The American Spectator : Left's Agenda Inches Forward

Text Size

Left’s Agenda Inches Forward

By Peter Hannaford on 8.12.11 @ 6:07AM

California joins in to ensure Florida 2000 never again happens to Democrats.

While the massive union effort to overturn the Wisconsin state senate failed, in California the Left quietly moved its agenda forward this week when Governor Jerry Brown signed the “National Popular Vote” bill whose purpose is to award the state’s 55 electoral votes to the presidential candidate with the most popular votes nationally.

Why is this significant? California is the eighth state (along with the District of Columbia) to pass this legislation. It is written to take effect if and when states representing a majority of the 538 electoral votes have passed similar legislation. This means that if Candidate A wins the vote in your state, but Candidate B wins it nationally, your state’s electors would be required to vote for B.

The Electoral College is made up of delegates appointed by each party’s nominee in a number equal to the state’s representation in Congress. Historically, electors vote for their party’s nominee (with a few exceptions over the years). Thus, the candidate who wins the state gets its electoral votes.

This was part of the check-and-balance system built into the Constitution by its writers. James Madison argued in Federalist Paper No.39 that the Constitution was to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the Senate would be state-based; the House population-based. The president would be elected by a mixture of the two.

California’s AB459 originally had some Republican sponsors until it was explained to them that its effect would be to make the 224-year-old electoral vote system irrelevant. They withdrew their names. The legislation passed the legislation without any Republican votes.

Thus far, only “blue” states have passed this legislation, such as Vermont, Massachusetts, Illinois and New Jersey, along with the District of Columbia. John Koza, a Silicon Valley computer scientist who founded the unit in 2006, was quoted in the Sacramento Bee this week as saying, “We just try to push the noodle along every year in every state where we can push it along.” He and his friends have succeeded in pushing “the noodle” to the point where they have 132 electoral votes cornered. That is 49 percent of what they need to reach a majority (270 votes).

The customary way to change the Constitution is to amend it. This, of course, requires passage by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, a presidential signature and ratification by 38 states.

It’s not easy to do, which was just what the Constitution’s writers intended.

The Left wants to do accomplish its goal by doing an end run around the Constitution. Why?

Given population trends of recent decades, if the NPVP were in effect the winner of the six or seven largest metropolitan areas would determine the outcome of the presidential election. And, who controls those areas? Democrats. Therein lies the purpose of this national campaign.

California proponents of the NPVP argue that its national passage would require candidates to actively campaign in states controlled by one party, such as California. This is window dressing.

In all the years in which there have been political parties, in only three elections have the electoral vote winners not also had the most popular votes: 1876, 1888 and 2000. Those electoral vote winners were all Republicans: Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and George W. Bush. Since Mr. Koza and his supporters were born long after Hayes and Harrison were around, it is hard to avoid concluding that they are still seeking revenge on Bush for ever becoming president.

Republican State Sen. Doug LaMalfa said of Brown’s signing the NPVP legislation that it rejects the “American tradition that protects the fabric of our country from fractionalization and mob rule.”

About the Author

Peter Hannaford was closely associated for a number of years with the late President Reagan, beginning in the California Governor’s office. His latest book is Presidential Retreats.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (110) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

DLB| 8.12.11 @ 6:58AM

If this law had been in effect in 2004, George W. Bush would have carried California.

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.12.11 @ 9:15AM

Constitution? What Constitution?
The LEFT knows that it's policies only play in a FEW States. That the RED States have far fewer people than do the Blue ones. They figure, this way, they can get bye with just winning the few States they control.
They don't like the Electoral College. Don't like the idea that ALL THE STATES get the same number of Senators.
Basically, they don't like the CONSTITUTION.
So, what else is new?

oldgulph| 8.12.11 @ 1:09PM

The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states

steve| 8.12.11 @ 4:52PM

It ruins the idea of a Republic based on State rights. I am not for Democracy as it leads to one vote, one time followed by a dictator throughout all history. I am a citizen of Wisconsin first, that is the sovereign State whom I am allegiant to, first. The United States is then the combined States which gave specific instructions as to what the Federal Government can do, that is the Constitution of the United States. To use sophistry and treachery to usurp my States lawfully elected representatives and the voters who put them in office is treason of the highest order!

oldgulph| 8.12.11 @ 5:23PM

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

oldgulph| 8.12.11 @ 5:25PM

A survey of 800 Wisconsin state voters conducted on December 12-14, 2008 showed 71% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support was 81% among Democrats, 67% among independents, and 63% among Republicans.

By age, support was 68% among 18-29 year olds, 62% among 30-45 year olds, 72% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 80% among women and 61% among men.

http://nationalpopularvote.com.....WI_2008DEC

Most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

pickwick| 8.15.11 @ 4:44PM

This legislation gives a huge incentive for massive voter fraud. As it stands now, Democrats can steal all the votes they can in Chicago or Milwaukee or New York and all it will effect is each state's electoral votes. Now stealing votes will also impact the electoral votes of every state foolish enough to sign on with this terrible idea. Integrity of Presidential elections will be seriously at risk.

