Skip to comments.
NJ nears undermining Electoral College
pioneer press/ap ^
| 1-3-08
| TOM HESTER Jr.
Posted on 01/03/2008 4:18:41 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-130 next last
To: WOBBLY BOB
More idiocy from the Garbage State.
Makes me feel good about living a "stone's throw" from the Governor's Mansion.
2
posted on
01/03/2008 4:19:31 PM PST
by
Clemenza
(Ronald Reagan was a "Free Traitor", Like Me ;-))
To: WOBBLY BOB; LS; shield; jdm
These people are not so bright. They would just give solidly democratic votes to Republicans.
3
posted on
01/03/2008 4:20:16 PM PST
by
Perdogg
(Fred Thompson - John Bolton 2008)
To: Calpernia; Tired of Taxes
4
posted on
01/03/2008 4:21:01 PM PST
by
pandoraou812
( Its NOT for the good of the children! Its BS along with bending over for Muslim's demands)
To: Clemenza
That means the NJ electoral votes in 2004 would have gone to Bush.
5
posted on
01/03/2008 4:21:08 PM PST
by
Perdogg
(Fred Thompson - John Bolton 2008)
To: Perdogg
New Jersey, the “A-hole” of the world.
6
posted on
01/03/2008 4:21:37 PM PST
by
baiamonte
To: Perdogg
The same thing is proposed for cali...of course the dems are freaking about it....
*snicker*
7
posted on
01/03/2008 4:22:42 PM PST
by
Crim
(Dont frak with the Zeitgeist....)
To: WOBBLY BOB
What an obviously stupid idea.
What would this do to local elections in presidential years? Why would people turn out?
8
posted on
01/03/2008 4:22:58 PM PST
by
HarryCaul
To: WOBBLY BOB
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
-Ben Franklin.
9
posted on
01/03/2008 4:23:41 PM PST
by
Finalapproach29er
(Dems will impeach Bush in 2008, they have nothing else. Mark my words.)
To: WOBBLY BOB
Congratulations NJ. Now, no candidate needs to bother campaigning in your state. You’ve effectively disenfranchised your entire citizenry.
10
posted on
01/03/2008 4:24:04 PM PST
by
10mm
To: WOBBLY BOB
Unconstitutional per Article I Section 10 paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
To: WOBBLY BOB
New Jersey has done very significant things to and for the country before. One thing for sure, the small states with three EC votes would not approve of this at all.
12
posted on
01/03/2008 4:24:57 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
To: WOBBLY BOB
As long as it is blue states who enter into the agreement, that’s fine with me. Just leave states like Texas and Florida out of it.
13
posted on
01/03/2008 4:25:12 PM PST
by
Tall_Texan
(No Third Term For Bill Clinton!)
To: Clemenza
Wow the people in Nwq Jersey must be so tired. Errrrrr, I mean so Bushed :)
14
posted on
01/03/2008 4:26:15 PM PST
by
hflynn
( Soros would not make any sense even if he spelled his name backwards)
To: WOBBLY BOB
Totally, completely and unequivocally unconstitutional. No wonder it is Democrats coming up with it.
15
posted on
01/03/2008 4:27:22 PM PST
by
commish
(Freedom tastes sweetest to those who have fought to protect it.)
To: WOBBLY BOB
Sounds like the Republicans are going to have to get ready to join the smokers on the outside, looking in.
16
posted on
01/03/2008 4:27:34 PM PST
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: hflynn
Nwq = New. I’m tired but not Bushed :)
17
posted on
01/03/2008 4:28:23 PM PST
by
hflynn
( Soros would not make any sense even if he spelled his name backwards)
To: baiamonte
New Jersey, the “A-hole” of the world. No, just one of many.
18
posted on
01/03/2008 4:28:41 PM PST
by
doc1019
(Rabbit and the Hare … Fred ‘08)
To: Crim
The same thing is proposed for cali...of course the dems are freaking about it.... Are there two different proposals in California on this?
The one that I am aware of differs from this plan as the EV's would be awarded on a district by district basis (as opposed to 'democrat-take-all', with two EV's going to the winner of the statewide popular vote.
19
posted on
01/03/2008 4:28:43 PM PST
by
Michael.SF.
("democrat" -- 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses " - Joseph J. Ellis)
To: Perdogg
That means the NJ electoral votes in 2004 would have gone to Bush. Actually, we don't know who the votes would have gone to in 2004, because many votes are never counted in states where the vote is not close. If all votes were counted in 2004, John F'n Kerry might have had more.
The real problem with this plan, of course, is that it defeats the non-proportional representation that was engineered into the US Constitution. The votes of people in smaller states are worth more than the votes of people in larger states under the Electoral College system, because the smaller states have disproportionally high representation. This was done intentionally to limit the power of the larger states and to encourage the smaller states to accept union with them.
The logic today is the same as it was then. This compact should not be legal. There is no way any reasonable judge could conclude that "One man, one vote", with all votes being weighed equally, was the intent of the Framers, when they carefully crafted a system that does not achieve this.
Of course, reasonable judges are in short supply, these days, so what the courts would decide is anybody's guess.
20
posted on
01/03/2008 4:29:01 PM PST
by
gridlock
(There are 49 other states in the Union. We don't need another President from Arkansas just yet.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-130 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson