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.
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/
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.
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.
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"
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.
Which I don't see ever happening.
Read the constitution, something the democrats should do before they do idiotic things to try and fool people with their BS antics. No states, as of now, can actually award their EC votes to the popular vote winner.
However, the electors can choose to give their votes to which ever candidate they want but are usually pledged to give them to the candidate that wins the state. Now some states have a split EC vote, the votes are split according to vote tally. I think only two states do that now but in the past most of them did instead of the winner take all system most states use now.
So, don't worry business as usual as far as EC votes go.
Actually you read the fine print, the legislation does not kick in unless states representing a majority of the electoral college votes pass identical legislation. Of course this is a compact between states which the US constitution prohibits unless approved by congress.