Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

States That Changed Electoral College Rules?
Vanity | 9/5/12 | Repulicandonkey

Posted on 09/05/2012 5:26:58 AM PDT by Repulican Donkey

What States Changed Electoral College Voting Rules


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: electoralcollege; nwo; progressives; soros; sorosfunded
After 2000 some lib states started changing their rules for electors to the Electoral College by rquiring the states electors to vote for the candidate who won the national popular vote. Massachusetts and Colorado spring to mind and maybe Michigan. If true, what does that do to all the projections of electoral votes the MSM loves to cite?
1 posted on 09/05/2012 5:27:01 AM PDT by Repulican Donkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Repulican Donkey

A few states made pacts that said they’d change their rules (split votes, etc.) if other states did, to award based on the NATIONAL popular vote. To my knowlege, no state unilaterally changed its electoral vote rules. IIRC, they’re still winner take all for each state’s poopular vote.


2 posted on 09/05/2012 5:31:31 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repulican Donkey
Looks like there are 9 states that have signed up for this, all solid democrat (of course).

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com

3 posted on 09/05/2012 5:39:01 AM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

then look for them to steal the election.


4 posted on 09/05/2012 5:49:49 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

then look for them to steal the election.not so strange how only democrats are against honest elections and voter ID..most of holders time is spent trying to rig the2012 election.


5 posted on 09/05/2012 5:51:10 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Repulican Donkey
I have a more interesting question.

What will the deep blue states who have signed on to the concept of ignoring their voters going to do when the national electorate elect the wrong, non-dimocratic, person while their state elects the correct person?

6 posted on 09/05/2012 6:09:21 AM PDT by Nip (TANSTAAFL and BOHICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repulican Donkey
It will end the moment they are required to vote for a Republican candidate that won the popular vote.

Frankly, I think there would be a massive lawsuit the first time electors were required to vote contrary to the popular vote in a state, especially if it were to occur in one that has to satisfy the pre-clearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep in mind that the rules don't require the electors to change their votes until enough states have passed a similar law to comprise a majority of electoral votes (270 of 538).

Here's the website:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

So far, they have a "commitment" for 132 electoral votes, from 8 states and DC: VT, MD, WA, IL, NJ, MA, CA, HI.

7 posted on 09/05/2012 6:12:43 AM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

“Looks like there are 9 states that have signed up for this, all solid democrat (of course).”

Not that it can be legally challenged right now, because it lacks the state to bring it into effect, but the national popular vote violates the Compact Clause of the Constitution that bars states from entering into compacts or treaties with one another.

Assuming Romney wins and gets to replace a liberal judge or two, expect the Supreme Court to strike it down if 270 EV worth of states ratify this. (I would have said expect the Supreme Court to strike it down, since it is so obviously unconstitutional but for John Roberts’s weird Obamacare decision.)


8 posted on 09/05/2012 6:19:04 AM PDT by No Truce With Kings (Ten years on FreeRepublic and counting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Repulican Donkey
The Electoral College was put in place to help stop the large population states form riding roughshod over smaller states. It looks to me that the states are getting rid of the Electoral College to get away form majority rules so they can slip losers in and stop groups like Conservatives form having much of a voice. The republicans have changed the rules of their convention to shut out voices form other groups also.
9 posted on 09/05/2012 6:20:27 AM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings
Not that it can be legally challenged right now, because it lacks the state standing to bring it into effect, but the national popular vote violates the Compact Clause of the Constitution that bars states from entering into compacts or treaties with one another.
10 posted on 09/05/2012 6:21:00 AM PDT by No Truce With Kings (Ten years on FreeRepublic and counting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Repulican Donkey

Here in Michigan, now former GOP chair, Saul Anuzis got his butt chewed for pimping the national popular vote using official MI GOP stationary making it seem that the party was supporting it.

More recently he’s been promoting a green jobs ballot initiative that wildly inflates the numbers of green jobs that would be created.


11 posted on 09/05/2012 6:22:00 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
The republicans have changed the rules of their convention to shut out voices form other groups also.

In Michigan the delegate allocation rules were changed the night after the primary to save Lord Mitt the indignity of a tie.
12 posted on 09/05/2012 6:27:02 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nip

That was my first thought. Hilarity would ensue; it would absolutely make national headlines.


13 posted on 09/05/2012 6:28:56 AM PDT by GreatestGuyIKnow (CNN says their "too moderate", causing the abysmal ratings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
To my knowlege, no state unilaterally changed its electoral vote rules. IIRC, they’re still winner take all for each state’s poopular vote.

Maine and Nebraska both distribute one electoral vote per Congressional district and two at-large, but they've done it for a while and not as part of the current national popular vote movement. In fact that method moves in the opposite direction so that one city's ballot box stuffing can only affect three EVs instead of the whole state's number or even the whole nation in a national popular vote.

14 posted on 09/05/2012 6:40:26 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Cardinal Dolan's DNC prayer is titled "Ritus exorcizandi obsessor a daemonio")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
Maine and Nebraska both distribute one electoral vote per Congressional district and two at-large,

We did that in the primary and when the GOP didn't like the outcome they changed the rules less than 24 hours later giving the state to Romney.
15 posted on 09/05/2012 7:08:21 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Repulican Donkey

If the constitution still mattered, Article I, Section 10 would prohibit this:

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.


16 posted on 09/05/2012 7:48:16 AM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

...poopular...

Based on all but the 2010 vote, your version of “popular” may well be the most accurate usage.


17 posted on 09/05/2012 7:52:21 AM PDT by Postman (........................................................I'm thinking! I'm thinking!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Repulican Donkey

Maine and Nebraska.


18 posted on 09/05/2012 7:53:59 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

This district level electoral voting is what I would like to see deployed nation wide. The two at large would be awarded to the individual who received a majority of the popular vote and the individual who received the majority of the districts. Should either of the two at large electoral vote conditions not be met, then the Gov would appoint for that electoral vote.


19 posted on 09/05/2012 8:12:58 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

It would be allowed if Congress consents. If they ever get to that point, watch out.


20 posted on 09/05/2012 11:05:28 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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