Posted on 12/23/2016 12:33:48 PM PST by mdittmar
Frustrated after seeing another candidate secure the presidency without winning the national popular vote, mostly Democratic lawmakers in several capitols want their states to join a 10-year-old movement to work around the Electoral College.
In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state's Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results.
"Every vote in this country should have equal weight. The Electoral College is a relic of a bygone era, and we need to change this system," said Connecticut state Sen. Mae Flexer, who filed a bill with several fellow Democrats requiring Connecticut to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Never going to happen. Will not hold up in the courts.
I’m from Ohio and I do not want majority rule, radical democracy.
I will accept the winner of a congressional district taking that district’s elector and the winner of tbe most cd’s in a state taking the 2 statewide electors. I think that would actually be closer to the intent of the founders.
There's a process in place to do that, Ms Flexer. Its called a constitutional amendment.
Democrats don’t need no stinkin’ “checks and balances”.
This cult of democracy has to go. Mob rule is NOT good and never has been.
From all the posts I have been reading of Hamilton's writings on the Electoral College, I get the impression that the original intent was for the states to merely select electors, and that the electors would elect the president.
The only remedy is for another state to sue based on losing thier weight in a weighted election. They could show damage based on the the assignment of electors which prevents this in the first place.
Fake news.
If you read the part “legislators”...
So, some lunatic in the state house suggests this...doesn’t mean it would pass.
ABC an internet hoax joke news organization....
Yes, but the important part that you didn’t include when you quoted me is that they give no instructions to the states on HOW to select electors. In fact it specifically says they can do it however they want: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. So if the Legislature directs to leave it up to the national popular vote they can do that.
It is incomprehensible that one state would knowingly advocate for other states to control the outcome of an election while nullifying their own participation.
States can enact their own laws, but Blue states are the only ones who might do this, so it is self-defeating for them. It would only force a change if a Blue state were made to turn Red. Other states would not be obligated to use the national popular vote method. Let them do it!
No, what we will do is make it nearly impossible to be an illegal and be in this country.
I guess I should have included the rest of your post. Yes, I meant that to me it appears that the electors do have that much leeway. I was agreeing that it is constitutional.
this say Trump and Newt are for this. Am i reading it right.
The push will have to contend with state legislatures and governors that are even more GOP now than they used to be, and with a strong GOP president in the White House. So it really doesn’t have much of a chance. 2016 is not a good example of why the popular vote is preferable. The Electoral College kept the crazies out.
It’s not unconstitutional. The states can appoint electors however they want. For instance, the NY state legislature can require electors to vote for the republican candidate if the Bills win the Super Bowl.
Ahh, cool. Well not cool, it would suck if they pull this off. But I think it would only last one election. The minute candidate X wins a state but their electoral college votes go to Y because they have a law like this the state legislature will be out on their ear.
"Will take effect"? Did Congress pass this?
I can not believe the conservative AZ house passed this law. I need to research this.
Notice how several Republican-controlled state legislatures have approved this bill. 105 Electoral votes doesn't seem like much to overcome. Does that somehow trigger a federal law?
There are serious reasons for small states to prefer the electoral college. Consider, for instance, the federal land and other resources which exists within various states.
Suddenly, NY and CA would effectively be put in a position to totally dominate federal policy with respect to land within the other 48 states, by virtue of practically controlling who can be elected President.
America is a federal Republic of sovereign states. We don't need excessive democracy. It's a harbinger of Tyranny. It's time to dispense with the notion that pure democracy should be some kind of goal to be aspired to. What matters are the rights of the Individuals, and, by logical extension, States, and no Mob will ever have the right to to usurp those tandem pillars of American Freedom.
States' rights are not only a quaint tradition: they're real, and Liberty is designed to flow from the individual upward, not the top down.
Thus, we should all be educated enough to resist such erosion of a properly conceived and well-balanced system.
People would to well to read the Federalist Papers...
They are in effect nullifying the preferences of their own voters.
So how are they gonna feel if their state votes dem and the national tally gives a repub the majority?
The Dem politician who is proposing this is from Connecticut. He thinks that the Electoral College is unfair.
Does he also think it’s unfair for little Connecticut to have the same number of US senators as do the big states?
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.