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

Skip to comments.

NJ backs giving state's electoral votes to popular vote winner
Press of Atlantic City ^ | Sunday, January 13, 2008 | By TOM HESTER Jr., Associated Press Writer

Posted on 01/14/2008 5:21:48 AM PST by mware

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - New Jersey on Sunday became the second state to enter a compact that would eliminate the Electoral College's power to choose a president if enough states endorse the idea. Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed legislation that approves delivering the state's 15 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The Assembly approved the bill last month and the Senate followed suit earlier this month.

Maryland - with 10 electoral votes - had been the only state to pass the compact into law.

(Excerpt) Read more at pressofatlanticcity.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: daddywarbucks; mostcorruptstate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
This from one of the two states that was part of the Great Compromise.

Funny, I don't remember this being on any ballot last November.

1 posted on 01/14/2008 5:21:49 AM PST by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mware

Get ready for New York and California to decide the elections.


2 posted on 01/14/2008 5:23:42 AM PST by SlowBoat407 (Just how will wrecking the U.S. economy save the planet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407

These laws only take effect if other states adopt them.
Liberals have such courage.


3 posted on 01/14/2008 5:26:34 AM PST by mtairycitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407

I dont think this thread will continue. Another thread started before this one.


4 posted on 01/14/2008 5:26:44 AM PST by mware (Americans in arm chairs doing the work of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mware

Wouldn’t this require an amendment to the constitution?


5 posted on 01/14/2008 5:27:04 AM PST by Iowamerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtairycitizen

mt....the people of NJ did not get a vote in this decision. Corzine is already in trouble here with his proposed increase on tolls.


6 posted on 01/14/2008 5:27:59 AM PST by mware (Americans in arm chairs doing the work of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mware

This thread is more popular with me. Therefore I vote that all the posts on that other thread be moved to this thread. : )


7 posted on 01/14/2008 5:28:44 AM PST by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Iowamerican

Yes, that is what they are attempting to do. It is one of the two ways the constitution can be amended. Only need enough states to sign on.


8 posted on 01/14/2008 5:29:15 AM PST by mware (Americans in arm chairs doing the work of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mware
This law is manifestly unconstitutional.

Sadly, it will not be tested by the courts until the outcome of an election hinges upon it, and when that happens the courts will either be swayed by popular opinion into falsely sanctifying an unconstitutional measure as constitutional or they will rule correctly and be accused of improperly deciding an election through judicial partiality.

9 posted on 01/14/2008 5:29:34 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware
Yeah, I can see a liberal state which votes strongly for a Democrat throwing its electoral votes to a Republican who wins the national popular vote. They'd have an uprising. That's quite a disenfranchisement of voters in a state.

These are only going to be heavily Democrat states trying to sway the outcome of a result similar to Gore/Bush 2000.

10 posted on 01/14/2008 5:36:39 AM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware

Since the end of the Civil War, there have been three (3) Democrats who were elected President with a majority of the popular vote — FDR, LBJ and Jimmy Carter (!). Every other time the Democrats have won with a minority of the popular vote. It would have been nice if the disorganized crime family/third world banana republic that masquerades as a state (New Jersey) had asked the voters, but I don’t see how this hurts Republicans. The Democrats can see only as far back as 2000, and that was truly a “man-bites-tiger” scenario. It’s unlikely to happen again. Ever.


11 posted on 01/14/2008 5:38:03 AM PST by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware

Wait until their electors have to vote for a Republican....then you’ll see how the libs will scream that this is unfair or whatever.


12 posted on 01/14/2008 5:38:35 AM PST by Ouderkirk (Hillary = Senator Incitatus, Clintigula's whore...er, horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware

Even ignoring the question of its constitutionality, this is an ignorant idea. People simply do not understand the consequences of essentially rendering the electoral college meaningless. Candidates will simply set up offices in major metropolitan areas and flood the airwaves of major cities with ads. National candidacies will disappear, replaced by “the L.A./San Diego” candidate vs. “the Midwest Candidate” vs. “the N.Y. candidate” v. “the southern candidate” etc. etc. The objective will be to maximize turnout for your guy on your turf. Pundits will be asking, “can candidate X get the 85% of the New York City/Long Island vote that he needs to have a chance to push the election into Congress?”


13 posted on 01/14/2008 5:39:54 AM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty

Actually, correction, it wouldn’t go into Congress, I guess, but this raises the question: when there is inevitably no majority winner, will a plurality be enough to get the electoral votes of all states?


14 posted on 01/14/2008 5:41:47 AM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mware

BTW, it’s going to be 14 electoral votes, not 15 after the 2010 Census.


15 posted on 01/14/2008 5:42:30 AM PST by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware

Why should they even show up to the polls?


16 posted on 01/14/2008 5:42:50 AM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware
But I believe it would take a full 75% of Sates to ratify the Constitution. That’s about 39 States. I believe NONE of the smaller States would ever do this because it would render them invisible to candidates who would simply ignore them in favor of the huge population centers.

In effect this changes our form of government from a Representative Republic to a pure democracy as far as our presidential elections go. Once this is explained to everyone and the impact on them is realized it will never fly.

17 posted on 01/14/2008 5:45:45 AM PST by aroundabout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222
BTW, it’s going to be 14 electoral votes, not 15 after the 2010 Census.

Given the new toll taxes we will be lucky to have 13 votes by 2010.

18 posted on 01/14/2008 5:51:10 AM PST by mware (Americans in arm chairs doing the work of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Iowamerican
Wouldn’t this require an amendment to the constitution?

Only the state constitution. The US Constitution only requires that the state appoint electors. It's leaves it up to the state to decide how. If a state decides that it will apportion the electors by popular vote, that's OK federally.

Mark

19 posted on 01/14/2008 5:51:20 AM PST by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407

Mass. will leap for that as well.


20 posted on 01/14/2008 5:52:44 AM PST by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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