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 ...
LOL. (I was taking advantage of the way you phrased your post, making it seem like you were at Ft. Sumpter in 1861, which would make you at least 160 YO.) [Explaining the joke for those in Rio Linda.]
Bills have been introduced in 22 state legislatures so far in 2007. Bills are in the bill-drafting process in 23 states. The bill has passed one legislative house so far in 2007 (Colorado).
Thank Heavens! You know that The Beast has her fingerprints all over this one.
Libs tried to hoodwink the public and pull this change off.
Thank goodness it didn't work.
Our Founding Fathers had a specific reason for developing the Electoral College. It was to give better representation to states with smaller populations. It has worked pretty good for 200+ years.
The last thing we need is a bunch of self-interest Libs tinkering with it for their own gain. This includes those like Hillary Clinton who see the change as very advantageous -- as it would have allowed the biggest cities (which just happen to contain most of the liberals) to decide most presidential elections.
No, the Constitution does not need to be amended.
"Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). "
If you really want to understand the proposal, read the following: EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A State-Based Plan For Electing The President By National Popular Vote
Houston could probably be trusted. But we'd still be outvoted 3-1.
I thought that the only way to eliminate the Electoral College was through Constitutional ammendment.
Some states already have proportional distribution of their electoral votes.
How very typical of the dems. Situational ethics is their forte.
A RAT is a RAT and a RINO is a RINO, no matter where he hails from.
I disagree. The Constitution allows state legislatures to use any criteria they want to designate electors. This is a very bad idea, but it's not an unconstitutional one.
Unless Congress allows, the States do NOT have the right to form a compact with each other.
Also, the 12th Amendment says there has to be a quorum present when the EC votes. I can see Republican Electors refusing to attend the EC if they would be forced to vote for a Dim instead of the Republican the voters of their State selected.
But I don't think this cockamamie idea will get that far.
Nothing to get flamed over, but that is the main reason why I would oppose ending the Electoral College. I think the two-party system is beneficial to this country in that it promotes stability as well as keeping, as far as possible, the one-issue crazies out of office. If you opened it up into a four or five way contest then pretty soon this country would end up just like Europe --- balkanized into little fringe sects having inordinate amounts of power, with kooks and out-of-the-closet socialists being elected in droves, with now and again the Nazi-sympathizing right wing guy like Haider breaking in. Make it so that 20% is all you need to get elected nationally, and pretty soon you'll get just that --- somebody that only 20% of the country really has any use for.
Hold on now. This would require a constitutional amendment, would it not? Surely it would seeing as the EC is enumerated in the Constitution. It is nearly impossible to amend the constitution. 3/4 of the states will not ratify and surely the 2/3 House and Senate will not ratify.
Then we disagree. Extrapolating outward, your reasoning would allow a State to pass a law that would direct the presidential electors to vote for a Dimocrat in every election, regardless of the vote. That pretty much invalidates a republican form of government for that State. This is different from the current situation that doesn't direct the EC electors to vote any particular way.
Regardless of the resultant court decisions, if this plan were to be fulfilled, it would trigger a civil war in this nation. A real blood and guts civil war. Of that I have no doubt.
They'll be back.
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.