Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 02/12/2009 2:36:49 PM PST by callthemlikeyouseethem
DES MOINES (AP) - Iowa lawmakers are considering changing the way the state's presidential votes are counted as part of an effort to break from the Electoral College system.
The proposal is moving through the state Senate and so far has generated little opposition.
It calls for Iowa to join with other states and pledge its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, no matter who wins in Iowa.
(Excerpt) Read more at kcrg.com ...
That is freaking ridiculous. I hate what this country is becoming.
What the h@$% makes Iowa so leftist? The few folks I know there seem to be good down to earth regular folk.
Do these geniuses realize that they just rendered the people of Iowa’s voice as meaningless?
The interstate national popular vote compact has passed in one house here in Michigan too.
They know that confronting the constitution head on is a loser so they’re quietly sidestepping it.
More importantly, do the people of Iowa realize that these geniuses are in the process of rendering their voices meaningless?
Enacted into law in 4 states (inc illinois)
passed both houses in 4 states
passed 1 house in 6 states
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
The Dems will love this. They can avoid campaigning in Iowa altogether and stop having to pretend that they care at all about middle America.
Iowa may be voting themselves into political irrelevancy.
In my unlawyerly opinion, this violates the Constitutional guarantee to the States of a Republican government. Other States and other voters are determining who gets the EC votes from the State in question.
And — do the voters in Iowa REALLY understand the Electoral College and how it gives them a voice. Do they really want to become a fly-over state?
>>Do these geniuses realize that they just rendered the people of Iowa’s voice as meaningless?<<
Iowa already has a quite disproportionate amount of power selecting the President. What the hell do they want?
Now all me need is a national primary system and no presidential candidate will ever visit Iowa again....
I wish they would vote themselves irrelevant in the primary process instead...
Probably so ... however, it is explicitly Constitutional, according to Article 2, Section 1:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....
That they're "directing" themselves into meaninglessness is beside the point -- they're acting within the bounds of the Constitution.
Dumbbunnies.
If Iowa did this, they would never see another presidential candidate.
Candidates would spend their time and money in NYC, Chicago, Dallas-Ft.Worth, Houston, Denver, Los Angeles, [see the pattern, Iowa?].
WTF?! Do these Libtards have NO desire for any kind of local/state voice in elections? Hello, federalism??
Might as well make Iowa an administrative sub-unit of the almighty, authoritarian, unitary FedGov.
Why don't they save the cost of the election and have Iowa to join with other states and pledge its electoral votes to the choice of the Main Stream Media, no matter who wins in the Electoral College.
As I read the resolution here in Michigan, it appears to allow the vote as normal within the state but combines the popular vote with other compact members and the overall popular vote winner wins.
In other words. Even if Michigan voted 100% republican, our electors would be forced to vote democrat if we were outnumbered by other compact members. Basically it creates electoral blocks.
An incredibly stupid idea that will result in the supreme court battling with Iowa every third presidential election.
“And we’re so by God stubborn
we could stand touchin’ noses
for a week at a time
and never see eye-to-eye...”
Meredith Willson (”The Music Man”)
This is why our Founders didn’t trust Democracy.
I don’t know. They keep electing Senator Dungheap Harkin.
It won’t be just Iowa. There are at least 14 states where this is in the works. 4 have already enacted it into law and are ready when other states do the same.
I don’t think they really thought this through. Such a move would disadvantage a small state. A state like California is pretty much ignored in the campaign because it is presumed to vote Democratic. If it votes were up for grabs in the “popular race” candidates might come and campaign. California would have gone to Bush in the Kerry campaign under this popular vote scenario. Campaigning in California would be important to secure that voter rich territory that would otherwise be taken for granted. Net loss to states like Iowa.
I agree with you. At some point violence against the government is going to enter the picture; it’s a lesson of history.
I’m stuck in this Democrat-controlled state. Every day, it’s something new. This is just the latest.
You know the old joke: Why are Iowa farmers only buried two feet deep? So they can still get their hand out.
The state can apportion their electors any damn way they choose. They can go by state vote, county vote, national vote, they can let the vote in Guam decide, they can let the Governor throw darts blindfolded.
