Posted on 04/07/2009 8:21:38 AM PDT by GoldStandard
Activists seeking to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote to elect the president boast that their movement is almost one-fifth the way to its goal.
Four states – Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey – which represent 50 of the 270 electoral votes needed to declare a presidential election winner, have committed to an agreement whereby they would grant their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, a move that – if adopted by enough states – would reduce the Electoral College to irrelevancy.
With most of the nation's states considering similar bills pending in their respective legislatures, activists are looking to 2016 as a possible death date for the Electoral College.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
This whole movement is bogus. The second a Republican wins in this manner (which might have happened in 2004 if Kerry had won Ohio since Bush won by several million votes) the liberals will sue to invalidate the whole process. There is no way they would want the “blue” states like California voting for a Republican. I wish a reporter duing their job would suggest just such a scenario to the supporters. My bet is that person would turn green and throw up. And it doesn’t matter how many documents they swear that they won’t sue. Liberals lie all the time.
This sounds totally UN-democratic. If a large majority in one state votes for one candidate but the electoral votes go to the other candidate, does this make any sense??
The folks pushing this seem to think it will help the Dems but if it has the opposite effect, they will be howling. If a system like this had been in place in 2004 their favorite villains, Bush and Cheney, probably would have gotten a huge majority in the electoral college.
What about the part of the Constitution that says that electors may be chosen in a manner directed by the State legislatures?
I would like to see where an electoral vote goes to whoever wins that particular congressional district, with the overall winner of the State getting the remaining two electoral votes.
Yeah, tell your state’s residents, your constituents, that even though they voted overwhelmingly for one candidate, the state will formally vote for an opponent.
Sure that will go over well.
Chipping away little by little so people like you can think that it's really not THAAAT bad.
“Committed into an agreement”......”NO STATE SHALL ENTER INTO A TREATY, ALLIANCE OR CONFEDERATION”.
“Committed into an agreement”......”NO STATE SHALL ENTER INTO A TREATY, ALLIANCE OR CONFEDERATION”.
Good point. Remeber when in 2000 all the liberals were slobbering over the prospect of some electorals casting their votes for Gore? Nothing has ever forced an electoral representitive to cast their vote even for those their state has chosen. Liberals/democrats would love to win under these conditions but will totally sue to keep from losing under the same scenario.
This works only one way. If the Democrats wins the popular vote in the U.S., those states with this rule instruct their electors to vote for the Democrat. If the Republican wins the poplar vote in the U.S., those states with this rule instruct their electors to vote for the Democrat (if he/she has the most popular vote in that state).
Well, look on the bright side. If these idiots actually succeed in this, people will have to travel to California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania and a couple of other states if they want to see candidates for president. They won’t have to waste their time or money in dinky states like Maryland, Hawaii, Rhode Island, etc., eyc.
it'll depend on the court makeup
They ain’t “chipping” away at anything yet. They’ve gotta get to 270 to implement this and they’re not even close. It’s all or nothing.
right, these liberal voters will disenfranchize themselves.
Such a bill was introduced in Arkansas this session.. haven’t heard the final determination of it, but think it finally died... I pray.
14th Amendment, equal protection clause. Depends on who is on the SCOTUS, though.
This is what the Constitution says regarding the selection of Electors by the States.
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
Sounds like the States can do what they want regarding the appointment of the Electors.
Four states – Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey – which represent 50 of the 270 electoral votes needed to declare a presidential election winner, have committed to an agreement whereby they would grant their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote
What do you call this?
Texas will be a Democratic State by 2020.
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.