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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: new cruelty

Marlton, NJ is a good place too — except it’s a communist hellhole. The Messiah will win NJ by 15 points. UGH!


41 posted on 09/13/2008 8:15:40 AM PDT by tbg681
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
+ 3/4 vote by the LEGISLATURE of each state.

Funny how prohibition got reversed so fast.

The smoking issue...is really "legislated prohibition".

42 posted on 09/13/2008 8:15:41 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (I'm planting corn...Have to feed my car...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil

I believe these measures are unconstitutional because they deprive the voters of their right to determine the electors in their own state. I cannot but think that they are unconstitutional under most states’ own laws. It not only subverts the purpose of the electoral college by replacing it with a dictatorship of the mob, it eliminates any possibility of small states having a say in the federal government.

While it’s not per se unconstitutional insofar as Article II, secs. 2 and 4 (and the Twelfth Amendment) go (the manner of choosing electors is up to the states), I believe this would constitute a deprivation of a constitutional right (to vote) without due process. If, in the off-chance that this actually gets adopted by enough states, it will be completely irrelevant what voters in Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, Nebraska, Delaware, etc. think since you could do the math and determine which states in the aggregate would have enough popular votes to determine the outcome of a national election. In other words, a few coastal states plus Illinois, Ohio and Pensylvania would determine the outcome of every national election. Incredible. This is what passes for Progressive politics these days?

Let’s just throw the whole constitution out the window and have mob-rule. I knew Corzine was an idiot, but this takes the cake. Talk about disenfranchisement.


43 posted on 09/13/2008 8:17:09 AM PDT by Ilya Mourometz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Just a reminder: Hillary was the first to scream “Get rid of the Electoral College”..After Gore lost.


44 posted on 09/13/2008 8:17:56 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (I'm planting corn...Have to feed my car...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
+ 3/4 vote by the LEGISLATURE of each state.

Again, not quite accurate.

Legislature OR convention, as directed by Congress.

45 posted on 09/13/2008 8:18:29 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (qui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AlphaOneAlpha
There’s an entire country out there with some very good states to choose from.

I know. We actually chose to move here from Texas when my wife finished medical school. She is in a fellowship now. When that is completed, we may move out of NJ, though we've established some strong roots here.

46 posted on 09/13/2008 8:22:51 AM PDT by new cruelty (I don't want my daughters punished with obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Maine Mariner

“No state shall, without the consent of Congress ...enter into any agreement or compact with another state” Article I, U.S. Constitution.

It seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? And it seems to me that Congress has to act first, and only then could the State Legislatures vote once more on this nitwit idea. The recent vote is merely a non-binding expression of opinion.

Liberal and Lawless both start with the letter “L”.


47 posted on 09/13/2008 8:22:55 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tbg681
Marlton, NJ is a good place too

Moorestown as well. I've actually seen quite a few McCain yard signs there. Our daughters go to a very good school in Delran.

48 posted on 09/13/2008 8:25:27 AM PDT by new cruelty (I don't want my daughters punished with obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MDformerDem

A.K.A., The Town With Too Much Time On Its Hands.


49 posted on 09/13/2008 8:26:36 AM PDT by denydenydeny ("[Obama acts] as if the very idea of permanent truth is passe, a form of bad taste"-Shelby Steele)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: kabar

The day we have direct elections for President is the day this great Republic dies and is replaced by a dictatorship. I don’t doubt that there is a clever way by which some nefarious group of radicals believes they can get past the smell test on this, but they will have stiff challenges at many court levels and—assuming the public has not entirely lost it’s mind—we can push for a constitutional amendment to require that electors be chosen by the popular vote in each state. This is a stupid, evil idea.


50 posted on 09/13/2008 8:29:00 AM PDT by Ilya Mourometz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mrs.Z
Funny...

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

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I would get such a chuckle if my home state of Maryland was forced to cast its electoral votes for a Republican.

51 posted on 09/13/2008 8:35:28 AM PDT by blau993 (Fight Gerbil Swarming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blau993

I noticed a LOT of states polling numbers have not been updated and posted in a couple of weeks. A lot has changed in that amount of time!


52 posted on 09/13/2008 8:36:37 AM PDT by IndianPrincessOK (McCain/Palin...2 pit bulls, one with lipstick! Pigs will fly with lipstick Nov. 4th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil

Probably a moot point since nobody running for office uses the word “republic” anymore. We’re all democrats now. But The constitution GUARANTEES to the states a REPUBLICAN FORM of government, and isn’t that the basis of the electoral college?

I suppose it had been the basis for the state legislatures, originally selecting their respective federal senators, too, but we forgot what a republic is.

Now the U.S. Senate is an elitist house of lords, because they feel no restraint from their state legislatures (which are closer to the common people), which I believe should have remained in place.


53 posted on 09/13/2008 8:36:51 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil
Grossly dishonest title, as the second poster notes. Furthermore, this whole idea is unconstitutional, and I think it will be thrown out by the first court that sees it, if it ever gets that far.

Congressman Billybob

Tenth in the ten-part series, "The Owner's Manual (Part 10) -- The Remaining Amendments"

Latest article, "I, Obama"

54 posted on 09/13/2008 8:37:50 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.theacru.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
But if States discuss among themselves how to define murder, or how to treat commercial transactions (see: UCC), and then all adopt the same law, it isn't a compact. This piece of legislation does not govern any interplay between the states, and thus is not a compact.

Electors are chosen in the Manner as the Legislature of the State may direct. If every State passed a law allotting their electors based on the results of a single coin flip, it would be Constitutional. As CJ Roberts said, there are plenty of bad ideas which are Constitutional.

55 posted on 09/13/2008 8:38:58 AM PDT by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

You are right! this will not happen in this election cycle . CBS is nuts to list the headline that way !


56 posted on 09/13/2008 8:39:23 AM PDT by Renegade (You go tell my buddies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NutmegDevil
States Laws directing Electors to vote in the Electoral College in opposition to their voters appear to violate the US Constitution:

US Constitution Article II

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors...
After allowing State Voters to determine the electors by majority vote; the US Constitution does not permit the State to determine how the Electors vote for President. Amendment II says the Electors vote!
Amendment XII The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least...
These laws are only laying the groundwork for increased Constitutional crisis much worse than that fomented in the 2000 election. The Nation will be at the mercy of the most corrupt State political machines (Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Missouri, California, etc.) and the most corrupt voters. (ACORN, CPUSA, etc.)

The 2008 Democrat Primary was an exercise in similar disenfranchisement where some congressional districts (Strong Obama Districts) received extra delegates while other (Strong Clinton Districts) lost delegates. One man, one vote loses its meaning when one man receives one delegate and another man receives five. I only wonder if the Democrats plan to spring this disenfranchisement on any general election soon.

57 posted on 09/13/2008 8:39:29 AM PDT by ricks_place
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ilya Mourometz

I agree. It undermines the concept of federalism and ignores how this nation was formed. I am puzzled, however, why we should “push for a constitutional amendment to require that electors be chosen by the popular vote in each state?”


58 posted on 09/13/2008 8:42:14 AM PDT by kabar (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The Constitution forbids such a compact without the approval of Congress.

Democrats to People: We'll cast your vote

59 posted on 09/13/2008 8:44:23 AM PDT by Prospero (non est ad astra mollis e terris via)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
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.

They are incredibly stupid. This could only help the Republicans. Those states would be blue under the current system so by changing, it opens the best possibility for turning a blue state red. Talk about disenfranchisement of your citizens!

60 posted on 09/13/2008 8:48:15 AM PDT by ConservativeLawyer (Vote McCain/Palin because the others "Palin" comparison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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