It's our Founding Fathers worst nightmare: A Direct Democracy.
Besides from the fact that this "National Popular Vote" scheme is a pure laugh in the face of our Founders, and that it would just disenfranchise the votes of small states across America, there's one last question to be heard: Would the Cities dominate Presidential Elections under a National Popular Vote?
Without a doubt.
Just look at these statistics from New York State:
2008 Presidential Election results in New York City (5 counties)
Obama - 2,073,915 votes (80%).
McCain - 524,744 votes (20%).
Others - 16,672 votes (0%).
2008 Presidential Election results in the rest of New York State
Obama - 2,730,786 votes (54%).
McCain - 2,227,484 votes (45%).
Others - 66,539 votes (1%).
43% of Obama's 2008 vote in New York State came from just five Counties. And if I was to add the results from the Cities of Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Ithaca, Syracuse, Utica, and another handful of Downstate and Upstate Cities......he would probably reach 50% easily. Also, it might be hard to believe, but 3% of Obama's overall vote came from just New York City.
So if the 2012 Presidential Election is based on the National Popular Vote scheme that Liberals seem to adore, do you really think that Barack Obama is going to campaign in rural New York, Montana or any locale with less than 50,000 residents? There's not a chance in hell. He will be heading to the Cities of America to pump out millions upon millions of pro-Obama votes, because he already knows that they'll support him by a four-to-one margin, at the least.
Thoughts?
