McConnell warns of popular vote 'catastrophic outcome'

[IDemo]

Source: msnbc.com

Addressing what he called “the most important issue in America that nobody is talking about,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned Wednesday that the National Popular Vote movement is “getting dangerously close to achieving their goal of eliminating the Electoral College without actually amending the Constitution -- without anybody even noticing, unfortunately, what they’re up to.”

The National Popular Vote is a compact among state legislatures under which they pledge that they’ll award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide, even if that candidate was not the majority choice of their state’s voters.

So far, California, seven other states, and the District of Columbia (all of which have large Democratic majorities) have passed legislation taking the National Popular Vote pledge. Those states and D.C. account for 132 electoral votes. The compact says it is to take effect when states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes have agreed to it.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution gives each state legislature the power to decide how its state’s presidential electors are selected. All but two states (Nebraska and Maine) use a winner-take-all system in which the person who gets the most popular votes in that state wins all of its electoral votes.

Read more: http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/07/9280257-mcconnell-warns-of-popular-vote-catastrophic-outcome

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I am almost automatically in favor of anything that bothers that bastard.

I am certainly in favor of this.

And, for the record, I was in favor of it before I heard that McConnell was against it.

His views are just the icing on the cake.

[teddy51]

3. I also agree with this, and yes it doesn't hurt that McConnell is against it. n/t

[pmdsyr32]

7. yes screw mitch

he is an racist bastard and he needs to go. an obstructionist to fixing the infrastructure of this country

[wordpix]

22. haha, could not agree more. The guy looks constantly

constipated. He needs to let go a little.

[BadGimp]

36. DITTO

[jberryhill]

2. States determine how to allocate their electors, Mitch

So if they want to do it that way, they can do it that way.

It doesn't eliminate the Electoral College. It just changes the way participating states choose their Electors, which the states are entitled to do.

[russspeakeasy]

18. Exactly !

[SoapBox]

4. "...unfortunately, what they’re up to.”

What THEY are up to???

Hey Chinless Mitch, you slimy bastard...let's talk about what the GOPBaggers
and T.Haters are up to...SUPPRESSING Voting Rights! Trying to simply shut
AMERICANS out of their RIGHT to VOTE!

I hate this guy.

[Dont call me Shirley]

5. Cry me a river, Mitch "My job is to see that Obama is a one-term president" Mc CONnell.

I thought you were elected to be a Senator, that IS your job, Mitch.

[TacticalPeek]

6. A typical, modern-day Republican, he boosts both States' Rights and the Constitution

A typical, modern-day Republican, he boosts both States' Rights and the Constitution, but deeply fears and hates them both.

[Ter]

8. It's not close at all to being eliminated

It will always remain.

[No Elephants]

27. True, Republican states will never let it go. It's all they've got.

[slackmaster]

34. It's not Republican states per se that benefit from and support the EC

It's small states.

[Skittles]

9. he's worried blue votes would count as much as red votes

:rofl:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. i dont even know the implications of it but am for it

cos he isn't. i am not even ashamed to say it :)

[Flagrante]

11. Al Gore won the national popular vote total

Imagine if this was in effect in 2000.

[Old Codger]

25. Based on popular vote

Kennedy would have lost to Nixon in 60............

Kennedy got 49.5% Nixon got 49.7%

[Jim Lane]

29. No, Kennedy outpolled Nixon

It was certainly close, but Kennedy had 49.72% of the popular vote to Nixon's 49.55%. (That's according to the http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1960&f=0&off=0&elect=0|Atlas of U. S. Presidential Elections>.)

The 2000 election is generally considered to be the only one in modern times in which the popular-vote winner did not become President.

[Old Codger]

37. Oops

My mistake there, read the chart wrong :) trying tooo much at once .... old farts do that sometimes....

[yellowcanine]

30. Not sure where you got that but Kennedy got 112,827 more votes than Nixon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960

[McCamy Taylor]

12. If only blue states do this, it will help the GOP. Because their e-fraud in red states

pads the total numbers for the presidential candidates. In the past, no one cared if a red state cheated, because its votes were automatically going to the GOP. Now, Texas, Alabama etc will have an incentive to inflate the vote total in order to cheat blue states out of their votes.

This will only work if all the states do it and only if the feds crack down on e-vote fraud. We can no longer leave something like the vote in the hands of corrupt local officials.

I suspect Mitch is playing Br'er Rabbit, as in hoping that more Dems opt for this because he said he does not want it.

[Major Hogwash]

13. McConnell has one year left in office and then he's history.

He is the Numero Uno target to remove from office next year for the Senate Democrats.
And you can bet your bottom dollar, he won't survive the trip!!

The NPV pledge is a non-issue because they are nowhere near the 270 votes threshold for this to take effect.

[liberal N proud]

14. Changes my mind

popular vote now!

[marasinghe]

15. anything that yanks the chain of this relict from the crypt, has to be good.

[wordpix]

23. lol

[freshwest]

31. He always reminds of Renfield, Dracula's lackey, in 'Love At First Bite.'

[teewrex]

16. Awesome

[Volaris]

17. This strikes me as the worst kind of Projectionist bullshit for the following reason...

For YEARS, all the Cons. I know have been bitching to high heaven about the un-just-ness of the Electoral College, and how the whole thing should just be decided by (wait for it) the POPULAR VOTE. This screed by the "esteemed Senator from K-Y" is, iMho, just another case of "we LOVE how our idea works when it works in OUR favor, but that same idea is exceedingly BAD if it ever shows ANY sign of working in YOURS."

Fuck You, Mitch, your days are numbered. I hope your last day in the Senate is the one where you get to bear witness to the beginning of PRESIDENT Obama's Second Term.

[wordpix]

24. Very true and lovely last sentence or 2

[EvolveOrConvolve]

19. I don't see why he's against it

This seems like a boon for republicans. Take California for example. Right now, all the electoral votes go to the person receiving the most votes in the state. That's 55 at last count. It's an easy 55 electoral college votes for the Democrat. But, under a popular vote system, there would still be electors sent to the college to vote, but they would be split based on the actual votes cast. In California, this could mean a split of 32 electoral votes for the Democrat and 23 for the republican.

Maybe I'm just reading it wrong? :shrug:

[DCBob]

28. Yeah, I dont either. Looks like we could end up losing a bunch of EC votes.

So far it looks like mostly blue states making the pledge. If that trend continues and they make it to the 270 threshold for the pledge to take effect then we stand to lose a bunch of EC votes.

Unless I am also misunderstanding something.

[EC]

20. Wow,

He just said that there IS a Democratic majority and he knows it. He's scared that all the gerrymandering they've been doing won't help them in the least.

[minnesota_liberal]

21. The only thing "catastrophic" that Mitch is concerned about

... is the GOP losing in a landslide!

His argument that a close election (without the electoral college) would require a recount in all 50 states falsely assumes that votes would no longer be tallied BY STATE. It's a faulty argument whose sole purpose is to bamboozle simpletons into supporting McConnell's idiotic position.

[Kablooie]

26. So a catastrophe is when a president is chosen by a majority of votes?

Does that mean that he thinks whoever gets the least votes should win?

[freshwest]

32. You got it. And I've argued with libertarians who say it would lead to mob rule.

[slackmaster]

33. I'm vehemently opposed to having my state's electoral votes allocated on the basis of events...

...that happen outside of my state.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

35. What? I thought the Republicans were all about "States Rights?"

That is until they're not, it would appear. :shrug: