The reason why:
Posted on 05/17/2007 1:39:48 PM PDT by SuperSonic
North Carolina moved a big step closer to joining a national movement that could lead to the president of the United States being elected by popular vote. The state Senate, by a 30-18 partisan vote, passed legislation that would direct North Carolina's Electoral College delegates to vote for the presidential candidate with the most votes nationwide -- not the one with the most votes in the state -- if the national movement proves successful. So far, only Maryland has signed on, but more than 40 states are considering legislation that could bring them on board as well.
The movement comes after two close national presidential elections in which Republican George Bush came out the winner. In the 2000 election, the popular vote went to Democrat Al Gore, but Bush won the majority of electoral votes cast by the states. In 2004, the close vote in Ohio -- which Bush ultimately won -- drew lawsuits because if it had swung Democratic, John Kerry would have been elected president even though he hadn't won the popular vote.
A bipartisan group of former U.S. representatives and senators came up with the plan, which would take effect when enough states to create a majority of Electoral College votes had joined a compact to direct those votes to the national popular vote winner. The earliest the compact could take effect would be the 2012 election.
State Sen. Dan Clodfelter, a Charlotte Democrat, urged his colleagues to join the compact, saying the current system cuts most of the country out of the presidential election. In 2004, he said, the majority of campaign money spent by Bush and Kerry was in just two battleground states -- Florida and Ohio.
"We were ignored," Clodfelter said. "In 23 states, not a single TV ad ran for either of the candidates for president. They were ignored."
Republicans argued that a popular vote election would not bring presidential candidates to all corners of the country, just to the major media markets.
"They may come to Charlotte, they may come to Raleigh," said Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger, a Rockingham County Republican. "But they won't come to Eden, they won't come to Smithfield and they won't come to Wilmington. This is bad policy and bad for the people of North Carolina."
Some argued that the legislation subverted the thinking of the founding fathers when they created the Electoral College, which they said was intended to protect the rights of less populous states. Clodfelter said if North Carolina were following the founders' original plans, then lawmakers would be choosing who their Electoral College delegates stood behind, instead of the voters.
It wasn't until 1876 that North Carolina lawmakers gave state residents the right to vote for president, Clodfelter said.
The legislation now moves to the House.
Staff writer Dan Kane can be reached at 829-4861 or dan.kane@newsobserver.com.
Because the big change in 2006 was not the House and Senate. It was the number of state legislatures that switched. They might even be able to get this through in enough states to pull it off.
That was also my understanding.
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. [end snip]
Does all of that mean that the final electoral college vote will be a unanimous vote?
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.
Isn't this law unconstitutional?
Yes
The sheeple of NYC, Chicago, and LA will soon be electing the president for the country.
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.
Isn't this law unconstitutional?
It seems that the electoral college has served our country reasonably well for many years. Why is there a move to change it? Who is behind that move? How will such a change help America? From here, it looks like only the big cities will have a meaningful voice in future elections.
Democrats are the ones pushing the change. I believe that they think it will benefit them politically. They say it’s about fairness, etc. and that we should have a national popular vote.
If they believe so strongly that we should have a national popular vote, they should work to amend the Constitution to repeal the electoral college. They are doing this state by state effort to go around amending the Constitution.
The courts will have to rule on this if enough states pass these laws. Then it comes back to how important it is who is president and what type of judges he or she appoints.
The reason why:
That could/will be basis of a challenge or that’s what I’ve read in the past.
The question is have they entered into a pact with another state when they direct the electors of their state to vote for the candidate who gets the majority vote of the populace?
No. Nothing fishy going on in Cook County. Nope. < /sarcasm >
If North Carolina will hand over its electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote, why go to spread-out North Carolina with 8.8 million people when you can go to concentrated Los Angeles with 9.9? And, since LA is very Dem-favorable, so much easier for them, while Republicans have to cover counties far and wide to reach the same number of their voters.
If states break down the Electoral College for popular national vote, they're selling out their power to large urban areas who can trump them on sheer number of votes.
So does this mean that as the vote lead changes so would this states vote? Candidate A has more than B, then another state reports and candidate B leads A etc. so therefore North Carolina now votes for B instead of A. Or do they just get the distinction of voting last after all other 49 states have counted their votes? And what happens when there is a vote challange and hanging chads are examined closely?
This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.
I believe the key is that these laws usually have a clause that says that it’s only effective when “x” number of other states enact such a law.
Seems so to me. And it apparently seems so to the people who adopted it.
North Carolina moved a big step closer to joining a national movement that could lead to the president of the United States being elected by popular vote. The state Senate, by a 30-18 partisan vote, passed legislation that would direct North Carolina's Electoral College delegates to vote for the presidential candidate with the most votes nationwide -- not the one with the most votes in the state -- if the national movement proves successful.So far, only Maryland has signed on, but more than 40 states are considering legislation that could bring them on board as well.
A bipartisan group of former U.S. representatives and senators came up with the plan, which would take effect when enough states to create a majority of Electoral College votes had joined a compact to direct those votes to the national popular vote winner. The earliest the compact could take effect would be the 2012 election.
State Sen. Dan Clodfelter, a Charlotte Democrat, urged his colleagues to join the compact, saying the current system cuts most of the country out of the presidential election. In 2004, he said, the majority of campaign money spent by Bush and Kerry was in just two battleground states -- Florida and Ohio.
Looks like an agreement between the states to me. Looks like the legislators think so too.
The following link is to a Legal Paper by Robert Bennett, Northwestern School of Law, that was presented in 2006 discussing the Electoral College process and potential changes. Bennett is advocating change as I see it to some sort of popular vote. Electoral College Reform Is Heating Up, And Posing Some Tough Choices
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.