Not sure how long this will last, though. After 2012, heads will explode in San Francisco when all of California's electoral votes go to someone like Rick Perry, a Christian Aggie Texas Governor, in spite of a sizeable Democrat margin at the state level. I predict there will be a move to repeal after that.

ejp| 8.13.11 @ 1:05AM

BULLxxxx!

jmontesque| 8.13.11 @ 11:02PM

And it's completely unconstitutional. It has no place in a representative republic.

massmile | 8.12.11 @ 1:37PM

With the types of people we have elected we have once again proven the Framers correct.I am a 26 years old nurse, young and beautiful. Now I am seeking an older gentle man who can give me real love , so i got a username Annababe2011 on---a'ge'l'ov'e'r. C óM---it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and older men, or older women and younger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck it out or tell your friends.

W| 8.12.11 @ 11:01AM

The laws in the blue states have an exception that if a Republican wins the national vote, the state votes goes to the Democrat.

oldgulph| 8.12.11 @ 1:08PM

The laws are identical in each states.

The bill says: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

blackwatch| 8.12.11 @ 11:51PM

OG,

Maybe OLDCOMMIE would be better name for you and your snake oil proposition.

blackwatch| 8.12.11 @ 11:48PM

W,
W,
Since the illegal voters and voter fraud predominately occur in DEMONCRAT areas, this NPV plan is just more slick stealing of our rights.

Liberals who only account for 1/5 of the population will do anything to win--regardless of the law or the cost to society.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.12.11 @ 7:11AM

It will never happen. Just another elitist move that's meant to show concern but is really an attempt at dictatorship.

Buck Ofama| 8.14.11 @ 11:06PM

...while good men do nothing.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 7:15AM

These laws are unconstitutional and would not weather a hearing in front of the Supreme Court unless the "lose to win conservatives" or those who think throwing away elections is smart politics hand the government back to Obama and the Democrats who will load the bench with semi-literate and intellectually challenged Democrats (like the 2 Obama apointees).

gearjammer| 8.12.11 @ 7:31AM

you can't say this enough. Somehow we must penetrate tge skulls of the absolutist.

Ryan| 8.12.11 @ 8:57AM

Actually, it's part of the process of changing the Constitution, which is why it's being done that way.

Brubaker| 8.12.11 @ 10:42AM

Part of the process of changing the Constitution? What process would that be?

The Constitution provides an amendment process, which this effort clearly is designed to circumvent.

oldgulph| 8.12.11 @ 1:11PM

No change to the Constitution is involved with National Popular Vote.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Gary B| 8.12.11 @ 9:24AM

As usual, it'll end up in the hands of corrupt, activist judges who want to maintain their membership in the liberal, high-five, cocktail club.

John Navratil| 8.12.11 @ 10:26AM

Michael Tomlinson,

I don't think these law are unconstitutional at the federal level. They may be at the state level (I don't know.)

It is up to the state to determine who is apportions its electors. 48 states use a winner-takes-all and Nebraska and Maine use different means of assigning them proportionally.

Senior Chief| 8.12.11 @ 11:05AM

Sorry John, but I think Michael is correct. The two examples you cite still reflect the choice of the majority of voters within a given state. However the new California law is in effect saying to Hell with the wishes of the state's voters, the electoral votes will be given to the winner of the national popular vote!
The conceit of the left is, that they assume that their candidate will always win the national popular vote. I'd love to hear what their position will be on this law when that isn't always the case!

oldgulph| 8.12.11 @ 1:12PM

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

Harry the Horrible| 8.12.11 @ 12:04PM

Dunno 'bout that.
IIRC there is NOTHING in the Constitution about how states deliver their electors, simply that they're selected and that they vote for the president and vice president.

RCV| 8.12.11 @ 1:06PM

Hard to understand how these laws could be considered "unconstitutional" given the language of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors equal to ...". The Constitution left it to each state to determine the choosing of electors, and states have long had laws directing how those electoral votes are to be cast. The intent was to leave the electors under the control of the state legislatures.

RCV| 8.12.11 @ 1:31PM

As a follow-up, the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 US 214 (1952) rejected the proposition that electors must retain freedom to vote as they individually want, and upheld an Alabama law requiring electors to abide by pledges to vote as their state party directed.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:31PM

Thanks, RCV. I don't think it's unconstitutional---I think it is moronic. It allows candidates to ignore small states.

TrueBlue| 8.12.11 @ 5:47PM

And therein lies the problem. Middle America will be ignored because they have less people than the coastal states. And who do most Middle American states vote for? Republicans.

It's one thing to say all of your state's electoral votes go to the person that had the popular vote IN YOUR STATE. It's something else entirely to say that your state's votes go to the person that had the most votes nationally. As I stated above, this basically voids the votes of the middle of the country and grants it to whoever carries the votes of the country's largest cities. That is already an issue at the state level with large city voters voiding what the rest of the state wants simply because there are more of them.

This method of voting will lean heavily toward the Democrat party since single parents, foster kids, unwed parents, etc tend to live in those large cities and overwhelmingly vote Democrat. It's even worse than true popular vote, since it can void what the majority of the origin state's voters wanted based on how the rest of the country voted. With this law the majority of Cali (or the other states involved) could vote for one candidate, and because the rest of the country voted for the other candidate by 1 vote that person would get all the electoral votes.

Better solution would be to base the number of electoral votes upon a percentage of state voters to number of votes acquired. If a candidate got 42% of the votes for that state, then they get 42% (rounded up) of that state's electoral votes. Winner takes all is total bull since it completely voids any minority opinion, and in the case of states with large cities allows those cities to determine how their entire state votes.

John Navratil| 8.14.11 @ 5:16PM

TrueBlue,

When the electors rode their horses to vote in D.C., the ballot pledge was for the FIRST vote. After that, they were free to wheel-and-deal to elect.

While it may seem antiquated today when the popular results (uncertified) are generally known on election night the thinking was, the Great State of XYZ proudly casts its votes for the winner of its election.

RCV| 8.12.11 @ 6:45PM

Lots of dumb ideas are constitutional. I happen to agree with you on the wisdom of the policy, Occam.

George S| 8.12.11 @ 4:11PM

SCOTUS gets it wrong every once in a great while (cough cough) and Blair is one of them. Read the decision and then ask...

... can a state pass a law or require electors to take a pledge to vote for the Democrat nominee regardless of what happens in the general election?

If no, then Blair is another constitutional convention of nine. They simply took a custom developed over the years as a result of political party dynamics and enshrined it into law. Why?

If yes -- a state can vote for only the Democrat nominee -- then what would be the point of the Constitution? We would have a politburo instead.

W| 8.12.11 @ 9:56PM

I don't believe this is constitutional because the law requiring the electors to vote according to the national result, as opposed to the state result, has no relation to how the voters of that state voted. In effect, their vote is not given any effect and is overriden by the combined votes on a national level. The state laws that give proportional votes depending on the percentage won by the candidate, and the laws giving all the votes to the winner, have a reasonable relation to the votes cast to reflect the will of the voters.
This law would disenfranchise voters.
Will need to review this.

blackwatch| 8.13.11 @ 12:09AM

this "law" or dirty compact--your choice-----makes the assumption that the electors BELONG to the states as their property--to be directed and divided up as they deem fit.

the electors are not property of the states---they are CITIZENS of the State. The damn state belongs to them.

So since the Democrat Party can't always cheat and "win" every election they come up with this NVP crap.

Look it's one of two ways for every state: the electors are either split on a percentage basis based on the state vote or it's a winner take all based on the state vote. Anything else is a dirty method of trying to rig the election. The Democrat Party can not cheat the country unless the election is close.

We don't have a parliment here with percentage representation. WE have a Republic--thank god and the founders. We don't need or ever want a mob rule Presidential Election.

This NVP is just more of the liberal jihad against the voting rights of real Americans. If the NVP passes all blue states should pass a law that says that the vote counting in every county in their state shall not commence until the NPV states have finished counting and have certified their vote count as complete and finished. Then the Real American Red states should begin counting the votes.

Remember America, the Democrat Party can not cheat if they don't know how many illegal fraudulent votes to manufacture in advance. to get away with cheating--it has to be a close election. How do you think that Senator Douchebag Franklin of Minnesota "won" that election anyway??

blackwatch| 8.13.11 @ 12:09AM

this "law" or dirty compact--your choice-----makes the assumption that the electors BELONG to the states as their property--to be directed and divided up as they deem fit.

the electors are not property of the states---they are CITIZENS of the State. The damn state belongs to them.

So since the Democrat Party can't always cheat and "win" every election they come up with this NVP crap.

We don't have a parliment here with percentage representation. WE have a Republic--thank god and the founders. We don't need or ever want a mob rule Presidential Election.

blackwatch| 8.13.11 @ 12:10AM

sorry about the double entry folks.

SpiralArchitect| 8.12.11 @ 2:17PM

unconstitutional ?

Would that be the same kind ofunconstitutional that prevents Obama from being president?

Do tell.

jmontesque| 8.13.11 @ 11:13PM

Well, yes. Exactly the same kind.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.12.11 @ 7:16AM

Do the Democrats ever get tired of cheating? Don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question. Now they want to destroy the Electoral College, because of Al "Bullsh*t" Gore? Just get over it already!! And anyway, everybody but the nutty Liberals know for a fact, that Gore would've been a disaster of a President!! Thank God for the Electoral College, it stopped B.S. Gore from turning us all into a bunch of Commie Watermelons.

They do love cheating though, it's what the Democratic Party does, it's what they're made up of, it's what fill the pages of their long sordid history.

And another thing, why can't we just sell California "as is" to Canada for say $1.00? We'd get rid of one of our biggest never-ending problems, and it be a nice way to make up to Canada for stealing Alaska from them. It's a Win-Win for us, not so much for the Canadians. But what would they do about it anyway? Make a movie in their new Capital, Hollywood, that trashes America? Like that hasn't happen before!!

PolishKnight| 8.12.11 @ 9:55AM

I hate to defend the dems (I really do), but this is an exercise of states' rights. In addition, who knows what the future may bring? Maybe a fluke will happen and a Democrat will win California but lose the popular vote and then he'll be denied the white house. Then we'll get another grand display of liberal hypocrisy as the SoreLoserman lawyers up and tries to fight his own law. (Remember leftists saying sexual harassment wasn't a big deal when Clinton was charged with it?)

Regarding the left "getting over" Y2K Florida. You don't understand the left. Being a leftist is about being Right in the liberal sense. They're good and those who disagree with them are bad. They never make mistakes other than being too good and kind and wonderful (kind of like that job interview question: "Name a weakness" answer: "I sometimes work too hard!")

Sometimes they can't weasel away from their own self-serving political dogma when it gets too much for them. Diversity in Western Europe for example. They created that paradigm to take down the USA and now it's feeding on the Motherland...

John Navratil| 8.12.11 @ 10:57AM

PolishKnight,

I agree with your "states rights" assessment.

The Dems do seem to get exercised when the rules they apply to others get applied to themselves. The Special Counsel statute comes to mind. It worked for a while as most Presidents covered by the statute where Republican. When Clinton came to office, that statute suddenly wasn't such a good idea after all.

There have been dozens of attempts to repeal the 22nd amendment (2-term President). The most recent by Democrat José Serrano who seems to have forgotten the "Thank God for term limits" T-shirts over W's visage.

Unfortunately, the current system, while giving a proportionally greater vote to residents of the least populous states, will become dominated by the block of states comprising 270 electors. Don't expect conservative states to become part of that block. When this happens, expect Presidential candidates to become agents of the urban population. The Iowa caucus will become a corn festival. Unless the cities become conservative (unlikely as cities have a need for a level of regulation completely unnecessary in the country), this attempt by California and others will be an advantage to the Left. When it ceases to be, expect a new "respect" for the Electoral College on their part.

oldgulph| 8.12.11 @ 1:20PM

National Popular Vote preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. It won't matter what political leanings of states are in the compact or if a state is in the compact or not. The goal for the candidates would be to win the national popular vote. That's how elections would be run. Every vote, every vote will matter equally.

The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

21% of Americans live in rural areas.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:32PM

oldgulph---the latest data I saw was 18% of Americans in rural areas. I live in one.

TrueBlue| 8.12.11 @ 5:51PM

Instead of going to "battleground states" they'll just go to the big cities and ignore the rest of the country. Better the way it is now.

blackwatch| 8.13.11 @ 12:15AM

Where does all of the cheating and vote rigging occur? DEMOCRAT districts.

Take your lies back to Huffpo. Anything that has to do with voting and Blue States is a trick.

Every vote already counts. The losers get tallied along with the winners. You just don't like it when you lose an election.

John Navratil| 8.14.11 @ 11:28AM

oldgulph,

It seems you have used to populations for the incorporated areas of these cities rather than the more commonly accepted census definition of Metropolitan Statistical Area which actually has Houston as number 6, behind Dallas at number 4 (small city, large MSA) and, incidentally, larger than the state of Maryland (number 19 in state's populations). Those six MSAs comprise 20% of the U.S. population. No matter.

As of a couple of years ago, more people live in cities than outside. In the U.S. more than half of the population lives in the top 40 MSAs. These are, in order....
New York, L.A., Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, D.C., Miami, Atlanta, Boston, San Fran., Detroit, Riverside, Phoenix, Seattle, Minneapolis, San Diego, St. Louis, Tampa, Baltimore, Denver, Pittsburgh, Portland-OR, Sacramento, San Antonio-TX, Orlando, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas Cit(ies), Las Vegas, San Jose, Columbus, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Austin-TX, Virginia Beach, Providence, Nashville, Milwaukee, Jacksonville-FL.

Do you see a any bastions of conservatism in this list? Houston isn't one - it's being co-opted by the People's Republic of Austin.

PolishKnight| 8.12.11 @ 3:51PM

I sadly agree with you that the Dems are probably getting an advantage out of this. That said, it's interesting to consider that most leftists, that is, people who are intellectually leftist due to ideology and not for race/gender/welfare entitlements, tend to live in the SUBURBS as limosine liberals.

I love to tease them about this.

One of the tragedies of leftism is that it's destroyed many fine cities not only in the USA, but also clearly in Europe as well. Even as they bash the evil right wingers for destroying the middle class, their cities make it impossible for the middle class to live there. You have to be rich to be able to live in the electrified old town districts or you live in the slums. The rest commute out to suburban sprawl.

And we don't call them on it.

George S| 8.12.11 @ 7:16AM

It's our turn to fling the race card.

If enough states pass this type of legislation, the presidential election will be strictly by popular vote. The percentage of voters who are African American is what... 6 to 10 percent? Instead of being a major voting bloc in high electoral states such as NY, VA, IL, NJ, NC, GA, they have just been disenfranchised in ways they'd never expected. California is around 5 percent black. Someone better drop a line to the Justice Brothers.

gearjammer| 8.12.11 @ 7:34AM

70 per cent vote in major population centers means Acorn is gonna be bossing us around or so they think. It means we'll have to fight-a down and dirty civil war is what these dirt bags are gonna bring. Really must teach your kids to fight and use weapons-do not let them become namby pamby Brits.

oldgulph| 8.12.11 @ 1:21PM

The influence of minority voters has decreased tremendously as the number of battleground states dwindles. For example, in 1976, 73% of blacks lived in battleground states. In 2004, that proportion fell to a mere 17%.

