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.
Is the tuba section of the University of Oklahoma marching band the same number of people as the electors Oklahoma is entitled to? The only problem I see is that any member of the tuba section who was a US Senator or member of the US House of Representatives, or held an office of trust or profit under the Untied States, would be ineligible.
“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”
At at the time the Constitution was ratified, voters did not “elect” presidents (actually, they STILL don’t do that), but NOR DID THEY choose the electors for the candidates (which is what we do in presidential elections today). If I recall, the state legislatures themselves APPOINTED electors who were not chosen by a popular vote, and “presidential elections” at the state level were non-binding popularity contests which had the effect of “advising” the state legislatures.
But have not all of the states since passed laws designating that electors shall be chosen by a popular vote of the citizens OF those states? If I’m wrong, someone will step in and correct me.
I contend that when citizens obtained the right to choose electors through binding votes at the state level, it changed the operation of the original “elector clause” (as reproduced above).
In what way did it change, you’re asking?
Article IV, Section 4 states:
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government”
Seems to me that one of the essential elements of “a republican form of government” is that states (and their legislatures) will be bound by the voting decisions of their citizens, as represented by a majority of votes cast.
That is to say, if there’s going to BE a vote in the first place, the state in question must then be governed by the RESULTS of that vote. State legislatures cannot hold popular elections, and then ignore votes of their citizens insofar as choosing candidates is concerned.
BEFORE there was popular voting for electors, the state legislatures did indeed have the absolute right to choose electors by ANY means they wished to. So - even if the voters of their state expressed a desire for candidate A in the “presidential election”, at that time, the states could still choose electors for candidate B, if they desired. That choice would be supported by the Constitution. No “election” was involved in those days. There was no binding vote involved.
But - AFTER voters were designated to choose electors, states were now forced to abide by the results of such votes, to comply with the “republican government” clause of the same Constitution. To wit, states are now bound to respect the resprentative vote of _their own citizenry_ in how they apportion their electors to the Electoral College, and cannot establish (either individually or in concert with other states) a scheme that is inteneded to subvert such voting.
In other words, state legislatures COULD conceivably have passed laws similar to those now being proffered (and already passed in New Jersey and in Maryland), because the original clause regarding the selection of electors did not anticipate that those electors would ever be chosen by a popular vote of the people.
BUT - that changed when the states granted their citizens the right to choose electors by popular vote.
And that is why - after an appropriate challenge - I believe the “popular vote” laws being promoted as a wink-of-the-eye end run to get around the Electoral College will ultimately be declared unconstitutional.
I know I’m splitting hairs here. But by spliiting hairs, is how great issues are often decided.
Just as the originally-written Constitution recognized and endorsed slavery, it was later modifed so that the origiinally-written language is no longer operative.
I contend that when laws (even state, not federal laws) were added to permit direct election of electors at the state levels, doing so modified how the states must interpret and repect the Constitutional clause regarding the choice of electors to comply with the “republican form of government” language of The Constitution. And that the only way the states can make an agreement amongst themselves to ignore the votes of their own people in choosing electors, is to first REPEAL - at the state level - any and all laws that establish popular elections OF those electors.
Simply stated, states are Constitutionally-bound to honor the results of ANY and ALL popular-vote elections in those states, even popular votes for presidential electors because those states have granted that Constitutional duty (the selection of electors) to their own voters through existing state laws. Yes, the Constitution DOES permit a state to appoint electors as it pleases, but in order to re-assert that absolute right, the states must first repeal any laws they have regarding popular selection of electors in those states.
- John
Just ONE more piece of evidence that the Democraps will
SAY anything, DO anything to acquire or keep political
power.
MARXISTS !!!!!
“There, I said it!!”
— Mark Levin re Barack HUSSEIN “Milhous” Obama
.
Bumperoo Meekster!
YES.
For administrative convenience. Even the Russians and Chinese, at the height of Communist oversight of their countries, had soviets and prefectures.
That is exactly what it would do.
One of the deeper ideas in the Constitution is the balance it establishes between the interests of geographic regions and population centers through the construction of the House of Representatives and the Congress. This rule, if enacted, would remove any vestige of that balance in the Presidential election process.
It would also make the temptation for massive vote fraud great. Think of past close elections... Kennedy/Nixon, Bush/Gore ... and how big an influence politically motivated decisions could have on the vote -- such as keeping city polls open a few hours later. And then, think of the problems with vote tabulation. The mess this would make is obvious.
They are so scared of Sarah, their BDS may be over and replaced with PDS.
Good post devolve!
Bump for that!
Lemmings goose-stepping toward the cliff.
East Coast & West Coast cities would elect all presidents from now on if this law ever passes. The only way to recover would be for red states to secede and/or revolt.
“Seem’s we’re getting closer and closer to that edge we can’t step back from......”
NONsense. A few states, typically blue states will do this. Then will come an election where a Republican get the majority of the popular vote (or even a plurality) but fails to get enough electoral votes — except the blue states that have opted for this put the Republican over the top electorally.
Besides. It does not matter. With the next census redistricting Red states — which are not going along with this horse hockey — will have enough electoral votes that the Dimmicrats won’t matter anywho.
Your opinion noted......stay safe !
Others think it’s a good thing.........telling ain’t it...:o)
You getting ready for Ike ?
Be real careful buddy, keep an eye on that storm....little bro is back in FL (where it’s more dangerous). He got back on the 3rd of Sept......LOL !
Stay safe !
You got that right!
Our Founders did not trust unregulated majorities. They knew that democracy (‘the tyranny of the majority’) had major flaws. These efforts to undermine the electoral college amount to nothing more than
(1) a crusade to maximize the power wielded by voters in urban areas, and virtually disenfranchise rural voters, and
(2) an affirmation of the belief that our Founders were simply a bunch of misguided white guys who were not capable of thinking beyond the eighteenth century.
The first would be deadly. The second is nothing more than leftist anti-liberty, anti-sovereignty, pro-elitist indoctrination.
Our Founders were far more prescient than the leftists are willing to admit. Many of them considered the voters of their own day woefully uninformed and ignorant of the issues, and they (correctly) predicted that that ignorance could worsen with time:
The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates … Constitutional Convention delegate George Mason, July 17, 1787
A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment … Constitutional Convention delegate Elbridge Gerry, July 25, 1787
~ joanie
Allegiance and Duty Betrayed
Outstanding post as usual Joanie. Sadly some, even on this thread, just do not see such . This is a clear case of insanity by a socialist regime that knows they can’t steal an election unless they derail a system that has worked up till now for all.
Thanks for that education , Stay safe !
BUMP !!!
>Our Founders did not trust unregulated majorities. They knew that democracy (‘the tyranny of the majority’) had major flaws. These efforts to undermine the electoral college amount to nothing more than
(1) a crusade to maximize the power wielded by voters in urban areas, and virtually disenfranchise rural voters, and
(2) an affirmation of the belief that our Founders were simply a bunch of misguided white guys who were not capable of thinking beyond the eighteenth century.
The first would be deadly. The second is nothing more than leftist anti-liberty, anti-sovereignty, pro-elitist indoctrination.<
You know the nutcase that was running for President in the primaries, Ron Paul? This is the kind of crazy stuff that the old man has been talking about for years. It was really sad to watch as his brain fizzled and farted these crazy thoughts about why we needed to be worried about how we should be protecting the Constitution as socialism snuck into the ever enlarging halls of federal government.
Most FReepers have no problem supporting the once heroic soldier who is now a socialist politician, John McCain. They refuse to look and see if JM is part of the crowd Ron Paul was talking about because they don't want to know. After all the MSM is so afraid of RP they won't air anything but derogatory framing remarks about the old man.
He is scared for the Republic and trying to get to any media outlet that helps him get his message out so when he uses Alex Jones’ microphone that just adds to the idea that he must be crazier now than last year.
Just what is it about Ron Paul and Sarah Palin that scares the crap out of the MSM? Is it the fact that they are not part of the socialist acceptable crowd? Is it because they fight against doing things they way they have always been done in government? Or is it because they are speaking the truth about corruption and the lack of integrity in our political system?
Does anyone else think there must be something wrong with McCain because he is so readily acceptable to the MSM? Is it because they too know he's a solid socialist who supports amnesty and big government? Since when did the Republican Party support socialism?
Do any of you really think that Sarah Palin will have a strong influence on McCain? Why or are you just wishing and hoping? How many old men do you know who have actually changed their life long held opinions at the wishes of a coworker? I can't think of a single one.
I received an e-mail from a friend a few days ago that said much the same as you wrote in the above statement, but went even one step further, saying:
To compare McCain to Ronald Reagan is about as far out as it gets. Reagan was a consistent conservative throughout his public life and had the track record to back it up. McCain is nothing of the sort.
I replied, in part, as follows:
Unless we’re reading incredibly different news/editorial sources, I have not heard anyone compare McCain to Reagan. And certainly no one I know has, otherwise I would have questioned their sanity.
McCain is still the turncoat he has always been. He is still a go-along-to-get-along RINO.
But his running mate is not.
I wrote on my weblog just a few weeks ago, regarding casting a vote for John McCain on November 4th:
Whether Obama or McCain occupies the White House for the next four years, America is in for a rude awakening. I would prefer that a liberal democrat/avowed Marxist be blamed for the geopolitical/economic earthquakes that are looming over the horizon. At least that way we will have the whisper of a hope that a genuine conservative may be able to eventually take the reins and pick up the pieces.
I could not, in good conscience, cast a vote for a Marxist. But neither will I continue to vote for those who are willing to consistently compromise with the evil ideology of the left. Such imposters have succeeded in re-defining my party, handcuffing their genuine republican counterparts, and corrupting my government beyond recognition. And if an avowed anti-American Marxist must damage our beloved republic for four years in order for the republican party to recognize that it had better return to its roots, then that may well be the terrible price we must pay in order to embark on that long-overdue journey.
I will no longer play an active role in the hijacking of the republican party ... or the suicide of our beloved republic. I'll leave the heartbreak of writing her epitaph to others.
I’ll not retract that statement. But that was before McCain’s announcement of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
The best of the Republicans vying for the top spot were eliminated long ago (primary among them being Duncan Hunter, but other lesser patriots who would have been a significantly better pick than McCain bit the dust early on as well). Why? Because they lacked ‘charisma’. Not that McCain has any, mind you. But he has other factors working in his favor – namely the consistent willingness of the party to compromise, and to abandon its foundations.
As a result, genuine conservatives need to appeal to the voting public – and what the voting public values is superficiality, since they lack the interest or intelligence to deal with anything involving depth of character or belief. Thus the power of Oprah Winfrey in actually playing a role in the outcome of November’s election.
Charisma has absolutely nothing to do with leadership ability, or honesty, or a patriot’s heart. But, pathetically, it’s what gets people elected in modern America -- or what passes for America these days.
Sarah Palin possesses all of the above – leadership ability, honesty, a patriot’s heart, and charisma. I prefer to elect leaders without the latter, but, considering today’s political landscape and the ignorance and superficiality of the American electorate (and therefore the necessity of charisma), I can overlook its distasteful presence, if the other traits are present.
I see her as our last best hope. She is indeed in the mold of Reagan. I’m not saying she’ll be another Reagan. That entirely depends upon how moving up the political ladder dilutes her principles, and how much the powers that be will allow her to genuinely govern (assuming she attains the vice presidency, and beyond). And both of those influences can, over time, render her current Reaganesque beliefs and accomplishments null and void.
Thus my reason for being willing to support McCain/Palin. There is no one else electable on the horizon who offers us any hope of a return to representative republican, Constitution-based government. And if I have to vote to put a turncoat in the oval office, in order to get a potential Reagan in the second spot, then so be it. I see this as our last opportunity. We’re up to our necks in quicksand. And we're being bombarded from all sides with empty promises that help is on the way. If I see a real rope, attached to a real person who wants to pull me to safety, no matter who is standing in front of her, I'm going to grab on.
I don’t care the level of government in which one serves. It is all self-perpetuating, until someone with backbone steps in to apply the brakes. Someone rarely does. Sarah Palin has, and continues to do so – on the local level, and on the state level. And she intends to do so (as far as the vice presidency will allow) on the federal level.
I will not debate you about John McCain, simply because I believe we would be occupying the same side with no one to answer us. Perhaps you believe that his sitting on the top spot, with Palin second in command, renders the election meaningless to us patriots. There we may disagree. I see the future of our republic as so bleak that I am willing to hang onto a glimmer of future Reaganesque leadership, even if it means placing an imposter into the presidency for the time being.
~ joanie
Allegiance and Duty Betrayed
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.