Posted on 08/05/2011 9:58:30 PM PDT by STARWISE
A move to change the way America elects its president got a clear thumbs down in a vote by members of the Republican National Committee on Friday.
A resolution opposing the National Popular Vote initiative won support of every voting RNC member but one who voted "present" instead of "yes."
*snip*
The initiative has been gaining momentum in state legislatures at what for opponents is an alarming rate, with Republican lawmakers being told top officials of the RNC support it.
Members' emotion against abandoning the electoral college was running so high that dozens of members lined up behind two microphones to give individual 10-minute impassioned arguments against the initiative.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
“I know a Virginian on the Far Left who is planning to walk in and vote Republican for the first time in his life.”
OK, he has learned the Democrats are a disaster, has matured, and wants to switch parties. What would you have him do? How else would he switch parties?
The popular vote movement needs to be strongly rejected by all right thinking Americans. As far as I’m concerned Fred Thompson has lost all my respect with his support for this effort. It’s time to stand up for the 10th Amendment and states rights in general.
That’s it in a nutshell. It is also unAmerican. I wish pols, including Republicans, would stop yammering about the joys of democracy, and calling this Republic a Democracy. It is not, though it gets closer and closer each day.
You say that like that would be a bad thing.
For a small state to support a change to popular election would be suicide.
It actually would be the first step toward the end of statehood altogether.
Besides, we don’t really even work the Electoral College as it was orignally designed.
My disappointment is not with the electoral college but, rather, with the way we elect party nominees. The smoke and mirrors stuff that goes on and that is constantly changing to nominate establishment big government social liberals and fiscal left moderates, like Romney currently, is discouraging to conservatives.
Art IV Sec 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State a Republican Form of Government”
Because selection of Electors and instructions to Electors are State matters, the popular vote legislation, which changes both of those State matters for States that will not have approved and enacted the legislation, violates Art IV Sec 4.
Also, Art I Sec 10: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State”
Has Congress consented to this?
BUMP!
Probably won’t get out of the Congress and if it does, no way 75% of the states vote for it.
I agree with you on that, since it is a conflict of interest, but would include "if you get certain government assistance, you don't vote".
Celente is pushing for this too.
As Republicans “progress” to ignore the constitution and rule of law as they do in Congress, it will cut both ways.
In a straight democracy, the majority of people will easily be manipulated by the socialists who dominate the media and “educate” the children. There are many more people in the liberal, democrat cities than elsewhere in the states.
Even Rinos are out under a direct democracy, even though there is no difference between a socialist Republican and a socialist Democrat. Well, we won’t have to worry about Rinos or their lying GOP anymore. They will have fully defeated themselves as they defeated our constitutional Republic and our economy.
Doesn’t need to. States’ legislatures are passing laws that say once a certain threshold of states pass a similar law, their electoral college votes go to the winner of the national vote.
No federal laws or amendments necessary.
Fearless prediction: as Obama’s poll numbers continue to implode..you’re gonna start to see stories to the effect that he’s guaranteed to LOSE the popular vote..but the only way he has a chance is by a slim electoral vote win...then watch the Dems and libs do a 180..
See my post #24, lengthy, but fully explains the situation.
The right of a state to choose the method of selecting its electors is plenary [unalterable], per the Constitution [and Supreme Court ruling]. No action by Congress needs to be taken.
HOWEVER, per Supreme Court ruling, when a state chooses to allow voters to select its electors - then EACH vote MUST be given equal weight and 14th Amendment Equal Protection applies. Meaning that the state cannot disqualify a majority vote within its state and hand its electoral votes over to the winner of the majority vote in the nation.
These two things are diametrically opposed to each other and would require a Supreme Court ruling one way or the other.
ALSO, the 14th Amendment has a clause that strips states of representation in Congress in proportion to the number of voters disenfranchised - if the state denies its citizens the right to vote or abridges their right to vote.
IF, the NPV was deemed to be constitutional, SCOTUS might ALSO say that the states that enter the Compact would lose their representation in Congress by the proportion that the state abridged its citizens. Which, in the case of NPV, is ALL of its representation.
You are right. LOL
-PJ
In McPherson v. Blacker 1892], the Court ruled that the state has a plenary [meaning exclusive, unalterable] right to establish the method of selecting its electors and the Compact Clause does not apply ...
However, the condition where a state grants the right to vote to its citizens [example: winner-take-all] , but then REVERSES the outcome in the state [and awards its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote] WAS NOT examined in McPherson v. Blacker 1892] ...
In Bush v. Gore [2000], the Court ruled that once the right to vote to its citizens [example: winner-take-all]:
The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).
According to Bush v. Gore, under the NPV Compact, the state would be favoring the national popular vote of ALL the other states [plus the minority votes in its state] over the majority of voters in its state that voted for the other guy/gal ...
These two rulings are diametrically opposed to each other. If the NPV Compact Law was ever invoked by a state in an election [overturning the inital allocation of its electoral voters to one candidate and handing them to the winner of the NPV], then the Court would have to decide whether the state's plenary right to choose its electors in the manner that it sees fit SUPERCEDES the individuals right to Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment ...
All that's needed is for 13 of those states to say, "No."
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.