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

To: ScottinSacto
When they were pushing it here in Michigan they made sure to include an opt out clause (just in case a republican was the likely winner) The fact is that it opens up all kinds of opportunities for mischief.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
9 posted on 07/17/2011 11:36:22 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: cripplecreek

Give every county in the country 1 vote. Win the county, get a point. Most points win. This way a city like Philly doesn’t determine the pennsylvania vote.

Plus if you are a county and want to cheat, you don’t disenfranchise the rest of the state.


14 posted on 07/17/2011 11:44:10 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (As long as the MSM covers for Obama, he will be above the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: cripplecreek

“When they were pushing it here in Michigan they made sure to include an opt out clause (just in case a republican was the likely winner) The fact is that it opens up all kinds of opportunities for mischief.”

It does the precise opposite. No democrat will ever need to campaign in California, because the other states will decide the outcome. The opt out clause will guarantee that it doesn’t come back to hurt the Dims, but a republican would never win.


32 posted on 07/17/2011 12:31:47 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: cripplecreek

In 2008, the Michigan House of Representatives passed the identical bill, as introduced all 50 states, by a 65-36 margin. The bill is a compact between states, that must be identical in all states. There is A standard withdrawal mechanism for all states.

The bill says: “Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.


69 posted on 07/17/2011 2:36:18 PM PDT by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | 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