COMMUNIST ORGANIZER
Posted on 09/06/2008 4:46:21 AM PDT by Billg64
OLYMPIA -- State senators have approved a bill that would deliver the state's electoral votes to the U.S. presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.
The bill, which passed 30-18 Monday, now heads to the House.
The bill would change Washington's current system of typically giving all of the state's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the statewide election to awarding all of the state's delegates to the national popular vote winner.
Almost every state has considered a similar bill. Maryland and New Jersey have passed such a measure.
The proposal would take effect only if enough states -- those with a majority of votes in the Electoral College -- agreed to it.
Why not just sit out the election and give the delegates to the national popular vote winner? It will save the state money on those pesky election days!
Yes, all Democrat leaning states should agree to this.
Seem’s we’re getting closer and closer to that edge we can’t step back from.......
This movement is so ignorant and ridiculous, in so many ways. There were good reasons for the elctoral college system when implemented, and I’d argue they are even more important now.
Therefore if 20 candidates run for the president, and the winner has only 20% of the national vote, that means that we’ve somehow improved things by putting a grossly unsupported person into the White House?
This is insane. It will encourage huge numbers of candidates to run for the presidency.
It is conceivable that a California candidate, if he wins just the California votes and nothing else, could be the president.
This would only work if the bill were also to stipulate that the electoral votes would only go to the popular vote winner if that winner attains a national majority of the votes.
The socialists don’t like the idea of this nation being a representative Republic.
This is yet another attempt to dismantle the Constitution.
After all, as the libs love to argue, it’s “ a living document”.
If Obama wins the Electoral College but loses the popular vote (as Bush did in 2000), this tomfoolery will die faster than a fruit fly. Of course, if this concept had been in place in 2000, they might STILL be counting the votes. The only way this would ever work would be if they required a true majority of the popular vote to win - not a plurality - with run offs eliminating the minor candidates.
This is an appalling bill. And yes, you are right, this allows them to decide their vote after the gross national votes have been tallied, thereby depriving the individual state of any power and completely defeating the purpose of the electoral college.
I think they’re going to try very hard to steal the next election, because I don’t think Barry and Joe are going to be able to win it fair and square. I hope the GOP lawyers are already preparing themselves and trying to determine possible strategies that the Dems might use, based on their prior attempts in 2000 and 2004.
Why even keep the Electoral College if they are going down this road. It just negates its purpose. Plus Amendment 17 put us on the road to Democracy from Federal Republic. So is anybody surprised by this?
This is an end-run around the Constitution. In order to have the system you suggest, the Constitution would have to be amended. In effect, it is undermining the concept of federalism.
Agree that is why America is a republic.
If states are stupid enough to do it they can.
Why not just sit out the election and give the delegates to the national popular vote winner? It will save the state money on those pesky election days!Why not just have the media decide? They know best anyway.
People need to be really careful about changing things. It seems like anytime something is changed in the election process it turns out that the Democrats were behind it. For example, changing the primaries to allow open primaries. Hillary Clinton was known to be one of those people who a few years ago was talking about getting rid of the electoral way of voting. I think this is another Dem attempt to destroy our political system. I say no to any and all attempts at reforms at this point.
Really, I live in MA too.
I’m not familiar with this law.
Do you know what year this was passed? I’d like to find out more about this if I can.
I think we need to take this seriously. Without the electoral college, the Sarah Palin gambit would fail from the getgo. She and people like her, meaning us, are hated by the urban elites. If the Electoral College is done away with, either by Constitutional Amendment or by this roundabout process, we become the slaves to the bi-coastal elites. The only way the “sleeping bear” that was awakened by the Palin nomination worked was because of the Electoral College system.
Who has standing to bring a lawsuit that could declare these state laws unconstitutional? Or must we wait until the national threshold of however many states doing the same thing (written into these individual state laws) nears? That provision would seem to make clear that it is an end run around the Constitution-amendment process. Can that be challenged now rather than waiting?
Don’t you think that it is a little interesting that just as the conventions are over, Hillary going back to work, this is one of the first things that comes up? It’s no coincidence to me, I think the witch is back at work. I don’t care if it was from the House first, of course it was, her operatives wouldn’t want to make it look like she is behind it. I am sick of these Clintonesta tactics. The Republican Party needs to get with it.
this year, it was not covered well by the media. I am not sure that gov. Patrick has signed it yet.
I am pretty ignorant on legal issues. But it seems that almost anyone from the affected states should be able to fall under the protection of the federal judiciary.
This sounds as smart a a box of rocks. If 49 states pass this rule then the 50th will decide ALL elections.
Only a liberal would even think this is a good law.
The founding fathers created the Electoral College for a reason and it has worked sublimely. This law disenfranchises the voters and usurps their vote.
Found it, thanks.
Looks like it is tabled until next year.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/articles/forbes_20080801.php
I’m surprised someone hasn’t taken this all the way to the Supreme Court. They would definitely rule against it.
Maryland has passed this bill, but I understand that it only goes into effect if many other states agree. The (stupid) idea is that if states totaling 270 electoral votes agree to the measure, then everyone will enact it at once.
