Posted on 01/03/2008 4:18:41 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB
In California the electoral votes would be divided between candidates meaning that the dims would lose their lock on all the votes all the time...which is what they think they have in New Jersey.
They can choose to do it on their own (which is stupid, but another arguement), but they can’t make a contract with other States to do it together.
Oh, yeah. I'm really looking forward to the inevitable nationwide recount. </sarcasm>
Your answer makes no sense. Eliminating the electoral college gives the deciding vote to the bigger states, in particular the large urban areas of the country.
So what agreement or compact with another state are they entering?
I think I know what you’re shooting at but as no ‘agreements or comapcts’ were dicussed or enetered into how does it relate?
I see your point.
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 only "compact" in this whole thing is the poor choice of that word by the author of this article. There is no "compact".
New Jersey is not saying, "We will do it if you guys do it."
New Jersey is saying, "We will do this and disenfranchise New Jersey voters in Presidential Elections because we really are that dumb."
The states involved are agreeing to modify their electoral process but only if enough other states do the same.
You sir are a fool. No, let me correct that. You are a dangerous fool.
L
Sixth sentence of the article:
The compact would take effect only if enough states—those with a majority of votes in the Electoral College—agreed to it.
But it is not a compact with another state or foreign power so how does it relate? On top of that I believe ‘compact’ has an actual legal definition that is not being met by this law.
Yes, they are. The law only goes into effect if enough other states agree.
He would beat some other Democrat in 1964. Then, in 1968 we have no idea who would have beat the Humph, or LBJ, or JFK again. Same with 1972, but Reagan would have gotten 1976 and 1980, and GWB would have won two elections, followed by some other Republican, and so on and so forth.
The Dems can't really be serious with this.
AHHH! Now I get it! I missed that sentence about “if other states do it”.
And what makes it unconstitutional is its requirement that others states enter the agreement with NJ.
If NJ wanted to pass a law that elimiated voting by citizens for president and automatically instructed its electors to vote for the national popular vote winner that would be 100% constitutional.
Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That does not make any sense whatsoever and demonstrates a complete ignorance of the Electoral College. The Electoral College is what protects the smaller states from the bigger states. The bigger states would have a much larger say in what happens over the little states without the Electoral College.
If you don't know anything about a subject, it is best not to form such strong opinions when you are not grounded in the facts.
Big Al
If you truely think bigger states have a bigger say, then you know nothing about the electoral college. The smaller the state, the bigger the proportional say under our PRESENT system.
“If X States do Y, then Z law goes into effect in X States” is the definition of entering into a compact with other States.
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.