Posted on 04/18/2014 12:11:57 AM PDT by 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. …
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
so, the states mentioned must be purged from the union. They don’t like the union, they are removed from the union
The British dispatched 11,000 troops to Canada in response to the US Navy boarding one of their mail ships and removing Confederate diplomats form it. Lincoln issued a non-apology and released the diplomats. That was pretty much the end of that. I do believe Lincoln was desperate though, mostly because statist leaders get that way when their authoritah is challenged. Look at the fits Obama throws when he doesn’t get his way if you don’t believe that. In our time it appears that the bankers may be trying to destroy us again, this time with the help of Lincoln’s statist ideological progeny Barrack Obama.
That’s what they do now kinda.
First and foremost question in my mind is:
States that pass this law — have they included in the law an expiration date for the requirement of gathering up enough states to meet the threshold of 270 EC?
The next questions equally important:
Can this be considered a stealth convention of States and thus the 270 EC would be considered invalid because there is only 4 ways to change the Constitution defined in the Constitution.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
Ref: http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#interpret.
Note that Item #2
“Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)”
This is exactly what they are doing, however they have changed the threshold from 3/4’s of the states legislative approval to just 270 EC. Thus instead of 38 states ratification requirement, they will attempt to do it with as little as 10 states. (an eyeball estimation of the top 10 States by EC).
However if we take item #1:
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used).
It only requires 2/3 (34) to convene but still 3/4’s to adopt. So again, even the threshold of the notion to change the Constitution has not been met.
Again ref:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#interpret
Ref map: http://www.270towin.com/
To me at least it seems like the Constitution was designed to avoid such errant meddling. I cannot see how any court could interpret less than 38 states ratifying or even the 34 state requirement for proposing ratification.
Summary
Unfortunately there is precedent. Namely Winner take all EC States vs Proportional Distribution of EC states (which there are very few). (check and verify — no source).
Adopting or trying to adopt such a change will result in various conundrums for Politicians (not so to Constitutionalists because it’s pretty clear on how the Constitution is changed).
The likely path is
1. Come an election where a Popular vote doesn’t match the EC vote, there will be Lawsuits filed in every state that that cast faithless the faithless EC (speculation).
2. The SCOTUS, prohibited from interfering by Constitution unless harm is done and an appeal is presented from one of the harmed bodies (I.E Standing) will result, results in an after the fact judgement.(Check & verify, no source, speculative)
3. The election certification body (the house + the senate) will be open to challenge the election. Now, if I were an esteemed member of that body I would in no uncertain terms vote to decertify that terms election process — even if it was my party that benefited. Would your representative do the same?
This is a big giant #10 can of the foulest can of worms if I’ve ever seen one. The U.S EC system is a form of proportional representation. It was never intended to be subject to popular vote because our framers knew that a popular vote would be disastrous. It would undo our country. Perhaps that’s it’s ultimate goal.
Ancillary Item:
If you want to barf this morning read the complete page of amendment process at:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#interpret
In particular the reference to Akhil Reed Amar’s book ‘The Constitution: A Biography’ and the reference author’s take on it. You won’t be able to sleep tonight.
My idea would be that each state is awarded to whichever candidate wins the most counties in that state. That way you have representation from the entire state and not just the population centers.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3
“Who in the Confederacy’s leadership called out for prayer and fasting to God for their victory?”
In The Bible, God advises that prayer be unostentatious and of the heart (in secret).
“the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies” Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address, 1801
Thomas Jefferson apparently thought state governments had rights.
The South paid in lives for slavery, that's true, and the butchers bill was punishment, that's also true. The fact that they lost rather than fighting the Union to a draw that ended with a settlement rather than a surrender was a curse on the whole nation.
A curse we've wallowed in ever since for not admitting that State vs Federal power was as much the cause of that war as slavery was. Instead we've denied reality and taught generations since then that the cause was the one thing that could justify a constant increase in Federal power.
The South was and is still a good whipping boy for a nation that subconsciously knows it's guilty of sins as bad as and far worse than slavery since then. Will the whole nation pay the piper or only the States with the worst record?
