Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Move to Dump Electoral College Defeated in Montana, North Dakota
Newsmax ^ | 2-9-07 | AP via Newsmax

Posted on 02/09/2007 4:55:25 AM PST by Alia

A movement to essentially dump the Electoral College and give the presidency to the winner of the nationwide popular vote has been defeated in North Dakota and Montana, after opponents said it would eliminate any influence states may have in presidential contests.

Thursday's votes represented the first legislative setbacks this year for the National Popular Vote plan, said spokeswoman Breeanna Mierop. It is a proposed agreement among states to cast their electoral votes for the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote.

"If you look at the population trends ... if this were to become the law, our presidential elections would be controlled by the vote in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston," said North Dakota state Rep. Lawrence Klemin, a Bismarck Republican. "They would decide who the president was, not the rest of us."

North Dakota's House voted 60-31 Thursday to defeat the plan. In the Montana Senate, it lost 30-20.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: breeannamierop; electoral; electoralcollege; flyovercountry; lawrenceklemin; montana; northdakota
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
To: nitzy

Ending the Electoral College wouldn't have any effect on assisting or hindering alternative parties.


21 posted on 02/09/2007 5:13:48 AM PST by Nomorjer Kinov (If the opposite of "pro" is "con" , what is the opposite of progress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg
Good. I would hate to be forced to fire on Fort Sumter again. /s/

Amazing, you don't look a day over a hundred.

;-)

22 posted on 02/09/2007 5:13:53 AM PST by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alia
Why would people from these places of big land and few people be so fascinated by the thought of New York and California making all the decisions about what happens with their land and homes?
23 posted on 02/09/2007 5:14:24 AM PST by Dixie Yooper (Ephesians 6:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nitzy
No flame from me; yours is a thought provoking comment.

The one good thing about ending the electoral college and also the reason none of you have to worry about it going away is the fact that it would open up the contest to third or fourth parties. I don't think many democrats nor Republicans would want to end their duopoly on the political process

So, why, do you think the Dems continue to raise this as a platform "peg"?

To "turn out the vote"? Something else?

24 posted on 02/09/2007 5:14:38 AM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Wouldn't they always vote for the Republican? I mean have they ever voted for the Democrat for popular vote and the votes still went to Republican for electoral votes?


25 posted on 02/09/2007 5:14:45 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dixie Yooper

lol! One wonders, indeed! ;>


26 posted on 02/09/2007 5:16:04 AM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hadean; OldFriend
Yup, and IIRC, in the runup to the 2000 election both Gore and the Clinton camp thought that they would lose the popular vote but win in the EC and both camps (Gore/Clinton) wrote articles defending the EC.
27 posted on 02/09/2007 5:17:44 AM PST by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alia

The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they created the electoral college. I'm glad to see that the move to dump it failed. Evidently intelligence prevailed.


28 posted on 02/09/2007 5:18:15 AM PST by BuffaloJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Its DOA. The libs can't win over the folks in Flyover Country.

Not so fast. All the proponents need is for states with a majority of the electoral votes to join the compact. This effort is not over by a long shot.

National Popular Vote

EVERY VOTE EQUAL

29 posted on 02/09/2007 5:19:38 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alia
And once they get rid of the electoral college, is the senate next? Why should all the little states get two votes in the senate, just like the big states? It's just not fair!
30 posted on 02/09/2007 5:22:56 AM PST by Dixie Yooper (Ephesians 6:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg
This time it would be Ft. Marcy but we have to be careful not to hit the Marine Corps Memorial.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

31 posted on 02/09/2007 5:23:14 AM PST by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alia

IMO, if this were to actually happen, the USSC would strike it down because the Constitution guarantees to each State a republican form of government. Ceding the vote for presidential electors to other States is ceding that republican form of government.

IMNLO (In My Non-Lawyer Opinion.)


32 posted on 02/09/2007 5:23:25 AM PST by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

"Amazing, you don't look a day over a hundred."

seeing as how it is morning, and I am still on cup of coffee #1, I'll take that as a compliment and run with it.


33 posted on 02/09/2007 5:23:57 AM PST by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack
The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they created the electoral college. I'm glad to see that the move to dump it failed. Evidently intelligence prevailed.

This isn't a move to end the electoral college. That would take a constitutional amendment, which would surely fail. This bipartisan effort is really an endrun around the electoral college. The objective is to "make every vote equal" by having the states who join this compact allocate their electoral votes on the basis of the national popular vote and not on the results within their particular state.

34 posted on 02/09/2007 5:24:33 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alia

In the middle east when an important issue comes up, the masses take the the street. Whoever has the largest, loudest and most violent crowd wins. The way it should be.


35 posted on 02/09/2007 5:26:03 AM PST by Dixie Yooper (Ephesians 6:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Not so fast. All the proponents need is for states with a majority of the electoral votes to join the compact. This effort is not over by a long shot.

Which is why the libs have been working overing on the local level to get dems elected

36 posted on 02/09/2007 5:26:50 AM PST by Mo1 ( http://www.gohunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
Ceding the vote for presidential electors to other States is ceding that republican form of government.

That's not what they are advocating. They want enough states to enter a compact that would require them to allocate their electoral votes on the basis of the national popular vote. The states have that right. Maine and Nebraska allocate their electoral votes differently than other statesm i.e., winner take all.

37 posted on 02/09/2007 5:27:57 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Democrats are remembering only 2000.
Here is a link to the 2004 election results. This manuver would have forced big blue states like NY, CA, MA, MD, RI, NJ and even PA to vote their electors for GW Bush. Think about the mandate he could have claimed then.
38 posted on 02/09/2007 5:28:38 AM PST by Nomorjer Kinov (If the opposite of "pro" is "con" , what is the opposite of progress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Alia
Surprised the margins weren't even wider. I hope those RATs hear about it in their next campaign. They could even do it as a parody of that Pace commercial. "Why were you willing to give over our state's influence to New York City?" "New York City!!!"
39 posted on 02/09/2007 5:29:15 AM PST by NonValueAdded (Pelosi, the call was for Comity, not Comedy. But thanks for the laughs. StarKisses, NVA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
All the proponents need is for states with a majority of the electoral votes to join the compact
No, to amend the Constitution (which is what it would take) you need the approval of 38 state legislatures. In other words, 13 states (an interesting coincidental number) can block it.

-Eric

40 posted on 02/09/2007 5:30:20 AM PST by E Rocc (Myspace "Freepers" group moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson