Legislators in the Granite State are proposing an election bill that could withhold the release of popular vote tallies until after the Electoral College has met – in order to save the constitutional institution from the attack waged by Democrats to do away with the system devised by America’s Founding Fathers hundreds of years ago.
It is believed that the newly introduced legislation could save the republic by complicating Democrats’ campaign to implement National Popular Vote legislation, which has been gaining momentum in numerous state legislatures since President Donald Trump beat Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton, who had more popular votes in 2016.
“The California-based group [National Popular Vote] asks states to sign an interstate compact – basically, a simple contract among states,” Daily Signal columnist Tara Ross wrote in an op-ed. “Signatory states agree to award their electors to the winner of the national popular vote – regardless of the outcome within their own state borders.”
Popular vote tide to submerge Electoral College?
If things continue going as planned for Democrats, it will just be a matter of time before the Electoral College is thwarted.
“The compact goes into effect when states holding 270 electors – enough to win an election – have agreed to participate,” Ross explained. “So far, 15 states plus Washington, D.C., have signed, [and] they have 196 electoral votes among them – 74 more electors are needed.”
To get the last votes needed, National Popular Vote is ramping up its efforts.
“Its legislation has already been introduced in states such as Virginia (13 electors) and Missouri (10 electors), while lobbyists have been paving a path for success in other states such as Florida (29 electors),” Ross added. “In other words, National Popular Vote is on track to effectively eliminate the Electoral College – even though it’s supported by only a minority of states.”
Despite the tide flowing in Democrats’ favor to wash away the Electoral College, opposition can stem it dead in its tracks.
“Fortunately, other states don’t have to calmly submit – they can protect themselves, and that’s where New Hampshire’s proposal comes in,” Ross stressed. “It could confuse National Popular Vote’s ability to generate a national popular vote total, [because] without that tally, National Popular Vote’s compact fails.”
It is believed that if New Hampshire passes its proposed bill and refuses to release its total number of popular votes – or if states hold back reporting losing candidates’ total votes and only release those of winning candidates, Democrats will cry foul.
“National Popular Vote proponents will claim that such proposals violate federal reporting requirements, but they don’t, [as] those federal laws cannot require a state to turn in popular vote totals,” Ross anticipated. “After all, the state wasn’t constitutionally required to hold a popular vote in the first place, [and] the state legislature could have appointed electors directly instead – as sometimes occurred in our country’s early years.”
Dems see victory through popular vote
Like many other Democrats still in the running to challenge Trump for the keys to the White House, presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) envisions her path to victory in November as coming through a popular vote.
“At the core of Warren’s plans for America is the end of the Electoral College,” GOPAC Chairman and veteran Republican strategist David Avella pointed out in his November Fox News opinion piece. “She wants to replace it with a national popular vote.”
To position themselves for victory, much of Warren’s competition is behind her push to do away with the Electoral College in the name of “fairness.”
“[Warren] is hardly alone among Democrats,” Avella continued. “Day after day, we are treated to Democrats decrying the Electoral College as being unfair, as being wrong, as being something that gives too much-undeserved power to voters in less populated states.”
But Democrats appear to be inconsistent in their plea for popular vote “fairness,” as they do not push for it in their primaries.
“However, when one examines the arcane and near-mystical process the Democrats have chosen to determine their nominee for president of the United States, one would be hard-pressed to conclude anything other than that Democrats are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are,” Avella argued. “We did not hear Democrats in 1992, 2000 or any other time arguing that only the votes of the two major-party candidates should count in the presidential tally to ensure the winner has earned a majority of the votes.”
America divided on popular vote
Unsurprisingly, a vote taken last year divulged that there is a partisan divide on whether to abolish or keep the Electoral College, with more Americans overall (44% vs 37%) voting to axe it and 19% undecided.
“A majority of Democratic voters (60%) said they supported abolishing the Electoral College and allowing whoever receives the most votes nationwide to become president,” a Hill-HarrisX poll conducted on 1,000 registered voters last March revealed. “Just 20% said they wanted to keep the current system [and] 21% were unsure.”
Those results were flipped by GOP voters, while independents sided slightly with Democrats.
“In the survey, Republicans overwhelmingly favored keeping the voting method with 64% of respondents saying they wanted to retain it, but only 25% in favor of eliminating it, [while] 11% of GOP respondents were unsure,” The Hill reported. “Independents were more in favor of switching to a national popular vote, but less than a majority, (46%) had this opinion, [and] 32% wanted to retain the current method of allocating presidential votes according to each state's total number of U.S. senators and representatives, [while] 22% were unsure.”