I don’t know if there’s an expiration date.
It would be sweet justice if it were to backfire in our favor of course. That’s the fastest road to getting it repealed!
If this takes effect it devalues the vote of very Marylander from 1 out of 2.5 million for 10 electoral votes, to about 1 out of 40 million for the same electoral votes.
The Electoral College gets destroyed first, then, what’s left of the Senate will come under fire. It’s not “fair” that small states get 2 Senators just like big states.
That is the most dastardly part of this bill; if it would work in the repubs favor, they do not need to trigger the new way of counting.
I’m not sure I follow this.
Would this law make it theoretically possible for 100% of the state of Massachusetts to have voted for candidate x, but the state’s delegates be awarded to candidate y because 51% of the nation did?
Bingo! We have a winner!!
Then why have states at all? Since they would not count in the national tally anyway this would be the first step in ridding the nation of individual States.
First the state borders will not count, then the national borders, pretty soon we really will have candidates campaigning in France, Ugandi, Russia, China etc because they will be voting in the US election because hey, whomever gets the U.S. Presidential election "affects them too ya know."
What a bunch of ignorant bastards.
This is a blatant attempt by the Rats to have the far left coast, the NE, and Chicago select the POTUS.
We all know how that would work out, don’t we?
They are far from ignorant. They know exactly what they are doing. They are planning on taking control of a Nation. The Electoral Cllege is all that stands between us and the unwashed masses. Once it has been neutralized 10 cities and 3 States can control a Presidental Election.
If Mc Cain is elected we will have 4 perhaps 12 years to fight this should we choose to but nothing or so nearly nothing that one could say that nothing was done in the 8 years of the Bush Administration to combat voter fraud.
Should Obama be elected we will get decide whether we will go into slavery peacefully, or not.
Those are the choices we will soon get to make.
The Dempcrat Party and the islamics intend to take over control of the United States. They are not going to deviate from this goal. They will have to be stopped.
“Seem’s we’re getting closer and closer to that edge we can’t step back from.......”
Which is why this election is so important.
If the Islamofacist puppet wins, we can kiss America good bye.
Been there, done that. Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 with 42% of the national vote.
Oh sure, join MD in its not mere stupidity, but blatant asininnity (excuse the non-word).
These assholes are essentially curtailing all our votes, and stupidly getting us in a circular situation when everyone adopts this asinine stupidity. When all states do this, then how do you send your EVs?
Ha ha yeah that raises another question: how many electors do those 7 extra states have?
But he had to win a majority of the Electoral College votes. The same with George Bush and every other president. The electoral college system encourages fewer parties.
It also gives a voice to less populous states. Otherwise, they would always be ignored. As it is, their small number of electoral votes makes a big difference. In fact, they can be the deciding difference.
There is nothing in the Constitution mandating a popular vote.
Article II, Section 1:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.If the state legislature chose to, it could take the presidential election off the Nov 4 ballot entirely, and decide who the state's electoral vote goes to by legislation
I would hope the equal protection clause would protect the citizens from this type of scheme. In addition to that, everyone knows what the Constitution intended by the language describing how states shall choose their electors — and a change to that intent would require a new constitutional amendment.
I know in North Carolina the same bill has been introduced, but it has been tabled.
SB 954, sponsored by Senator Daniel Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg) that would dilute North Carolina’s voting power in presidential elections. The legislation is currently being considered by the House and may be voted on during this session. In effect, SB 954 would realign North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes so they would no longer go to the person who actually wins North Carolina’s popular election. Instead, North Carolina’s votes would be given to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. If the General Assembly passes this bill, North Carolina electors would be required to vote in a manner that may be inconsistent with the will of North Carolina voters.
“I’m not sure I follow this.
Would this law make it theoretically possible for 100% of the state of Massachusetts to have voted for candidate x, but the state’s delegates be awarded to candidate y because 51% of the nation did?”
Yes, it would. Do you “follow it” now?
I know that the Constitution permits states to select electors for the Electoral College as they choose.
But - in cases where a majority in a given state clearly votes for candidate A, and the “law” in that states says that electors must vote for candidate B because he/she won a majority of votes in _other states_ - I believe such a law could be challenged in federal (and eventually the U.S. Supreme) court on the basis that it negates _another_ state obligation under the Constitution: that citizens of the states be guaranteed a “representative” form of government.
I’m just a dumb neanderthal, but seems to me that ANY law within a state which mandates that the votes of a majority of its citizens be negated would be in direct violation of the Constitution due to the “representative form of government” clause.
- John
That was my point in response to post #8. The states can allocate their electoral votes anyway they want, witness the systems used in Maine and Nebraska. The contstutional issue involved in this case are state compacts and the allocation of electoral votes. It has never been tested.
“Then why have states at all?”
Psssst! Don’t say that too loudly!
You’re getting dangerously close to their REAL agenda here.....!
- John
I really wonder why all this activity is happening in the state legislatures.
There must be a lot of swiss bank accounts changing hands!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.