Usually I’m impressed that you have some idea of what you are writing about, even if I disagree with your opinions. This time you disappoint. You don’t seem to get my reference to the Great Compromise made during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Pick up a high school textbook on American History or take a college course, or read the Federalist papers. Do some basic homework. Every source back to Alexander Hamilton says the Great Compromise was absolutely fundamental to arriving at a Constitution that could be accepted by the Convention (by a single vote) and be ratified by all the colonies. The compromise instituted a Federal government, not a pure national government ( see Federalist Papers 39), with structures explicitly designed to give less populous states various protections and advantages. These included having a Senate in which each state has two votes and having the President chosen by an Electoral College in which states were awarded electors equal to the total of their House and Senate seats. The Drafters explicitly rejected popular vote election of the President. Further, the drafters of the Constitution did not want a pure democracy of the people and wrote quite a bit on why they opposed it. You should read up on that.

Your quote from Lincoln is completely out of context and falsely implies he supported popular vote election of the President. He didn’t. Further, he would not have been President but for the Electoral College. He won a majority of the Electoral College (180 of 303) but less than 40% of the popular vote. Add some study of Lincoln to your list.

In my comments, I never claimed the NPV was definitely unconstitutional. That is why I referred to it as an “end run”. It is a trick, a clever ruse, that is debatably within the strict rules of the Constitution. But I stand by my claim that it definitely subverts the Great Compromise. It is designed to achieve the popular vote election the Founders were trying to prevent.

Finally, I think you seriously underestimate how vulnerable our country could be to the chaotic effect of a election “decided” by NPV. I see this as potentially a Florida 2000 counting chads scenario in a dozen states amplified with a level of hostility and distrust not seen since the Civil War. I see some electors ignoring their state NPV legislation. There could be alternate sets of electors from some states. I do see the Supreme Court as coming down in favor of whatever partisan majority exists on the court. Since the case has no precedent, there is ample opportunity to bend the result either way. You imagine everyone will play nice in the sandbox, and accept being beaten by some legal flimflam. You may be right, but if you’re no, we could get fighting in the streets.

If you want NPV, do it the only legitimate way possible, by Constitutional amendment, not by some trick.

Mathematician, Statistician, Businessman, and Academic. Student of history, poli sci , and the Bible.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store