Posted on 09/14/2008 12:32:43 PM PDT by goldstategop
This may the sleeper issue of the election. The MSM and the Democrats have forgotten all about it. A number of Blue States passed laws requiring the state's electoral votes to be awarded to the nationwide popular vote winner REGARDLESS of who actually wins the statewide popular vote. Please list them here in this thread!
I know the idea was kicked around, I’m not aware that any states actually passed it.
you make a great point. Those blue states might regret it.
None.
There are 2 that have pledged to do so IF enough states join the pact to account for the majority of the electoral college. In other words, as pointed out on another thread, they are making a protest but not really taking any action.
None. They all have a provision that until 270 votes worth of states agree to join the deal, it doesn’t kick in.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Well, I found this:
So far, four states – Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland – with 50 combined electoral votes have enacted bills that would give their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. Similar legislation has passed one or both houses in more than a dozen other states.
From here:
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2008/09/03/new-push-to-pick-the-president-by-popular-vote/
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
None, yet. MD and (I think) NJ have some kind of deal on the books where there electors will go with the popular vote once a 270 majority agrees. Or something like that. This is something to keep an eye on though, as it appears to be a movement afoot to undermine the electoral college. And have no doubt that the rules would change depending on if it’s a Dem or a Repub who wins the popular vote.
I think it is a stupid idea to undermine states ability to vote.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Maryland and New Jersey have passed this nitwit proposal, but it is not yet in effect anywhere.
This seems unconstitutional. Like Congress (with two senators per state regardless of population), the electoral college is weighted to give smaller states some additional representation compared to the most populous. There are still valid reasons for the electoral college and the direct election of electors. Why does any state legislature, or the Dem. party think they can redirect the vote of the people in their state to a candidate whose electors did not win the most votes?
States rights doesn’t get it here. They’re trying to change the vote of the people for the electors of their choice, the method prescribed in the constitution.
It would almost certainly face a constitutional challenge too. States aren’t allowed to enter into contracts with one another, or something like that.
The “compact”, and that is exactly what it is, is a non-starter. The agreement only goes into effect if and when there are enough States who agree that would make up the 270. But it would still be illegal until Congress gave it’s ok.
Because of the asinine idea behind it, which would screw all medium and small states, they will never get Congress to approve.
Local legislators say it’s time for the country to move away from the Electoral College and toward a system that would give the national popular vote more sway in electing a president.
State Reps. Jamie Eldridge of Acton and Cory Atkins of Concord, both Democrats, co-sponsored legislation that, if passed, would make Massachusetts the fifth state in the union to offer to join other states in awarding it’s electors to the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes nationally.
State Sen. Pam Resor, an Acton Democrat, also supports the measure.
The bill passed the House of Representatives July 9 by a vote of 116 to 37(there are only 19 republicans in the MA state legislature), and is expected to reach the Senate (there are only 5 republican senators in MA) floor as early as this week.
The new system, which is being advocated by various groups across the country, wouldn’t go into effect unless a combination of states possessing 270 electoral votes — the number needed to win the presidency — pass similar legislation and join an interstate compact. So far, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey, which control a total of 50 electoral votes, have passed such laws.
Massachusetts has 12 electoral votes.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Until a supramajority of Electoral College votes are covered by such laws, none of these laws have ANY effect or application. They mean NADA in the 2008 election.
Congressman Billybob
Tenth in the ten-part series, "The Owner's Manual (Part 10) -- The Remaining Amendments"
Second, you're both wrong. States enter into agreements with each other all the time. Mostly, but not limited to law enforcement cooperation.
Third, this is what the Constitution actually says: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...
If a state wants to have its legislature pick the electors, they may do so. If a state legislature directs its governor to select the electors to the College for a state, that is also permitted. There is no popular vote requirement. The only thing they can't do is, say, hold a lottery or a bingo game, which would violate a different Constitutional provision that states must assure a republican form of government.
This is one of the scariest schemes yet by the left. Look at the blue states and their populations. This is a scheme that will hand elections over to just a few states with large populations and we all know which way they lean. If that happens you can forget any representation for the smaller populated states.
There is a very good reason why our congress is designed the way it is, and that is so that those few states with big populations don’t get a controlling advantage.
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.