Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: college; electoral; electoralcollege; newjersey; nj; popularvote; voterfraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-130 next last
To: Crim
The same thing is proposed for cali

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.

41 posted on 01/03/2008 4:50:11 PM PST by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gumption

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.


42 posted on 01/03/2008 4:52:37 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro
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.

Oh, yeah. I'm really looking forward to the inevitable nationwide recount. </sarcasm>

43 posted on 01/03/2008 4:55:09 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro
As for me, I am tired of the bigger states having a bigger say when it comes to presidential elections.

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.

44 posted on 01/03/2008 4:55:46 PM PST by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

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?


45 posted on 01/03/2008 4:56:04 PM PST by Hazcat (We won an immigration BATTLE, the WAR is not over. Be ever vigilant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

I see your point.


46 posted on 01/03/2008 4:57:35 PM PST by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Hazcat
First line of the article:

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.

47 posted on 01/03/2008 4:58:30 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius; Hazcat
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.

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."

48 posted on 01/03/2008 4:59:09 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hazcat
I think I know what you’re shooting at but as no ‘agreements or comapcts’ were dicussed or enetered into how does it relate?

The states involved are agreeing to modify their electoral process but only if enough other states do the same.

49 posted on 01/03/2008 5:01:16 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro
and “We the People” can take true control over the presidential election process.

You sir are a fool. No, let me correct that. You are a dangerous fool.

L

50 posted on 01/03/2008 5:01:20 PM PST by Lurker (Pimping my blog: http://lurkerslair-lurker.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

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.


51 posted on 01/03/2008 5:01:33 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

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.


52 posted on 01/03/2008 5:01:50 PM PST by Hazcat (We won an immigration BATTLE, the WAR is not over. Be ever vigilant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
New Jersey is not saying, "We will do it if you guys do it."

Yes, they are. The law only goes into effect if enough other states agree.

53 posted on 01/03/2008 5:03:11 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Among winners in past elections you'd had Richard Nixon beating Kennedy. He would, of course, ducked at a propitious moment, but he wouldn't have gone to Texas anyway ~ nothing to prove to them.

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.

54 posted on 01/03/2008 5:03:32 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bob; Anitius Severinus Boethius

AHHH! Now I get it! I missed that sentence about “if other states do it”.


55 posted on 01/03/2008 5:04:37 PM PST by Hazcat (We won an immigration BATTLE, the WAR is not over. Be ever vigilant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: commish
Totally, completely and unequivocally unconstitutional. No wonder it is Democrats coming up with 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.

56 posted on 01/03/2008 5:04:41 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 10mm

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


57 posted on 01/03/2008 5:05:34 PM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro
As for me, I am tired of the bigger states having a bigger say when it comes to presidential elections.

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.

58 posted on 01/03/2008 5:05:57 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro

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.


59 posted on 01/03/2008 5:06:16 PM PST by RainMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hazcat

“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.


60 posted on 01/03/2008 5:06:34 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson