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?
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
To: Repulican Donkey
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))
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)
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)
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.)
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?)
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.)
To: Repulican Donkey
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)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson