Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
We must wonder what happened to National Popular Vote.
Did they get lots of signatures gathered by ignorant signature gathers? And then most of them were not valid?
Did our voting population suddenly start to pay attention?
Whatever the reason, National Popular Vote did not turn in sufficient signatures to make the ballot this year.
Hang on to those NO on NPV banners, cards, signs and twitter accounts. It will rise again. The dems never give up!
True the Dems never give up!
We must keep vigentalent watching the AZ legislature on this issue.
Great news! For proof of why the Founders did not want the NPV for the president, you don't have to look any further than the 1913 ratification of the 17th Amendment and the loss of state sovereignty with the NPV for the US Senate. We the people don't have the skills or time to watch what's going on in the US senate, but the state politicians do. Make them earn their keep like the Founder had intended. In the mean time, keep the presidential NPV dormant.
What bothers me is all the ignorant states that have bought into the compact so far and those that are on the verge of doing so through their legislative processes. There's still a very good chance the "Dumb-ocrats" will get their 270 electoral votes and our liberties will be in jeopardy for decades until the liberals themselves have felt enough pain to revert back to reason.
Right on, Connie. That is why the Scottsdale AZRA chapter has informed us they will continue with their program to inform via Facebook with a system they have running. We the people must remain on the job on this. The good news is that 3/4 of the states must vote to ratify this and that does make it harder. However, we know that even conservative states may cave and vote to do this. At this point, they will get no help from AZ.
Sadly, if this gets to that point, ratification won't be required. The NPV initiative is designed to eliminate that need--it's not an amendment to the Constitution. If anything, it will fail in the courts because it's a compact and will be found unconstitutional because it violates Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. Considering the vagaries of the courts--especially at the District and Appeals levels--it's a fight we need to avoid. Arizona must not sign on to NPV!
Correct George. "Ratified" was probably the wrong word but it does have to be voted on by 3/4 of the states. That is 38 states out of 50. Or, depending on how you count, it would be 43 out of 57 (Obama math). Arizona MUST NOT sign on to this, absolutely.
We should agree to disagree. What you're describing is the ratification of a constitutional amendment, and on that you're correct. The issue is the NPVIC, by design, is not an amendment, and it makes no attempt to change the constitution. The supporters of the compact seek to take advantage of the fact that the constitution doesn't address the "how" of the electoral voting process. Each state is free to decide "how" independent of other states, and there can be different methods used to cast those votes--as there already are. As written, Article II of the constitution will not prevent the NPVIC, but Article I (already cited) might. Final note: if your position were correct, this wouldn't be worth the effort to fight, since it would never be ratified. The promoters believe that wouldn't be necessary, and they're betting they'll win the Article I challenge. I think they're wrong, but I know it would be better not to have that court fight. So we are on the same page that Arizona must not join the compact. Finally, I appreciate your humorous jab at former President Obama.
There is no disagreement about it having to be voted on by 3/4 of the states. If ratified is not the correct word, it is a word that people understand to mean it has to be voted on. Everyone knows NPV is a compact of states and the votes NOW are to get states totaling 270 electoral votes to vote to join the compact. We all know the compact is being used to circumvent any constitutional amendment that would require a constitutional convention. AFA has had guests columnists from when this first came up in the stupid legislature. you may be correct that the 3/4 of states doesn't come into play but I have read it does. Either way, it's a devastating situation except for democrats who will always win the vote until people get sick of being under the control of that bunch.
Pat, I too read that after they got 270 EV states then 3/4 of all states had to vote to count the votes in that manor. That was a long time ago, probably when this first became an issue here. But today, I went to Wikipedia and it says nothing about that. I know wikipedia can't always be verified.
The only way I know of to guarantee it not passing is by removing those who voted 4 it to begin with and most of them will do so again, remember they have an Influential Paid Lobbyist who's run or spent time advising their campaigns and they follow his rather than our instructions and will again.
God Bless You; Clair VAN Steenwyk
You are right Van, for we must Vote the people out that wanted this in the first place. CQ will not give this up either.