President Donald Trump railed against the Democratic Party on Tuesday night as he brought attention to their attempts to eliminate the Electoral College by subverting the U.S. Constitution.
Trump’s comments come after far-left Colorado Gov. Jared Polis “quietly signed a bill that pledges Colorado’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote,” the Denver Post reported.
“Campaigning for the Popular Vote is much easier & different than campaigning for the Electoral College,” Trump, tweeted. “It’s like training for the 100 yard dash vs. a marathon. The brilliance of the Electoral College is that you must go to many States to win. With the Popular Vote, you go to just the large States — the Cities would end up running the Country. Smaller States & the entire Midwest would end up losing all power — & we can’t let that happen. I used to like the idea of the Popular Vote, but now realize the Electoral College is far better for the U.S.A.”
The National Popular Vote (NPV), which would take effect and eliminate the electoral college after enough states join to comprise 270 electoral votes, now sits at 181 votes after Colorado signed on.
The Federalist notes that the NPV is viewed by Democrats as a cure for their inability to win in the heartland of America but that it faces massive legal problems because it is unconstitutional.
After highlighting how changes to the Electoral College are only supposed to happen through the Constitution, attorney Kyle Sammin writes at The Federalist:
It is a bad idea, but does that mean it is unconstitutional? Not on those grounds alone, but the compact clearly violates the plain language of several sections of the Constitution. The first clue is in its title. Any interstate compact must raise the issue of the Compact Clause in Article I of the Constitution, which holds in relevant part that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”
That’s a pretty strong statement. No penumbras and emanations here, only the unequivocal language of the Constitution that says any compact among the states must be approved by Congress. Even in those analyses of the NPVIC that support its constitutionality, authors admit that “read literally, this provision would require all agreements between states to be approved by both houses of Congress and to be signed by the President before coming into effect.”
Sammin also notes that another challenge that faces the NPV is the fact that it has the effect of disenfranchising each state’s citizens:
Imagine a scenario like the 2004 election, where Republican George W. Bush won a majority of the popular vote, but did not win any of the current NPVIC member states (Colorado will be the exception to this rule when it joins the compact). The result would have been that John Kerry’s ten best states all cast their votes for his Republican opponent. Does that make any sense? Is that the will of the voters in those states?
Legal scholar Tara Ross produced two videos for PragerU that documented the importance of the Electoral College and the dangers of the NPV.