Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Olog-hai

New York, by means of it’s huge population, would obliterate the voice of the smaller states.

That is NOT what the founders intended.


3 posted on 04/18/2014 12:17:07 AM PDT by tcrlaf (Well, it is what the Sheeple voted for....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: tcrlaf

Basically, it means no campaign funding will be established for states like Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Vermont, South Dakota or North Dakota. Nor would I waste any campaign stops in twenty of the fifty states.

I’d put my efforts strictly into ten key states....bulk on campaign promises to bring money and projects to the ten....and just about forget there are any other states or citizens in the US.

In the beginning, there was a fair amount of fear that both Virginia and Penn would be unfairly attracting the bulk of voters, thus controlling the outcome of future Presidential elections. The electoral college was the only method to ensure small states had a voice.


6 posted on 04/18/2014 12:34:47 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf
That is NOT what the founders intended.

Right you are. The defenders of the National Popular Vote Compact point to the Constitution, which gives states the right to appoint Electors as they wish.

Too much is read into that. For example, why then couldn't the New York legislature just say that all NY electoral votes will go to the Democratic candidate, regardless of the popular vote?

53 posted on 04/18/2014 6:06:10 AM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson