Posted on 01/12/2009 12:00:00 PM PST by thatjoeguy
S.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Excerpt: "S.J. Res. 4"
(Excerpt) Read more at govtrack.us ...
Conservatism wouldn't die. Instead, the USA would break up, and leave conservatism precious little to conserve.
I don't quite get it? Two electors on a statewide basis? What's that actually mean? And how does that effect the one elector selected per congressional district?
The Communization of America continues under total Socialist Demokratik Politburo dictatorship.
This is nothing more than their quest for total dictatorial power over the Proletariat.
Welcome to the Union of Socialist States of America, formerly the land of the free.
Never mind. I just went and read up on it. I like that idea! It would definitely take care of the Philly issue.
Not completely. The Philly fraud machine could still stealthe two electors awarded for the entire state, but that is a major improvement over stealing all 21. The 6 or so from the Philly area would be won fairly anyway.
And please add Cannot Use Park Bench as Valid Address :)
and
All Election Polls must have the same # of party representatives manning the station
Someone in the Senate needs to remind Nelson that the U.S.A. is a Republic, not a Democracy.
Thirteen States against will be enough to kill this, and I’m sure there’ll be more than that.
“Not a prayer!”
Really? I believe they said that about both William Jefferson Clinton becoming President. Same about Obama, regardless of his not being a citizen.
Any idiot that would vote for this needs to be run out of office.
A number of moron states have recently enacted legislation that gives their electoral votes to whoever is ahead popular vote for the whole country. This effectively disenfranchises all the citizens of those states.
Doesn’t or hasn’t this legislation been introduced for the previous few Congresses?.... Nothing has happenend and I see no reason that it would become law since an amendment would require ratification by the states. The smaller states aren’t going to give up their power to influence the choice of President/VP to the major population centers.
Wrong. Oba Mao actually opened an office and campaigned hard in Nebraska for the one electoral vote in play (Omaha). McCain also thought he had a shot at Maine until the economy went kerplop, forcing his campaign to move to more competitive states.
Actually a term limit amendment was introduced today as well but we all know where that one is going to go.
JB
It would take 3/4 of the states to ratify such an Amendment to the Constitution, and I don’t think it could be done with this kind of an Amendment...
Oh..., one more thing..., here too. If you ever see a Constitutional Amendment is going to go through that you don’t approve of and don’t like — then *always* make sure it has a “time limit” attached to the Amendment, so that if it doesn’t get approved in (let’s say) 7 years, then it dies. Usually Congress does that, but it hasn’t done it on some in the past.
In fact, one Amendment got passed after two hundred years passed by... hoo-boy!
Exactly. It takes thirteen states to kill an amendment, surely the smallest fifteen will be happy to do just that.
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.