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 ...
Thanks.
Getting rid of some of the (too high THC) reject stock??
Yup: and the smaller states will never vote to get rid of the electoral college. If they are smart/
You could refine that list into just a few major cities. LA New York, Miami, Houston and San Fransisco. If speaker pelosi is unbearable imagine...
Sneaky bastids arent they?
Yet in Massachusetts the Dems don't want the folks to vote directly on "gay marriage". Hmm.
"That said, the argument is far from a slam dunk. Not something I'd want Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg voting on."
And, one would certainly have to consider International Law too.
Well said Mr. Buzzard.
Which is why the 17th Amendment is the worst of the lot as far as damage to the Constitution IMO.
Once you opened up the Senators to popular vote you released them for the influence of the State Legislature. They no longer need to please the Legislature to keep their jobs.
This made the Unfunded Mandate possible.
And because the Senators now needed to campaign state wide they needed Campaign Funds lobbyist now had much more sway with Senators.
Want to reduce the power of money in Senate Campaigns Mr. McCain? Let’s repeal the 17th Amendment.
Do they also propose elimination of the U.S. Senate? It isn't fair that a small state has the same number of members in that body as a large state, after all.
And there is no such thing as a national popular vote. That is a media statistic. Each state has its own separate election for its electors - a right granted by the individual states.
Such overwhelming ignorance in this country.
All to true my FRiend, all to true.
No. Have you?
South Carolina kept choosing electors the old-fashioned way for a bit longer--through 1860 if I remember correctly.
It really is unbelievable - a state legislator proposing that people in other states get to overrule the votes of his state's own people. How stupid do you have to be?
"And thus the Republic dies'
She's been dead for some time, Jim. When governors are refused permission to enforce immigration laws and marijuana grown and consumed within the limits of your property comes under the Commerce Clause, there is no republic.
'I wonder if they explain to the voters in the small states how much leverage the electoral college gives them"
One of the drawbacks to the electoral college is, indeed, that it give dirt political power, not just people.
"Sulla took charge of the constitution in 81 BC. All the power of the state would henceforth lay in the hands of the senate.The Tribunes of the People and the people's assemblies had been by the democrats to overthrow the senate. Tribunes were to be barred from all further office and the assemblies were deprived of the power of initiating any legislation. The senatorial control of the courts was restored at the expense of the equestrians.
There were to be no more repeated consulships, like those of Marius and Cinna.
Consuls were not to hold military command until, after their year of office, they went abroad as proconsuls, when their power could only be exercised in their respective province.
Then in 79 BC Sulla lay down his powers as dictator and devoted his remaining months to the enjoyment of wild parties. He died in 78 BC.
Although the Roman Republic technically still had some fifty years to go, Sulla pretty much represents its demise. He should stand as an example to others to come that is was possible to take Rome by force and rule it, if only one was strong and ruthlessness enough to do what ever deeds were required."
Right now, a Mayor Daly-like vote fraud only affects the outcome in Illinois. Junk the Electoral College and a Daly-like fraud affects the outcome of the entire election, nationwide.
The supporters of this say they want to avoid another 2000 scenario. But can you imagine what a mess 2000 would have been had the popular vote outcome shown Gore by 500k...that was less than one-half of one percent of the total vote for President. The Bush campaign would have been right to have demanded a recount of the enter nation. It would have taken months to figure out the winner, and it still might have been settled by court decision. The electoral college avoids a situation where a close popular vote could make the final outcome impossible to determine.
Well, Mr. DeKrey, why don't you educate the ignorant people why this would be a bad idea. Geez, the concept of "Republican leadership" has truly become an oxymoron, with emphasis on "moron."
You just don’t understand.
If you grow and consume your own you don’t buy MJ from other states or MJ grown outside the US borders.
You are there for interfering in interstate commerce by not buying MJ on the open market.
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.