Subverting the electoral process: National popular vote interstate compact

 The Framers had good reasons to devise the Electoral system: it’s a linchpin in our “representative republic” government which prevents “mob rule” and protects the rights of all citizens, not just the majority; it gives assurance that a handful of states won’t select our President; and it’s an “extra set of eyes” on the presidential election process.
Many, mostly Democrats, wish to destroy the Electoral College process. It’s all the rage among Democrat 2020 presidential “wannabes.” There are aggressive measures being taken by these zealots that isn’t prominently publicized, but is gradually becoming a huge story.
The most prominent attempt to destroy the Electoral College is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). This initiative seeks to guarantee the candidate winning the national popular vote is elected. To achieve success, NPVIC must convince enough states to enact legislation whereby they pledge all their electors to the national popular vote winner.
There are 538 electors, so to have a possibility of success, the compact/agreement must be signed by states representing 270 electors. Only 14 states have agreed so far, but they already have 189 electors committed. There’s really not far to go. Alternatively, if they tried to eliminate the Electoral College by Constitutional Amendment, it would require three-fourths of the states, or 38. So NPVIC seems to be the easier route.
What if the plateau of 270 electors is reached? Are there any defensive measures to be taken? Here’s what Article 1 of our Constitution provides: “No state shall, without the consent of Congress……enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a foreign power……” On the surface it seems clear that they can’t do anything like NPVIC without the consent of Congress, but not all legal scholars agree. Additionally, while the constitution gives states broad latitude for allocating electors, but it’s not certain how much power states have over the individual electors, who retain some independence. There’s sure to be a bitter and divisive Constitutional challenge if the 270-elector threshold is achieved.
 And there’s a new challenge developing. Imagine a situation in which an important “swing state” decides to “go it alone” for pledging their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. This could be the case if there is sentiment among enough voters to join the “compact,” but they can’t depend on achieving that through successful legislation. Such is the case in Ohio. Opponents of the electoral process stand a good chance of having a voter initiative on the ballot in November which would amend the Ohio constitution to pledge Ohio electors to the national popular vote winner.
This Ohio initiative is distinct from NPVIC, and might be successful. And, as discussed earlier, it may be Constitutional. Toss in similar success in a few more “swing states” and the complexion of our presidential election process could be changed forever, or even destroyed. Is this a bigger threat than NPVIC?
Discuss the Electoral College with your friends on the “left,” and ask them questions like: Do you reject the institution of the U.S. Senate since it does not proportionately represent the population? Since the Senate structure was set up to promote parity between the states rather than proportionate representation, do you minimize this original purpose of parity? Does your disdain for the Electoral College reflect your broader feelings about the representative form of government gifted us by our Founders? And, dear progressive friend, reflect back on 2004. George W. Bush received the most popular votes. Under NPVIC, California would have had to cast all their electoral votes for Bush, even though he lost the state to Kerry by a huge margin. Imagine the outrage that would have come from California Democrats.
That’s where we stand with these attacks on the electoral process. I’ve concluded that destruction of the Electoral College isn’t likely, but is an ominous possibility. The Democrats’ goal isn’t about improving our election procedures or governance. It’s all about Democrats improving their chance of winning. Whatever the outcome of these attacks on our form of government, the finish-line is probably a long way off. Yet it feels like it’s right in front of us, looming dangerously. We must work against it.