The Asian American Action Fund, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, NAACP, National Latino Congreso, and National Black Caucus of State Legislators endorse a national popular vote for president.

martin j smith| 8.12.11 @ 8:00AM

At some point either Southern California will quite the state or their population will. Thus leaning California with Hippies,Marxists, and their buddies. Very productive.

libertypatriot | 8.12.11 @ 9:32AM

This is a nightmare for our system of check and balances. These Soros drones are relentless on distorting the truth. This movement would turn into a get the vote out-SEIU-Accorn thugfest. Why do you think this attack on voter id laws has been ramped up by the commies.

I see it like this with these Progressives-Commiecrats. Here’s a scenario to chew on.

California, by a landslide of 95% to 5% votes for the Democrat candidate. The national popular vote results in a win for the (R) or even (I) candidate with a margin of 50% to 48.9%. This group of electors would be committed to casting all of CA electoral votes at the National Convention for (R). There is no contract that guarantees how these electors will cast the electoral votes.

Under this scenario, the CA Delegates would be committed to pledge electoral votes for the (R) or (I) candidate, even though the (D) candidate got 48.8% of the popular vote.

I bet dollars to doughnuts that those electors would claim a Constitutional mandate to cast the electoral votes for the (D)candidate, since the popular vote totals are so close and that having to cast all those electoral for the (R) or (I) candidate would not represent the voice of the people and their vote wasn’t counted, blah, blah, blah, infinitum.

Progressives will do anything to bring about mob rule, which is prevalent under pure Democracy. You know, the same kind of Democracy they have in France, Spain, Greece, Mexico, etc..

Now the Soros' clones are claiming that the Compact Clause will be used to allow these states to vote enbloc, while gutting the Electoral College system. This state compact would require Congressional approval, but now they are leaning on a 1893 court case, in which a Justice said the Constitution can not be taken literally, They claim that even though Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 (Compact Clause) of the Constitution requires Congressional approval, they said they don't need it because Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 allows the States to cast their electoral votes as they see fit.

See a great argument between an American-loving patriot and a Soro's NPV communist wannabe drone, go here and see the comments.

http://upstatevoice.com/progre...../#comments

Al Adab| 8.12.11 @ 12:21PM

So when the GOP candidate wins the national popular vote like in 2004, California will now give its electoral votes to the GOP even though the GOP will never carry California. Gotta love these guys. Its what they get for thinking emotionally instead of rationally.

oldgulph| 8.12.11 @ 1:30PM

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1893 and again in 1978, said that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:

"Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

"The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."

Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:

"Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."

The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:

"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"

The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

Petronius| 8.12.11 @ 9:38AM

This amounts to vote usurpation. If it is let to stand, this country is finished.

RCV| 8.12.11 @ 1:32PM

Not so - entirely consistent with the Constitution - see comments above.

blackwatch| 8.13.11 @ 12:25AM

So are my 2A rights. we will have those to deal with the tyrants that use phony voting majorities to steal elections. Once the NVP is in place voter turn out in Blue States will be close to 100%. I guess those Blue State voters can't be kept out of the voting booth. Try this dirty dealing NVP compact and you'll see blood in the streets. Don't f8ck with our voting rights. If you want to fairly win elections--stop aborting your babies and teach your kids to be liberal--or get more illegal alien voters on the socialist for life plan. Vote Democrat. Viva La Raza.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 1:30PM

You're a great American, blackwatch, and I'm with you!

RCV| 8.14.11 @ 12:18AM

Our Second Amendment rights protect our right to "keep and bear arms." If you use those weapons, however, Blackwatch, be prepared to exercise your Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights, 'cause you'll need them.

POST American| 8.12.11 @ 9:49AM

---'70's Show' Tavistock/Stanford Research
'Up With People' SENILITY OP ----ALERT!-----

Meanwhile, the HAARPeseque nuclear halocaust
in Fukishima, the John Wheeler murder, the
Masonic/Templar 'Break Their Hearts' set up
horror in Norway ----to say nothing of our
USURY feuled 'shadow government's' 4 decades
of Globalization and RED China TREASON OP
----are one and all ----down that rabbit hole
where your memory used to be.

And BTW ---ALAN WATT's coverage of the
latest round of Bankster multi-cultural UN-ease in Britain really is essential. ---------DO CHECK IT OUT.

---HUAC meets NUREMBERG----is building.

REALLY

TRULY

INEXORABLY

CESC| 8.12.11 @ 11:27AM

Does anyone who reads this POSTer ever understand what he or she is trying to say? I see these posts often on this site and always think WTF???

Ed| 8.12.11 @ 12:25PM

Post American's texts are examples of a "word salad". Word salads are a classic symptom of schizophrenia. I strongly urge Post American to get some professional help from an M.D. or a D.O.. This is not a laughing matter.

