Gore's 'popular vote' scheme to ensure Democrat rule?
Plan would see majority-Dem states decide presidency for all voters
Gore took to his Current TV to push for the abolishment of the Electoral College and its replacement with the so-called popular vote. He claimed that many voters who live outside the dozen or so battleground states are being cheated by the current system that allocates delegates from the state level, reported The Hill.
While some have proposed legislation and a constitutional amendment, Gore alluded to a “very interesting” movement to bypass the Electoral College.
“It is always tough to amend the Constitution and risky to do so, but there is a very interesting movement under way that takes it state by state that may really have a chance of succeeding,” he said.
That “interesting movement” is dissected in the recently released New York Times bestselling book, “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for Four More Years Exposed,” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.
The book, which has climbed to No. 8 on the New York Times list , contains a bonus chapter on the subject of election fraud and documents about fair representation in future presidential elections.
National popular vote
The vote for president is the only one in which all Americans vote for a national leader. In framing the U.S. Constitution, Klein and Elliott write, the Founding Fathers displayed their characteristic wisdom and subtlety in firmly rejecting a purely popular vote to elect the president to balance the power of the larger states against the smaller.
The Electoral College was fashioned as a compromise between an election of the president by direct popular vote and election by Congress.
However, “Fool Me Twice” documents how a group backed by a who’s who of the progressive left, calling itself the National Popular Vote, or NPV, has already been successful in quietly pushing for abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a “popular vote.”
“Under the rubric of a ‘National Popular Vote,’ the plan would allow the 14 most populous American states, mostly majority-Democrat, to determine the outcome of future presidential elections. The voters of the 36 less populous states would then effectively be disenfranchised,” warn Klein and Elliott.
The plan is already gaining traction.
In 2007, Maryland became the first state to approve a “national popular vote” compact. As a result, in a theoretical winner-take-all contest, Maryland would allocate all of its 10 electoral votes to the candidate who won the most votes nationally – even if the same candidate did not win the most votes in Maryland.
By March 2012, eight states – California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington, plus the District of Columbia – had enacted the “national popular vote” into law.
Two other states, Colorado and Rhode Island, had passed it in both houses, but it had not been enacted.
Ten more states had passed it in one house, and 10 others had passed it in a committee. Eleven states had held hearings on it, and nine more states had introduced bills.
While organizational support comes almost exclusively from left-leaning groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters, the Soros-funded Common Cause and the Demos group, NPV’s army of lobbyists has also been pushing its plan to the Republican National Committee, the American Legislative Exchange Council and conservative think tanks such as the Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
There is, however, one hitch in the NPV plan: For a “national popular vote” to predominate, the full 270 electoral votes needed to win must be based on identical legislation (the “interstate compact”) passed by each state.