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.
N.C. Bill Seeks to Elect President by Popular Vote
The N.C. Senate version of the bill:
It’s not unconstitutional if it has the consent of Congress. And a Democrat controlled Congress will be tripping over themselves to do anything that will give them the presidency.
It’s not unconstitutional if it has the consent of Congress. And a Democrat controlled Congress will be tripping over themselves to do anything that will give them the presidency.
In addition, who knows how SCOTUS would rule should enough states agree to such a procedure with or without Congress’s consent.
Yes, but they only adhere to it if a majority of the other states do the same thing. And so far, they haven’t.
Although, as a MD resident, I’d love to see the sh*t-fits the State throws when Maryland votes Dem and a Republican wins the national popular vote...and they have to send in electors who will cast their votes for the Republican!
NC is trying to pass the same legislation. It’s happening.
In 2004, Maryland would have been red.
It is. Although, for the next few election cycles, I think it’s mostly pandering. MD can (and did) pass it. I don’t think NC could.
I don’t get it though - these Dems are passing legislation that would’ve given Bush a landslide victory in 2004.
Maybe so. But it’s not even in front of Congress at this point. An example would be the Great Lakes water usage agreement (I don’t know the formal name of the Act). It’s actually an international treaty among the states and Canadian provinces bordering the Great Lakes regarding how much water each state or province can take out and how they control what’s flowing in. Specifics are negotiated among the states and provinces, but it needed Congressional approval to set up in the first place.
So far, Congress is not involved in this compact among the states at all and there seems to be no intent to do so. That’s unconstitutional from what I can see. And while it would likely pass the House, there’s a real chance it wouldn’t pass the Senate; the interests of the smaller and/or less urban states might just cross over partisan lines enough to have it fail there.
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.