InLineFour| 8.12.11 @ 1:50PM

No kidding. Post's prose is far less coherent than even the stuff Jared Loughner wrote.

Al Adab| 8.12.11 @ 2:10PM

Where is Dr. Occam?

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:38PM

Hey, guys. Unless he is an Alabama or Minnesota resident, I've got nothing I can do. Those are my two licenses.

In addition, as RCV knows as well as I do, state laws throughtout the country prevent me from intervening involuntarily unless the person meets one of the three criterion: 1) Dangerous to self, 2)Dangerous to others, or 3) incapable of meeting their needs for food clothing or shelter. These problems must be because of a mental illness.

PA may not meet those three aspects even though he writes as though he's wearing tinfoil. Clint wouldn't meet it, despite his physical threats, because it is pretty obvious that he is a bully and a possible sociopath, and thus would not meet the mental illness provision, which, except for borderline PD, generally requires a major mental illness diagnosis as opposed to a personality disorder diagnosis.

Hope that's clear. But honestly, PA, seek out some help.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:39PM

Sorry, "throughout."

sparch| 8.12.11 @ 10:22AM

It gives the left, when the law is enacted, to use their politcal machines (like unions and groups like Acorn) to stuff the ballot boxes in large urban areas so they may control the outcome.

These stories have come to light in the last eighteen months to show that this is what the left precisily does in local , state and national elections. If you can't win in a fair fight, change the rules to your advantage.

oldgulph| 8.12.11 @ 1:31PM

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

Senator Birch Bayh (D-Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, "one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes."

The population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

John Navratil| 8.14.11 @ 11:43AM

oldgulph,
You are counting the populations of the incorporated areas of the cities and not the surrounding areas typically demographically associated with same.

Before you argue the insignificance of my point let me say that I live in a city called "Spring Valley Village" (pop. ~3600). It's just about 8 or 10 miles west of downtown Houston. Along with five other burgs incorporated in the 50's when Houston was small enough to do it, we are completely surrounded. Houston extend another twenty miles west of me. Even though my address is Houston (we have no post office), I am not listed by the census as a resident of Houston, only the Houston MSA.

By using the MSA, which is defined as an area of high population density with close economic ties, "Houston" includes my bedroom community along with much of Fort Bend county and its commuters.

As I wrote, above, the top 40 comprise half the U.S. population.

Mike D.| 8.12.11 @ 10:34AM

Leftists will resort to "any means neccessary" when backed into a corner. As far as California goes, They are sinking faster than the HMS Hood, let em' go to the bottom. The south half of that state will secede from the Socialist half or they will go down with them. California is our future if we don't change things.

Dave| 8.12.11 @ 11:28AM

How much time did Bush spend campaigning in Texas in 2000? Virtually none, since he had the state wrapped up. In a popular vote, you can be sure he would have spent a lot more time milking every vote he could out of the state. Ditto for Gore in California. It's not correct to say Gore would have won under a popular-vote standard. It's impossible to know who would have won, since the campaigns would have been run much differently.

Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't fear this too much. I'm a Californian, and I have to say the notion that my presidential vote might actually mean something again has a certain level of appeal.

Aswamper| 8.12.11 @ 11:58AM

A banana has "a peel" also, but do you want one for President?

Oh never mind we already have one!

Al Adab| 8.12.11 @ 11:57AM

So all the GOP candidate needs to do is win the popular vote to get the California, Massa chusetts and other electoral votes. That should be good news for the GOP. The candidate gets the electoral votes even by losing the state. Thank you California. I'm certain the GOP appreciates your donation of 56 votes.

John Navratil| 8.14.11 @ 7:11PM

Al Adab,

The RINO Republicans would benefit, but those in "flyover" country would be ignored.

Carrie| 8.12.11 @ 12:01PM

Ironically, I expect President Obama will lose on the national level. Californians will probably still go for Obama, but do you think Gov Brown will then support this law and give the votes from California to the Republican candidate? Yeah right.

blackwatch| 8.13.11 @ 12:40AM

As a Californian, I am perplexed by the 58% of the population of this state that is smart enough to actually vote--but not smart enough to vote out the corrupt Democrat Party. Most be all the bribes and walking around money. The socialists have found a foothold with the sheeple of this state.

And yes about 40% of this state would like to have Congress split off the SF BAY counties and LA county from the rest of our beautiful state. Make it 4, 5,6 states. We have enough people for that many states. We could make 30 Rhode Islands based on population.

How about a Red State NPV plan that eliminates the votes of all states that have fewer than ten million voters if they are smaller in land mass than say Colorado or Texas? Sounds fair and balanced since the tiny Blue States are wielding too much influence in the Senate. Based on square miles and their tiny populations-- the small states--which are mostly Democrat Blue have an undue influence in our government. Since we need to count every vote fairly this is clearly a biased arrangement enshrined in the constitution for the benefit of RI, DE, CT, MA, and VT.

