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

Skip to comments.

NJ and Maryland Electoral Votes Based on National Popular Vote
CBS News (AP) ^ | 01/13/2008 | AP

Posted on 09/13/2008 7:49:36 AM PDT by NutmegDevil

New Jersey Rejects Electoral College Two States Have Now Joined Compact To Give Their Votes To Winner Of The Popular Vote =============== (AP) New Jersey on Sunday became the second state to enter a compact that would eliminate the Electoral College's power to choose a president if enough states endorse the idea.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed legislation that approves delivering the state's 15 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The Assembly approved the bill last month and the Senate followed suit earlier this month.

Maryland - with 10 electoral votes - had been the only state to pass the compact into law. ....

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


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Maryland; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: election; electionpresident; electoralcollege; electoralvote; electoralvotes; nationalpopularvote; newjersey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
I haven't seen this phenom discussed. It matters not how the citizens in New Jersey and Maryland vote in the 2008 Presidential Election. The national popular vote will turn their electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most total votes. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/13/politics/main3706884.shtml
1 posted on 09/13/2008 7:49:36 AM PDT by NutmegDevil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil
You missed this part:

However, the compact would take effect only if enough states - those with a majority of votes in the Electoral College - agreed to it.

2 posted on 09/13/2008 7:51:27 AM PDT by Interesting Times (Swiftboating, you say? Check out ToSetTheRecordStraight.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil
Since these are two monolithic Democrat snake-pits, this can do nothing except help us.

Now, if only CA would do the same thing...

3 posted on 09/13/2008 7:51:57 AM PDT by ajwharton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil

Funny...

This could put these two very blue states in the red column.


4 posted on 09/13/2008 7:52:01 AM PDT by Mrs.Z ("...you're a Democrat. You're expected to complain and offer no solutions." Denny Crane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil

Sigh. Cherry Hill, NJ is a nice place to live. Corzine is making it more and more difficult to remain.


5 posted on 09/13/2008 7:52:04 AM PDT by new cruelty (I don't want my daughters punished with obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil

This is funny. LOL. I guess we are going to have to some serious GOTV in Texas.


6 posted on 09/13/2008 7:52:08 AM PDT by Tribune7 (How is inflicting pain and death on an innocent, helpless human being for profit, moral?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil

So, that takes two “blue” states and puts them in play?


7 posted on 09/13/2008 7:52:46 AM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature (OBAMA: He was a flop before he became a flipper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil
The national popular vote will turn their electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most total votes.

Not true. The law doesn't go into effect until states with a majority of electoral votes have signed up. This won't happen, so it's a cheap way for morons to protest the 2000 election results.

They are apparently so stupid they don't realize the pact could just as easily result in a Republican winning as a Democrat. They just assume the Democrat will automatically win the popular vote.

8 posted on 09/13/2008 7:52:54 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (qui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil
The most liberal states are doing this. I would think it would be pretty easy to paint these guys as extremists bent on doing damage to this country. There is a very good reason for having the electoral college, as it saves the decent, hard-working Americans from the whims of elitist a-holes like Corzine. We need to start paying more attention to this movement, though.
9 posted on 09/13/2008 7:53:11 AM PDT by Major Matt Mason (A happy member of the New Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times; NutmegDevil

And he also missed the part that this article is 9 months old.


10 posted on 09/13/2008 7:53:38 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (Community Organizers for McCain-Palin now at http://www.cafepress.com/writeside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil

NJ will surely be sorry they got what they wished for.


11 posted on 09/13/2008 7:53:48 AM PDT by Carley (she's all out of caribou.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil

Absolute stupidity. They are negating the opinion of their entire population...their population, if they vote for Candidate A, but Candidate B has more votes nationwide, will have all of their electoral votes go to Candidate B.

New Jersey voters, congratulations: the Democrats have once again proven they don’t give a damn about what you think.


12 posted on 09/13/2008 7:54:24 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (Just say NObama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

What I want to know is how a state unilaterally nullify the Constitution without going through the process of amendment?


13 posted on 09/13/2008 7:55:24 AM PDT by Madam Theophilus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

This is totally dumb, reducing each state’s impact in the general election. For a state to institute this, it would have to be run by power-phobic, effete liberals. (Wait...)

As I recall, this is also unconstitutional - states can’t unilaterally enter in compacts without Congressional action.


14 posted on 09/13/2008 7:55:47 AM PDT by MIT-Elephant ("Armed with what? Spitballs?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MIT-Elephant

No, but I also believe the Constitution leaves states completely free to decide for themselves how their electors will be chosen.

Technically there is no compact, as each state passes its own law. It doesn’t enter into an agreement with the other states.


15 posted on 09/13/2008 7:58:01 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (qui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MIT-Elephant

I would rather have Maryland allocate electoral votes per Congressional district, with the two Senate electoral votes for the state at large.


16 posted on 09/13/2008 7:58:21 AM PDT by GAB-1955 (Kicking and Screaming into the Kingdom of Heaven!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil

The first time these liberal Massholes from big city, East coast states give their votes to a Republican who wins the Popular vote this whole thing will go away.

Then there will be mass lawsuits from the “Disenfranchised” who cry that their votes didn’t count.

This train wreck of elitism will be better than the Florida hanging chads


17 posted on 09/13/2008 7:58:28 AM PDT by CrappieLuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I don’t think a majority is even enough. I believe the Constitution will have to be changed and IIRC, it’s a 2/3 vote.


18 posted on 09/13/2008 7:59:41 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (I'm planting corn...Have to feed my car...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
However, the compact would take effect only if enough states - those with a majority of votes in the Electoral College - agreed to it.

This makes it a compact among states. Compacts among states must be approved by Congress to be valid.

19 posted on 09/13/2008 7:59:45 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Said law also happens to be utterly unconstitional.

Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3: (emphasis added)

[3] No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops and 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.

20 posted on 09/13/2008 8:02:16 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 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