NJ nears undermining Electoral College

pioneer press/ap ^ | 1-3-08 | TOM HESTER Jr.

[WOBBLY BOB]

TRENTON, N.J.—New Jersey is close to entering a compact that would eliminate the power of the Electoral College to choose a president if enough states endorse the idea. The state Senate voted Thursday to approve delivering the state's 15 electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote. The Assembly approved the measure in December and needs Gov. Jon S. Corzine's signature to become law.

"The bill is subject to a thorough review, but Gov. Corzine has long been a supporter of this concept," Corzine spokesman Jim Gardner said.

The measure could result in the electoral votes going to a candidate opposed by voters in New Jersey, which has backed Democratic presidential candidates since 1988.

The compact would take effect only if enough states—those with a majority of votes in the Electoral College—agreed to it. A candidate needs 270 of 538 electoral votes to win.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I am unaware of any laws requiring any elector to vote in for any particular candidate. Perhaps some states have them, but I know for a fact that electors have from time to time cast votes other than by the results of the election.

[ml/nj]

I'm not sure what you mean by "gold standard." I didn't even know this anti-electoral-college thing was being debated, or maybe I should say put over here. While it might seem to be a good thing for Republicans, because they are very unlikely to carry NJ if they do not win the national popular vote, I oppose it because it would effectively disenfranchise those outside of the urban areas of the country, and it would do so without a Constitutional amendment. I think such an agreement, a.k.a. treaty, between a group of States might be unconstitutional.

ML/NJ

[MissouriConservative]

“If enough states keep messing with the presidential electoral process, the electoral college system may finally go away and “We the People” can take true control over the presidential election process.”

Why do you think the founders instituted the electoral college? To protect the little states. Why do you think the founders had the state legislatures elect Senators? To protect the states themselves against a tyrannical powerful central government. Well guess what happened? “We the people” now elect the Senators and guess what? We have a freaking tyrannical powerful central government that dictates to the states what they will and won’t do. Now you freaking want to give “We the people” the same power to screw up the presidential election?

Did you go to a public school?

[calcowgirl]

There are a couple of initiatives in the signature process.
If enough signatures, they would be on the ballot in June (and effective in November).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1947967/posts?page=78#78

[Calpernia]

>>>they would be on the ballot in June

You mean your state still has initiative and referendum?

I’m jealous. We are subjects here (NJ).

[Exton1]

Why do people forget we are called the UNITED STATES? The electoral collage was created to allow states to vote for a president, WE ARE A REPUBLIC. Because they have already eliminated State selected senators, the individual States keep losing more power. If we eliminate the electoral collage, then we further eliminate states rights.

[tanknetter]

I am unaware of any laws requiring any elector to vote in for any particular candidate. Perhaps some states have them, but I know for a fact that electors have from time to time cast votes other than by the results of the election.

You mind if I cite Wikipedia?

Twenty-four states have laws to punish faithless electors. While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214). The court ruled in favor of the state's right to require electors to pledge to vote for their party's nominee, as well as to remove electors who refuse to pledge. Once the elector has voted, however, it is not possible to change their vote - a faithless elector may only be punished after the fact. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a function of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court.

So it seems that the laws exist, but have never been tested.

[skr]

NJ proves, once again, that they don’t comprehend the rule of law.

[calcowgirl]

You mean your state still has initiative and referendum? I’m jealous. We are subjects here (NJ).

I'm not a fan (anymore). After seeing the sheeple that a celebrity governor can draw to the polls (helped by gobs of cash from special interests), combined with blatantly false advertising, it can be highly destructive.

[LS]

Lol. Stupid idea, even if it benefits us.

[Phantom Lord]

Citizens have no right to vote for President of the United States. NONE. Infact, we don't vote for the President now. We vote for a slate of electors who then vote for President.

Further, there is no "right to vote" in the Constitution. NONE. What the constitution does on voting is require states to treat all voters equal. No more, no less.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I understand that. In fact, I never claimed they did. But they do have a right to a republican form of government. Electors representing the citizens of other states violates that section of the Constitution, otherwise there need be no states at all, but simply administrative districts of the Federal Government (something we are perilously close to now).

[Phantom Lord]

I am not so sure this would violate the Constitution. States determine how and who is an elector and they then can make them vote in a certain way by law if they so choose, or they can let them vote however they want.

Today, an elector in DC for an example can vote for whoever the elector wants, or no one if that is what the elector wants.

In fact, that happened in 2000 when the DC Elector voted for no one instead of Algore who won the vote in DC.

[SoCal Pubbie]

In this case the state would be telling the elector how to vote, not based on an election within it’s own state, or based on an elector’s own preference, but on elections held outside the state. Would it be constitutional to instruct electors to cast ballots based on a poll conducted in France? I think not, or if so a government based on so such practices could not long stand. The old cry of taxation without representation come to mind.

[BigAlPro]

It doesn’t matter how big or how small the state is. The power should rest with the citizens of America, not with the states.

[BigAlPro]

Thanks for providing the liberal response to my post.

"If you disagree with someone's point of view, attack them, call them names and don't offer any substantive counterpoints."

[BigAlPro]

States don’t vote. Americans vote. Change the system by eliminating the electoral college and watch the percentage of American voters increase. If more Americans vote for the Democrat, then the Democrat will be President. If more Americans vote for the Republican, then the Republican will be President. Either way, the power will rest with the voting citizens, not an electoral system.

[Lurker]

Thanks for providing the liberal response to my post.

Your post was the standard liberal diatribe against Constitutional governance. Further, you have absolutely no clue just how stupid and dangerous such a form of governance is. Hence my response.

You are advocating direct democracy for the United States, something the Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with.

That makes you not only a fool, but a dangerous fool.

Sucks to be you.

L

[Fiddlstix]

......The state Senate voted Thursday to approve delivering the state's 15 electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote......

But......
Only if a liberal wins the popular vote......

[vaudine]

Exactly. Vote nullification. What is in the water, air, etc. to make these clowns think they are smarter than the founders of this country?

vaudine