New York joins campaign to end Electoral College role in presidential elections

New York Daily News ^ | Wednesday, April 16, 2014, 6:45 AM | Glenn Blain

[Olog-hai]

New York has joined the campaign to effectively end the Electoral College’s role in determining winners of presidential elections.

Under the National Popular Vote Compact, which Gov. Cuomo signed off on Tuesday, the state has agreed to award its electoral college votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.

Currently New York’s electoral colleges votes go to the winner of the state’s popular vote. …

[jospehm20]

I see Lincoln as the one who started us on the path that his fellow president from Illinois is leading us down now. If you love an all powerful national government, you have to give props to Lincoln. The Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Obama agendas would not have been possible without Lincoln obliterating states rights first. I obviously do not see Lincoln the same way you do. I’ll leave it there.

[MaxMax]

The only thing stopping full out communism orders, and kill orders of the opposition are our Guns. We are very close...

[SoFloFreeper]

Destruction of the Constitution is the goal.

[SatinDoll]

Slavery is a crime against God. Read the Confederate constitution.

God punished the South.

[SatinDoll]

States do not have rights. People have rights.

[EBH]

It is really sad to consider how stupid our “modern” country is. Majority rule is the road to back into slavery, a trip down history’s lane paved with the results of dictators and death.

Majority rule will not ‘fix’ what is the corruption of the electoral college. It will exasperate the corruption and fraud.

[lowbridge]

Bump

[tumblindice]

No. No, no, no, no. And no.

[metesky]

We know that because while Lee, Jackson, and the majority of the Southern leadership would never lower themselves to going whoring...

Not when they could just stroll down to the slave quarters or pick themselves a comely "house" gal, eh?

[jospehm20]

You are correct. I was referring to the political powers that are reserved for the state governments by our constitution which President Lincoln obliterated.

[nathanbedford]

This is only relevant, or to put it a different way, it will only change the results if a majority of the people vote for one candidate but the other candidate and wins in the electoral college in the absence of the statute requiring state electors to vote for the majority (or plurality?) vote getting candidate.

Suppose a Republican wins the majority vote but a Democrat would nevertheless prevail in the electoral college under the old regime. I have no doubt that some Democrat electors in those states with such a law would disobey the law and vote according to their pledge, which is for the Democrat. If the governor of that state is a Democrat, it is unlikely that his Attorney General will prosecute or otherwise try to enforce the law compelling the vote to go to the Republican. If a Republican governor and a Republican Attorney General, would he attempt to bring sanctions, including perhaps criminal sanctions, against recalcitrant Democrat electors who refused to obey the state law and vote for the minority Republican?

The opportunities for corruption are obvious. It is also conceivable that the state legislature could make a declaration concerning the vote which might or might not be respected.

At the end of the day if a court decides this issue, which is not entirely clear, it would be the height of irresponsibility because it wrecks the federal system compromise on behalf of small states to permit such a law to stand although the pressure to do so because of the superficial appeal of one man one vote will be hard to resist.

[C210N]

Isn't this electoral college collusion a compact?

Article 1 Section 10

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State...

[bjorn14]

Well, the EC creates inequality now. If my vote decides where say Nevada’s 4 EC votes go to but my neighbor who lives across the street in California where his vote decides where CA’s 55 EC votes go. Who has more influence on the Presidential election? Because of the EC it makes a mockery of the “one man, one vote” mantra.

Now if the nation followed Maine and Nebraska where they apportion their EC votes by CDs and the overall popular vote of the state would win the Senate votes then we can talk about a fairer EC. I think it would force candidates to visit smaller states as well.

[SatinDoll]

Lincoln was desperate to keep the union together. The international bankers in Europe were trying to destroy us, using the wealthy slave owners in the South.

The British had moved tens of thousands of troop into Canada, foreseeing an opportunity to invade and TAKE BACK THEIR COLONIES.

[windsorknot]

NY is soooo ahead of the times with its love for statists and communist mayors.

[NTHockey]

Excuse me, but doesn’t this require a Constitutional amendment, since it is fundamentally changing how elections will be determined?

The idea that 4 or 5 states will determine who is president or the worst scenario, people in a state vote for one candidate but electoral vote goes to the other candidate. This is called disenfranchisement and would violate the 14th and 15th amendments.

[raybbr]

Not when they could just stroll down to the slave quarters or pick themselves a comely "house" gal, eh?

[PubliusMM]

The quite elegant model crafted by the Founders is a model that well represents the people in the process of selecting a President.
It should not surprise anyone that the left wants to scrap it. Doing so will advance their cause by leaps and bounds.
Better that we simply ‘fix’ the present issue with the EC, in some States.
The Electoral votes should be cast by Congressional District, with the two that represent the Senators being cast based on the popular vote of the State.
If your Congressional District votes Dhimmicrap, then your Electoral Vote would be cast for the Dhimmicrap candidate. If the district votes otherwise, the Electoral Vote would be cast for that candidate with a plurality of the vote.
This levels the playing field and reduces the disparate impact of the large metro areas in many states. It also preserves the intention of the Founders in assuring a process that best represents each citizen.

[hoosierham]

“one man,one vote’ was never the Constitutional mandate.

the compromises were made to ensure that the populous states couldn’t simply dictate to the others. “one man,one vote” is simple mob rule.

[Kegger]

Article 1

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.