How does stealing their land in defiance of the Supreme Court ruling it was illegal to do so and marching the Cherokee halfway across the country compare to slavery? What about the fine Sioux and Cheyenne reservations, what sort of rank does one give condemning generation after generation to enforced squalor and poverty get? Where does sterilization of Cherokee, Apache, and Sioux women without their knowledge or consent rank on the scale of things God punishes? Is that sort of clear genocide aimed at eliminating an entire race of folks better or worse than slavery?
If someone thinks the Civil War was God punishing the South for slavery rather than punishing the whole nation that permitted it they're into some very, very, shallow thinking about what God says is His perfect justice. God's mill grinds slowly but exceedingly fine.
The Civil War was just the warning shot across the nation's bow, not punishment for one or another particularly nasty bunch of folks. When this country is no longer a tool God is using for God only knows what, payment in full will come due. Americans had the best chance so far in history to build, and for a while made the best effort at building, a really Christian nation. But, power corrupts and in that regard we've shown ourselves to be no different than any other nation in history.
JMHO
And give Duke Ellington a smooch when he drops by. Love the handle Doll.
Universal voter ID, or we’re DEAD.
FINISHED.
FINITO.
Stick a fork in the US, ‘cause WE’RE DONE!
The same people who oppose the idea of voter ID would blatantly attempt to effectively disenfranchise millions of people in blue state flyover country. I truly loathe liberals.
By the definition then in use, the treatment a Representative, Senator, or other elected, and in some cases even appointed, official who serves even a single term receives for the rest of their lives would qualify as a Title of Nobility.
Reasonable precautions and accommodations in no way justify the current spoils system that creates, in effect, "Noble Houses" based on bloodlines and loyalties to those bloodlines.
Right you are. The defenders of the National Popular Vote Compact point to the Constitution, which gives states the right to appoint Electors as they wish.
Too much is read into that. For example, why then couldn't the New York legislature just say that all NY electoral votes will go to the Democratic candidate, regardless of the popular vote?
Yes, when the GOP does it it's called "gaming the system." Not until the closing paragraph is there an acknowledgement that just such a system is already used in Maine and Nebraska. I guarantee that if Texas were to propose such system the left would be effusive in its support.
That’s really not true. This is the united STATES and they have clear basis to allocate electors as they see fit.
There is not even a constitutional right to have popular elections for president at all.
The states can allocate as they wish, but who cares? Those states so inclined are solid liberal states anyway and most are shrinking.
How many know that Florida is larger than NY in population?
New York joins campaign to end Elections.
The other GOP nominees to take one or more of those states in the last 120 years and yet lose the election:
Nixon took CA, VT and WA in 1964.
Dewey took NJ, VT, and MD in 1948.
Dewey took in VT 1944.
Willkie took VT in 1940.
Landon took VT in 1936.
Hoover took VT and DE in 1932.
Hughes took VT, DE, and IL in 1916.
Other than VT, it seems like this changes very little for any Republican candidate. It can only do great harm to a Democrat... up until undecided states or GOP-heavy states join, this is basically nonsense.
The problem today: Oklahoma and Nebraska both have bills in their Legislatures considering joining. If Oklahoma is in, THEN there's reason to worry about the Electoral College being destroyed. Until then, this can only lead to tiny losses of EVs for GOP candidates who stole a traditionally-Dem state... or massive EV losses for Dem candidates in the final, meaningless tallies, after the GOP candidate hits 270. Elections will go approximately 285-253 DEM, or else something like 428-110 for the GOP.
(Sorry... it’s RI, and not DE, in that list of current NPVIC members... mea culpa)
A call to pray by a nation’s leader does not mean one has to pray in public, remember.
You sure you aren’t being led by liberal propaganda here?
It is a fact of history that Lincoln turned to God to pray for help to keep the union together. What the USA became after the war is all on the Democrats, especially after their victory in the 1877 Compromise—much of Wilsoniam statism can be seen as a reflection of that.
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.