Lets get all of the Red States together and vote away the rights of their citizens.

blackwatch| 8.13.11 @ 12:40AM

Lets get all of the Red States together and vote away the rights of their citizens.

fwb| 8.12.11 @ 12:31PM

It ain't the supreme court that gets to decide what the constitution means, it's We the People. Believing the lie is what got us in this mess. The supreme court is subordinate to the Constitution. How can the subordinate decide the meaning of the superior? Duh!!!!

Article I, Section 10 takes care of the issue of the Electoral Vote Compact. It is prohibited. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Besides, if we actually elected a president in a constitutional manner, this would be a non-issue. We have not elected a president constitutionally in a couple hundred years. Telling the Electors who they can vote for is unconstitutional. The election is only to choose Electors but the Electors cannot be bound by what the People want. The Framers said the People were too stupid to choose a president and gave us the Electoral College to protect us from ourselves. With the types of people we have elected we have once again proven the Framers correct.

oldgulph| 8.12.11 @ 1:33PM

Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states to enter interstate compacts. In fact, there are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones), as can be seen at
http://tinyurl.com/3ra7elc

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

marcia| 8.12.11 @ 12:55PM

In California we have a state legislature that is,without a doubt, dumber than dirt. Now we have a gov. to match. Their latest crusade, while this state is teetering on the cliff of bankrupcy, is the use of flat sheets in hotel rooms. Get those wagon trains of U-Hauls lined up.

Mike D.| 8.12.11 @ 8:43PM

The new Wagon Train TV series, "EEEASTWARD HOOOOOO".

oldgulph| 8.12.11 @ 1:06PM

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

Ground Control| 8.12.11 @ 1:10PM

"This means that if Candidate A wins the vote in your state, but Candidate B wins it nationally, your state's electors would be required to vote for B."

Isn't this circular logic? If every State adopted this, then all Presidential elections would be by unanimous electoral college vote. This is a denial of voting rights. This is trash. This has Jerry Brown written all over it.

oldgulph| 8.12.11 @ 1:39PM

When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. A unanimous electoral college vote would only be guaranteed if all states enacted the bill.

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, minority party voters in each state are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for.

CalMark| 8.12.11 @ 1:42PM

This is not Constitutional.

The intent was for the states to decide the outcome. The founders most assuredly did NOT want elites awarding a state's electoral votes as they see fit.

Vlady| 8.12.11 @ 2:28PM

Ah, but CalMark, if you read the enlighted OldGulph, you will see that apparently, in true Marxist/Stalinist/Communist/Socialist/Utopian fashion, the good leftists have figured out yet another way to undermine the Constitution in a "Constitutional" way....

You know, the Communists were always big on making sure their actions were legal and seemingly legit.

RCV| 8.14.11 @ 1:17PM

The Founders most assuredly DID want the elites awarding state electoral votes as they see fit. The Founders feared direct democracy. That was the whole point of the electoral system.

PepiMartinez| 8.12.11 @ 2:11PM

NJs a blue state? Does that mean we a democrat as our Governor instead of Chris Christie? Because I'd be OK with that.

To the point of the article, I must say that the electoral college has no place in the presidential race anymore. To me, it makes my vote as an individual irrelevant. I know that's not a popular opinion or statement, but I believe it to be true. In 2012, if Obama is winning/losing by a large majority, what does it matter if I go and vote? He's going to get the electoral college in my state.

Furthermore, every single person in 39 states can vote for a candidate. As long as the other candidate gets just one more vote than his/her opposition in the 11 most powerful states, he/she wins.

Sorry, but that makes no sense.

PepiMartinez| 8.12.11 @ 2:11PM

NJs a blue state? Does that mean we a democrat as our Governor instead of Chris Christie? Because I'd be OK with that.

Furthermore, every single person in 39 states can vote for a candidate. As long as the other candidate gets just one more vote than his/her opposition in the 11 most powerful states, he/she wins.

Sorry, but that makes no sense.

PepiMartinez| 8.12.11 @ 2:12PM

Sorry for the double post, don't know how that happened.

Michele San Pietro| 8.12.11 @ 2:42PM

I just don't understand what Democrats would like to do. The presidential election of 2000 was a very close one just by chance, as well as it was purely incidental that Florida became decisive. Democrats must have bats in the belfry.

Al Adab| 8.12.11 @ 2:52PM

Bats? Of course as a matter of definition.

Sadly, they are crazy as foxes. Machiavellian in the extreme. Anything and everything designed to enhance their control and power. As a wise man once said, "The issue is never the issue, The issue is control." We the unenlightened plebs simply must bow to our betters who know what is best. Liberty and individualism be da***d.

skip| 8.13.11 @ 1:54AM

Seems to me gud old oldgulph is telling us to make sure to be cagey as cougars and feast on fox meat by changing state right to vote laws to designate electoral votes for president to include property requirements once again, same as our Founding Fathers did, the Founding Fathers who established a Constitutional Republic because to a man they despised and condemned Democracy for the form of tyranny it is, as gud old oldgulph damn well knows.

TomB| 8.12.11 @ 3:38PM

If Algore had won his home state of Tenn., he would have become president and what happened in Fla. would not mattered. All this means is that the demos are going to have to find more votes in car trucks across the country.

