KHarn at May 1, 2009 5:00 PM

That is the thing about this compact, it can pragmatically only work to your disadvantage.

If the candidate your state chose won, it wouldn't matter. If they lost, then they would "lose" your electoral votes.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2009 5:18 PM

"By no coincidence, these areas vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, due to the social and moral decay prevalent in large cities."

A scientifically valid point

scientists have begun to examine how the city affects the brain, and the results are chastening. Just being in an urban environment, they have found, impairs our basic mental processes.

Posted by: V the K at May 2, 2009 2:05 AM

Shoot all the leftist. They should all be rounded up and shot.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 2, 2009 12:49 PM

What? When did Queen Christine start to care about the popular vote?

Posted by: Scaramouche at May 2, 2009 9:23 PM