Virginia Should Reject the National Popular Vote Compact

Source: Bacon’s Rebellion.

I agree with the commentary. The National Popular Vote Compact is abominating to liberty.

In our system each of the states is a sovereignty that represents (and answers) to the political interests of the people in it. The NPVC would — like the 17th Amendment — help dissolve the states as participants in the federal union. People within the sates would become disenfranchised.

To illustrate: Under the existing constitutional system, a Virginian’s vote is recorded and counted as cast. Under NPVC, some Virginians’ votes would be recorded then, in effect, changed. Hard to find liberty in that.

25 thoughts on “Virginia Should Reject the National Popular Vote Compact

  1. If Democrats truly believe in the ‘one man one vote’ concept, then a better choice would be to allocate electoral college votes by Congressional District plus two for the majority in the state for the Senate votes,


    1. Or we could cut out the middle man and stand up for the principle of “One man, one vote” by implementing the direct election of the President either by Constitutional Amendment or the NPVC. Since states such as North Dakota, Wyoming, etc. whose voters have roughly 50x the say so in the choice of President as do voters in California there will never be such an Amendment, so NPVC it is.

      With that said, the idea you propose would be a step in the right direction with two caveats. ALL states would have to do it the same way and all Congressional districts would have to be objectively drawn by non-partisan commissions or algorithms. As it is now there are MANY states where the GOP has gotten far fewer votes for Congress but controls a majority of the Congressional delegation.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The electoral college is not going away, and the Constitution would not have been ratified without it.

        The question is only how to best allocate the electoral votes. “Winner take all” by state is probably the worst way.


        1. “The electoral college is not going away”

          Something I can agree on! Thus the need for the NPVC for those who prefer majority rule over minority rule. Yeah, yeah. I know. City people just don’t understand those country folk. What you seem to forget is that the opposite is true as well.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Of course the opposite is true, it’s just that the heartland has learned to mind its own business.

            We aren’t trying to close the museums or theater that are dear to those in the cities. We aren’t trying to regulate the subways so they are too expensive to use.

            But the urban elite just can’t stop telling us how to live, what to drive, or how to provide for our own safety.

            So, yes, we need a republic that protects us from the arrogance and power lusts of the urban elite.


          2. Uh, you are citing trivialities versus the real and significant impositions that the minority imposes on the majority.

            1. The majority wants stronger gun safety regulations and controls.
            2. The majority wants a woman to have dominion over her own body.
            3. The majority wants vigorous measures to protect the environment.
            4. The majority wants courts grounded in reality not “originalist” argle bargle.
            5. The majority wants a sensible immigration policy.

            The majority continues to be frustrated by minority who have other ideas. NPVC will not solve all of these issues but it would be a step in the right direction. Ignoring the people’s choice has twice given us disastrous Presidencies. Trust the people is a core principle of democracy and whether you like it or not, we are a democracy.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. The majority would likely want to live entirely at the expense of others but that doesn’t mean they get to use the force of government to demand it of someone else.

            We have a Constitution specifically to protect us from the wants of the majority,

            BTW, do you have any idea how tedious it gets for people who hunt and fish and live close to the land, and who want nothing more than to pass those skills and traditions on to their children, to be constantly lectured on how to care for the environment by people who have never been a mile from concrete in their lives?


        2. RE: “The question is only how to best allocate the electoral votes. “Winner take all” by state is probably the worst way.”

          “Winner take all” may indeed be the worst way to allocate the electoral votes within the state, but at least it is honest. That is, the loser loses and the winner wins in a fair and simple contest. No individual voter’s vote is nullified.

          NPVC would mean the allocation of electoral votes within the state would be entirely out of state voters’ control. This result would be exactly what electoral college opponents say they don’t want: abdication of the one-person-one-vote ideal.

          Your proposal to “allocate electoral college votes by Congressional District plus two for the majority” doesn’t have the defect of nullifying anyone’s vote, as NPVC would.


