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

To: mvymvy; Admin Moderator
Looking through your posts, it appears that the only subject you comment on is this particular subject. And, all your comments seem like they are repeated chapter and verse from the National Popular Vote talking points. Care to explain that? And, do you have any actual conservative opinions to add to the discourse?

Lastly, if you want to recognize the popular vote and abolish the electoral college, then I would suggest beginning a campaign to amend the Constitution. To conservatives, the Constitution is the most important document in the country. It shouldn't be subverted, which is EXACTLY what NPV is attempting to do. If you're advocating on behalf of this organization, I don't know what you are, but I do know what your aren't - a conservative.

56 posted on 06/24/2010 9:27:22 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: OldDeckHand

The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.

In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.

There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district — a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.


64 posted on 06/24/2010 10:08:46 AM PDT by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

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