Wayne | 8.12.11 @ 4:09PM

Why not just pass a law in the blue states that all its electoral votes always goes to the Democrat? Why the charade that could backfire?

Bill Atkinson| 8.12.11 @ 5:14PM

As long as the states that pass such laws are Democrat states, fine by me, let them disenfranchise their own people.

David| 8.12.11 @ 6:25PM

As I have long said, governments at every level always move left. The moronic conservatives think they WON whenever the left wins only 5 or 10% of what they want. The conservaatives don't realize they LOST 5 or 10% - ;and it happens over an dover again until the dems get what they want.

Bruce Freebird| 8.12.11 @ 7:06PM

It can't possibly be constitutional. Why isn't somebody suing?

PCP Smoker| 8.12.11 @ 8:23PM

As DLB mentions, how is this not good for the GOP? We don't even have to campaign in the state anymore.
Assume a strong conservative runs -- one who is able to articulate conservative policies and is not ridden with white guilt, she then beats Usama in the general election, automatically winning all of Ca's electoral votes. It's the classic NY makes, Brooklyn takes scenario.

This would be a problem if we nominate a McLame and GW Bush like candidate, but with a strong conservative? A walk in the park.

POST American| 8.12.11 @ 9:36PM

------------------BOTTOM LINE---------------------

--'90's Show' ---'80's Show' FAKE OP ---ALERT!---

"Understand folks, at the top there are NO
politics, no debates, no problems. ALLL are
'on board'. There's only 'THE" agenda."
-ALAN WATT

-----And as fmr Kissinger aide, Barack Obama,
catagorically REFUSES to confront Wall Street
or the FED, indeed, as he's filled his cabinet
with them --AND the EUGENISTS ---who's going
to argue with Mr. Watt's point?

"--Daddy, when we travel around the world,
WHY'S there ALWAYS McDonalds, Oprah and
these ugly plastic chairs?"

----------WHY INDEED DADDY???

Nite| 8.12.11 @ 10:09PM

You can commit voter fraud with the popular vote, but it is less likely to count with the electoral college. The Democrats excel at voter fraud, since they have been doing it for years. This is what the blue states are setting up, to keep Democrats in power in those states, and also throw the elections with voter fraud of the likes from ACORN if a Republican gets ahead in any contest.

Get it Right| 8.13.11 @ 8:31AM

From the article: "The customary way to change the Constitution is to amend it. This, of course, requires passage by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, a presidential signature and ratification by 38 states. " Wrong! An ammendment to the constitution has nothing to do with the president.

rongordo | 8.13.11 @ 11:39AM

Californians, as a whole, are too short-sighted to see the strategy here, and will repeal it as soon as their state electoral votes go republican, with the popular vote in 2012.

Marc Jeric| 8.13.11 @ 12:09PM

Why go through all those complications? Just let Mullah Obama become dictator for life and proclaim the Republican Party illegal - and there you have it! The United socialist States of America!

JP| 8.13.11 @ 12:51PM

And if this scheme works, why should the rest of the states abide by it? Progressives are playing with fire. Someday, they may get exactly what they wish for.

Civil wars are usually very unpleasant things.

POST American| 8.14.11 @ 1:25AM

----'Left Agenda'?

------------------REALITY CHECK---------------------

There's ONLY ---THE----AGENDA.

I.E. ---America to be 'DE-in-dust-real-EYE---zed'
and brought down to third world status.
Likewise, the West generally

---RED China to be, VIA tech transfers and MASSIVE U.S. taxpayer funding, brought in as world industrial center, TOP of the NWO, and 'World Enforcer' (SEE Bush Sr. 1975 Declassified State Dept. MEMO #200 online)

---Culture here and worldwide to be standardized
into Globalism. This translates
into the elimination of nations, their cultures, and religion --most esp. USURY abominating religions like those based in scripture
(SEE Club of Rome/ UN/ Rockefeller/ Chatham
House RIIA/CFR white papers and priority
agenda papers)

-----'TRANCE ---You-Man--ism' and long term,
incremental extermination of human populations
across the planet on behalf of a deeply entrenched, long inbred, psychopathic EEL--leet

----------------THIS IS THE AGENDA-----------------

Glein| 8.14.11 @ 6:36PM

I believe that California is a lost cause. Like any drug addict (The drug being taxpayer dollars) the state must first hit its bottom. Electing Governor Moonbeam was first step. We can all sit back and watch a beautiful, bountiful state turn into Detroit. It is well on the way and the bankruptcy and collapse is inevitable!

WallyG| 8.15.11 @ 2:58AM

For more than forty years the left in this country have marched to the tune of "popular vote" and elimination of the Electoral College because they see now as they did way back that poverty stricken, jobless, democrat run states outnumber the rest of America. What better way to perpetuate poverty, joblessness and create the dependent class that Marxism thrives on than by eliminating the one sure way thjat allows ALL Americans their say? Hillary Clinton raised that call in the 2004 election and make no mistake, democrats are not about a representative republic but a tryanical dictatorship.

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|40 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|58 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|83 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|32 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|25 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 5.24.13

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online