          1. This “analysis” that votes would be nullified un NPVC cuts both ways. In fact, it is a good argument FOR NPVC.

            If Virginia votes 54 to 46 for Biden as currently predicted then those 46 Trump votes are nullified entirely. The voters might as well have stayed home. Under NPVC they would not be nullified. They would count and might be important. They would be combined with Trump votes from other states and might put him over the top.

            This illustrate the beauty of a popular vote. EVERY vote counts no matter which state it is cast from. California Trump voters count. Alabama Biden voters count. They all count. That is as it should be.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “This ‘analysis’ that votes would be nullified under NPVC cuts both ways.”

            Nope. It’s true that NPVC changes where the contest is won or lost, as you say, but the where matters.

            Consitutionally, the states have defined sovereignty. This in fact is the origin of their authority to allocate their electoral votes as they choose. It is the origin of other authorities and responsibilities they have, as well.

            The state that adopts NPVC fails to represent its voters. This is true nullification of its citizens’ votes, and nothing at all like merely losing the election.


          3. Okay, your arguments against NPVC are reasonable. My arguments for it are reasonable as well. We will just have to disagree. I am fine with that. I hope you are too.

            The principle you are applying – state sovereignty – is one that was totally forgotten when SCOTUS put George Bush in the White House. It had NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to force Florida to stop recounting the ballots, but it did. And along those lines, Trump is preparing to have SCOTUS meddle yet again in this election. He has explicitly said as much. He says SCOTUS will count the ballots. Will you be joining in the uproar of protest if SCOTUS tries to interfere with state sovereignty again?

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “Will you be joining in the uproar of protest if SCOTUS tries to interfere with state sovereignty again?”

            That depends, if SCOTUS rules NVPC to be unconstitutional, I’ll be cheering.


          5. Nice dodge.

            I was asking about Trump’s PROMISED efforts to have SCOTUS count the ballots. That clearly violates the principle of state sovereignty that YOU say is paramount.

            And, by the way, SCOTUS has no legitimate jurisdiction over how any state chooses its electors. None. So if the people of the sovereign state or Commonwealth of Virginia acting through their legislature decide to join NPVC and to choose its electors according to the national popular vote there is absolutely no way an “originalist” can interfere. Each state is sovereign, right? So, be careful what you wish for with these “originalists.”

            Liked by 1 person

        3. Of course, we have a Bill of Rights which are not subject to the will of the majority. That is not what we are talking about and you know it. Even so, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights about how the tax system can be organized or what the money raised can be used for. There is a specific Constitutional Amendment covering income tax and specific authority for the Congress to spend money so taxing and spending are legislative matters. It is worth noting that in the good old days marginal tax rates on top incomes were 70% +10% more for Vietnam War. Those rates did not trigger a Constitutional question and we are a long, long way from returning to those sensible rates.

          Your claimed superior point of view with respect to protecting the environment as you run around in one of your three boats killing things is – well – kind of laughable.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Hey, if you get your jollies killing things, who am I to object. I don’t. So long as you obey the law and refrain from shooting up rural deer crossing signs as so many of your fellow predators seem to end up doing when game is scarce.

            And riding around in a big gas guzzling boat towed to the water by a gas guzzling truck is a boatload of fun, I am sure.

            My only point is that it is a bad perch to be preaching from with claims of having a superior understanding or superior values when it comes to protecting the environment.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Yes, playing this game does nothing but place the presidential election in the hands of New York and California while disenfranchising everyone else. No thanks. With Biden refusing to tell anyone his true platform, we all know you can’t trust a Democrat as far as you can spit with a mask on.


    1. Your math is broken. One man one vote puts the Presidential Election directly in the hands of the people. All those poor Trump voters in California and New York will finally have their votes count for something. As it is now, they might as well stay home.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Seeing as how you think you know more than everyone else, I know it really must suck with the knowledge that the framers of our constitution saw you coming well over 200 years ago.


        1. I am going to ignore your childish and pathetic insults and simply remind you that there is nothing un-Constitutional about the the National Popular Vote Compact. The Constitution treats each state as a sovereign entity and as such each state can choose its Electors by any means and according to any criteria it chooses.

          Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s