I'm getting too jaded to recognize these parodies until about halfway in . . . today I almost fell for the one about TerryKerry cussing out a Wendy's cook . . . they are just too close to the truth . . .
If all states did this, Preaidenta would be elected by large urban populations in a few states. The founders wanted the President to represent the United States as a total country, not just its urban population centers. They were protecting this nation against the worst excesses of democracy.
Democrats elect people that not only shouldn't hold public office, but should be institutionalized for their own safety.
ROFL... just saw that "parody".... I'm getting too cynical, didn't doubt this for a second ;-)
Isn't there something about no ex post facto laws in the Constitution?
LOL - good one. Maybe you should sign up as a speech writer for Terry McAuliff
Because it seriously means that a candidate can totally ignore a state and still get a portion of the electorate. A form of disinfranchisement.
Unconstitutional at both state and federal "Ex Post Facto.
Doing this little piece will call the entire amendment into state and federal court and the court will place an injunction on the amendment taking effect until a ruling can be adjudicated. That ought to take to get through both courts until,.... oh say,... about ........Dec 2008.
All that would happen from such a move -- if such a thing were legal -- would be that four of Colorado's electors would instantly be branded faithless electors who voted for someone other than the person they were retroactively instructed to vote for (at a time four years into the future).
Not only would it be laughed out of every court, but it wouldn't make it onto any docket before Jan 21 when Bush takes office again.
Or do they think that every document Bush signed would suddenly cease to be law?
TS
Then CO will become the neglected step child next election. The EC was designed so big states didn't have to much advantage over the smaller ones. It will never see a presidential campaign visit. Why bother?
This is fantastic news! If the decision is retroactive to 2000, that means that Bush has just fulfilled Gore's entire term (because Gore never showed up to work). That means that Bush can run for two more terms, because he never won in the first place.
Excellent!
Freepers in Colorado need to tell their friends to vote against the unconstitutional Amendment 36 that will be on the ballot. It would change the allocation of Electoral College votes from winner-take-all to propotional. The campaign is being funded by weathy interests in California. I wonder why they don't propose the same type of amendment to be passed by a state-wide referendum in California?
It is unconstitutional, because it is a referendum. The constitution very specifically says that the state legislatures, and only the state legislatures have the authority to determine the method by which electors are chosen! The Colorado legislature very specifically rejected such a system.
As long as large states like California, New York and Texas do not change from a winner take all system, it is not in the interest of small states like Colorado to do so.
I also don't want to forgot to mention that it also violates the federal election code. The method by which the electors is selected must be in place before (as I recall at least six days prior to) the date the electors are chosen which is election day. Even if the a referendum were a valid mechanism of determining the method of allocating electors, this referendum is too late to affect the 2004 election. This referendum should be fought in court and removed from the ballot.
Article II.Section 1 The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The parody part is that it's true.
I replied too soon.
Why stop at 2000? In 1876 the Republican Hayes won by one electoral vote over the Democrat Tilden, 185-184. Colorado cast 3 electoral votes for Hayes. If they were to go back and split the vote 2-1 for Hayes (at least a third of the eligible voters must have been Democrats), that would make Tilden President. Of course we will have to revise the history books.
You should tag humor articles with a (humor) or (satire) or some such after the title.
Yes, I know its topic is listed as humor and you even wrote parody for the source...but I don't know how many people I had taking all my Broken Newz articles seriously before I started adding to the title. ;)
Like several others here I saw the word "parody" only after reading the whole piece. It sounds so much like something the left would try it. One has to believe that somewhere liberals are thinking this would be a great idea.
Didn't Jason Votefraud and Frances Maniac make speeches at the Boston Convention?