Posted on 01/16/2007 4:57:38 PM PST by LC HOGHEAD
BISMARCK, N.D. — A movement to essentially junk the Electoral College and award the presidency to the winner of the nationwide popular vote is making some headway in states large and small - including, somewhat improbably, North Dakota.
The National Popular Vote movement is aimed at preventing a repeat of 2000, when Democrat Al Gore lost despite getting more votes than George W. Bush.
Backers are asking states to change their laws to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally.
A bill to do that was introduced last week in the North Dakota Legislature, even though it could reduce the political influence of small states like North Dakota.
"Its strength is, it is what the people want," said one of the sponsors, Rep. Duane DeKrey, Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "It kind of takes out that system where the person who gets the most votes doesn't necessarily win."
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
The founders created a REPUBLIC for a reason. They knew that "direct democracy" is essentially two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
Never will happen. 2/3rd's of the states or congress would never go for it. If it ever became law presidential candidates would do nothing but go to the big cities. Places like N.H. or Idaho would never see them.
The people in the small states in favor of this are idiots.
Don't these idiots understand that the EC is part of the Constitution?
To change to the poopular vote, they must amend the Constitution...and that takes approval by 2/3 of the 50 states?
Stoopid silly people who don't remember their HiSkool civics class...
Dumb stupid demokrats...
Might as well get rid of democracy while we're at it, and switch to Marxism. Eliminate personal property, outlaw religion, force everyone to work for the state for government rations, and declare the constitution obsolete. That freedom of speech clause causes problems for the government, anyway. (I'm just thinking ahead).
What the he!! is a Republican doing bringing forward this bill? I swear the Grand ole party has gone mad.
This isn't about an 'amendment'. The Constitution provides that the states select their electors in a manner choosen by the states. There is no need to change the Constitution or federal law. The only changes would be at the state level. In effect, if enough states chose to select their electors this way, then it would happen.
You assume they are going to try to do this the legal way, by amendment. They aren't. They are trying a backdoor scam whereby if enough states pass the law, the state's electors will go to the national popular winner, despite how the population of the state votes.
It is something like an expansion of the sweepstakes way electors are assigned now: get 50.00001% of a state's popular vote, get 100% of the state's electors. Under the plan, Bush would have gotten California's electors in 2004. Of course, the dirty not-so-secret is that this would mean that states would no longer have any direct say over who represented them in Congress, since the 17th A. took away state appointment of Senators. The other effect is that a few large population centers would control the presidency, therefore all policy would favor the residents of those select cities.
There is hope that the compacts would not pass Supreme Court muster, but after CFR and Kelo, I'd hate to depend on that.
Well, the Electoral College IS democratic. It's just that the 50 separate states have elections the same day. The winner of the states with the most electors wins the overall Presidency for these United States.
If people will look at it this way they'd realize it's actually quite fair.
Anyway, it ain't gonna happen, but like 1001 other things expect the Left to keep bringing this up until the day some dem candidate wins the EC but NOT the popular vote. Then they'll all hush up like little lambs.
It all comes down to whose ox gets (al)gored.
To give the idiots who support this some idea of the effect it would have, it could be suggested that we also amend the Constitution to award Senate seats based on population, rather than awarding 2 seats per state. They would cry foul over such a hair-brained idea, because most people understand that the power given to small states through having the same number of Senators as large states is one of the beautiful things about our Constitution. Why they don't make the intellectual leap to see that the same holds true for the Electoral College is beyond me.
see #29.
F'n idiot.
The people 'all want' free ice cream with fresh $100 bills for napkins. Does that mean it is a good idea? Sheesh!
If the 'people' all want this in ND, then it is high time to fire the entire Department of Public Instruction and rewrite the school curriculae.
Seems like this comes up every couple of years or so. So far cooler (and smarter) heads have prevailed, hope this will remain the case.
If this movement does catch hold it will be because most don’t understand the “whys and wherefores” of the Electoral College. I think Electoral College concept was one of the greatest safeguard ideas given to us by our founding fathers. Without this process the larger or most populace states would rule all federal politics.
Great idea. I really want my state's votes going to someone based on what big cities that aren't even in my state want. Very brilliant.
Popular vote=New York+Kalifornia+a couple other dark blue states will decide EVERY National Election
That's TOTALLY opposite what the Framers had intended, to protect the smaller states.
This will be especially true with the millions of Illegals who will be granted Amnesty soon, and will swell the Loonatic Left/Entitlements Crowd even more.....
Doesn't look real good for a Conservative, white, heterosexual, traditional nuclear family male, I would say......
John Koza, a Stanford University professor who is one of the idea's principal advocates
Stanford used to be a good school.
Read after the comma in the last sentence.
Article I
Section 10.
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.
DeKrey is the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in the ND legislature.
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.