Maybe this movement is tied to the Census grab,
They should all drop the primaries and vote for who ever the DNC and RNC appoint as a candidate.
Why not? It will all become Mob rule anyway, after the rest of the stupid blue states follow suit.
There will never be a legitimate and fair election ever again. It will all be about who has the most money and the most national commercials. Not to mention who gets on Oprah and the View.
This country is doomed and too far gone to even hold a shred of decency any more.
It's because Iowa has so much in common with New Yorkers.
/s
I’d like to see every state allocate its electoral votes in the way Maine and Nebraska do.
If you win a congressional district in Nebraska, you get the 1 electoral vote. The two electoral votes representing that of the Senate, can go to the winner of the entire state.
Take a look at my state, Minnesota.
A GOP presidential candidate, even in a bad year, is usually able to win 2 congressional districts at the minimum.
That means that Minnesota’s ten electoral votes last year probably would have gone 7 for Obama - 3 for McCain.
Instead of getting shut out in California, the GOP candidate could win at least 15 electoral votes, maybe more.
Handouts - to the unions & to the farmers plus.
I don’t think people understand exactly the game that democrats are playing here. They’re creating permanent electoral blocks.
Look at the the resolution that passed a couple months back here in Michigan. It would allow us (fool us) to vote as normal but force our electors to vote with surrounding states. There are 14 states where this has passed at least one house. The democrats really have thought this through and are well aware of the permanent majority they can create.
(it’s a pdf file)
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billintroduced/House/pdf/2008-hIB-6610.pdf
Your state could go overwhelmingly for one candidate but your states EC votes would be awarded to the OTHER candidate who got more votes nationwide? I would bet that this is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Besides, we vote for the ELECTORS, not the president.
How could you say that even though the electors for Candidate A won the most votes, we are awarding them to Candidate B based on the votes of OTHER STATES? Won’t fly. Not unless Obama can load the Supreme Court with Marxists like him.
They must be sick and tired of all those candidates going to their caucuses. Can’t say’s I blame them.
Chris Dodd and Iowa juxtaposed like this activate a neuron connection in my brain. Iowa is too nice for this crap or him.
Exactly.
And here's my scenario,
The close loser in one State will sue, get the election in another State recounted numerous times.
No State in the pact will be able to cast their electoral votes until that or many States reconcile their vote count.
Imagine if the Presidential election was undetermined by what is happening in Minnesota.
They really haven't thought this through.
It could take years to elect a president.
There is absolutely no reason to vote in a national election anymore unless you live in about five states. Why in the world would any small state think this is a good idea? Why bother holding the caucuses in Iowa anymore?
As I recall, several states have passed such a law (New Jersey?).
However, my recollection is that such laws are constitutionally inoperative. They are only symbolic -- presumably expressing "solidarity with Algore".
Actually, it would take a constitutional amendment to achieve what they want to achieve. And that would require 38 state legislatures to vote against their own state's interests.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
My emphasis.
You're right, the idiots don't. But this will work only once.
Once the voters of a state realize that they voted strongly for one candidate, but their votes were delivered to the candidate that a majority in a different state selected, they'll suddenly realize that they disenfranchised themselves.
Then they'll scream that it was all a trick and demand they get their vote back. It won't be their fault that they were so effing stupid, they thought it was a good idea at the time.
In fact, it would probably occur before they even sat the electors. Any pact between the states would be trumped by the Constitution that says states can decide on their own how they want to select their electors. The "coalition" would die abornin'.
BTW, there is no way to know whether this goofy pact would benefit a Republican or Democrat. It's just being embraced by Democrats because they're much stupider, plus they're still bitter that Gore won the popular vote and lost the election.
The only democrat in my state that voted against it is the one democrat I voted for. (i’m not a fan of straight ticket voting)
So in Iowa, their votes mean nothing? Amazing!
This hands all national elections to the most populous states and the rest can go to hell.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, ,b>enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
My emphasis. This seems to me to be a compact among states, especially since the laws as passed by various states all call for the law to only go into effect after other states have taken a similar action.
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.