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 ...
They would only choose the Electors which will vote the way the legislature agreed upon. And it will still be republican because the people within the state voted for their legislature. No?
>> 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.
Sez one hobo to the other: “If we had some ham we could have ham ‘n eggs, if we had some eggs...”
Never happen.
What happens when North Dakota reports three trillion votes for the Republican candidate?
Again, I see this as an attempt to nationalize vote fraud. The precincts with the worst abuse are in solidly blue states. (Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?) Philadelphia and Chicago’s legions of Necro-Americans can be counted nationwide.
I think NC only has 3 Electors.
Actually, I favor the allocation by CD plan and hope it makes the ballot (where it will lose, big time).
Mike. Looks like your state is setting the let’s say gold standard.
What kind of dumb@ss move is this?
I suppose I should be cool about it in one sense because Jersey always goes blue (I vote red in a blue town in a red county in a blue state) so some of the time the state’s votes will go to my candidate - what’s possessing the Dems to throw away 15 electoral votes some years?
But why should how my vote is counted depend on how they vote in Illinois or California? It would be less asinine to apportion the votes according to the Jersey percentages.
Every time there’s a close election, New Jersey’s votes are going to be waiting on court challenges in other states, oy vey.
I’m two stone throws from the governor’s mansion. What say we go throw stones at it, some time when Corzine’s in.
You’re welcome
I don’t like the CD plan, but we’ll leave that discussion for sometime closer to the June Ca election, LOL.
Scenario:
Let’s see ... Nope, I don’t think you left anything out. Good work.
Why do people turn out at all? If you're only looking at the presidential race, and if you're a Republican in NJ, why bother to turn out? The state is overwhelmingly likely to go to the Democrat, which means that your vote doesn't count. At all. If NJ throws its electors to the winner of the popular vote, and other states do the same, then your ballot counts as much as any other voter in any other state.
> 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. <
Possible, but not likely. And the same may be said about the 2000 election.
IIRC, President Bush was reelected with a 3 million popular vote lead. Kerry could not have had 3 million more absentee votes than the President. Even if the absentees went for Kerry by a two to one ratio, there would need to have been 9 million uncounted absentee ballots - roughly 7% of the total.
Under the proposed plan, North Dakota with three trillion popular votes would command 270 electors.
Did you miss a memo? Candidates stopped campaigning in New Jersey a long time ago. It's a safe blue state -- Dems don't campaign there because they have it in the bag, and Republicans don't campaign there because it's not worth the effort.
If you weren't in one of about a half-dozen states, you didn't exist in the last few months of the 2004 campaign. If you weren't in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Florida, you were more likely to see a sasquatch then a presidential or vice presidential candidate.
The Electoral College makes a LOT of sense. Its primary function is that it ensures that a President is elected, and not mired in everlasting dispute - although Congress has a say in whether or not that works. Its second function is to promote National candidates...ones which appeal to each individual part of the nation, rather than say, merely the big media markets in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Georgia. Further, it limits the effects of local natural disasters and prescribes boundaries for the effects of voter fraud. It has a LOT to speak for it.
Did California ever go through with doing this?
They’ll repeal it the first time a Republican wins the popular vote.
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.