Pick this lock lying sack of crap.
Dictator, Socialist and Liar in Chief
Posted on 08/01/2010 3:37:51 AM PDT by geraldmcg
Is a Grand Scheme for One-Party Domination Unfolding?
When a political party passes legislation against the pronounced majority of the people, it reeks of an ulterior motive far from that of serving the public.
This, in turn, brings critics such as political commentator and former Colorado Congressman, Bob Beauprez (R), to a different plane of examination—and fuels a suspicion that this party is, above all else, concerned with maintaining power.
Just weeks after Obama took office, the White House commandeered the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department—picking the lock to the door of voter districts. A year later came the wildly offensive ramrod of the massive entitlement healthcare program, wired to create millions of government dependents. Now, the White House is suing Arizona, while clamoring for an amnesty-laden immigration reform bill that would instantly transform millions of illegal immigrants into a huge voter block of citizens.
But all of these moves, as outrageous as they are, observes Beauprez, may pale in comparison to a more subtle development underway in several states across the union.
This week, it was reported in the Boston Globe that Massachusetts is poised to become the 6th state to dump our democracy’s historic Electoral College system—a scheme that Beauprez’s home state tried executing not too long ago and, to his relief, failed.
Under this plan, during a Presidential election, a state would award all of its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, rather than the candidate who won the state.
So, what’s so dangerous about that? Simple, says Beauprez. It will all but destroy our democracy by turning America into a virtual one-party system.
“The largest population centers in America tend to be overwhelmingly Democrat strongholds,” explains Beauprez. “That's pretty obvious and easy to document. This plan would let the liberal-inclined New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, etcetera, elect our President. And, knowing this, campaigns would focus almost entirely on those population centers and ignore both the people and the issues of the rest of the nation.”
The Presidential election is a federal election How does a state overturn the provisions for that election? Calling on the FR legal minds.
Should be interesting if Sarah Palin wins in 2012. Something tells me this will change faster than they changed the law on Special Elections when Teddy went toes up.
Wouldn’t you just know it. ANOTHER state trying to preempt the Federal Government.
If this passes, people in the midwest might as well stay home on election day. those state with large Populations will be ones that choose the POTUS.
The power grab will be complete, the Republic falls into history and a new communist state arises out of the ashes.This one more powerful than than ever imagined.
Just weeks after Obama took office, the White House commandeered the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department—picking the lock to the door of voter districts.
Why was this allowed?
Why was this allowed?
Why was this allowed?
The states are free to award their electoral votes as they please. That’s one more reason we need to hold secretary of state offices.
1. Obama wins the national popular vote, but loses the electoral count nationally and in Massachusetts. Massachusetts awards the electoral vote to Obama. Palin appeals but the Obama court rules in favor of Obama. It rules that the States have the power to decide their elections rules
2. Palin wins the national popular vote, but loses the electoral count, but Obama wins the electoral count in Massachusetts, and if Massachusetts followed its own law and awarded the electoral votes to Palin, she would win. Massachusetts doesn't like the result and refuses to award Palin the electoral votes. She appeals and the Obama court rules in favor of Obama, saying that Massachusetts could not change the electoral laws.
“Why was this allowed?”
The rats control everything in DC, who was going to stop it?
Here’s another legal question. Presumably, the state Congressmen have taken an oath to represent the people who elected them. If those people voted for Candidate A at the state level, but Candidate B wins the popular vote, then doesn’t this national-winner-take-all law go against the interests of the state voters? Would it not, therefore, be un-constitutional under state laws? Yes, I know all state laws are different, but the concept of representing the people of that state should be preeminent in all constitutions.
Now, as an aside, let’s say in 2012 Massachusetts votes overwhelmingly Democrat, but Governor Palin wins the popular vote...how long before all these state laws get changed? Also, if that happens, the very people who wrote the laws will then challenge them in court to hold up or reverse Palin’s victory.
Thinking about it, these laws are a win/win for the Democrats. If they win the popular vote; then no legal challenge. If they lose the popular vote; a liberal friendly judge will grant them a stay and they’ll get to delay or reverse a Republican win.
I see this lasting 1 election cycle. Especially in the next election, there is a bigger chance of a pubbie winning the national vote count - while losing in Mass.
As soon as the idiots realize they helped to elect a pubbie with their knee-jerk stupidity - because, - as always, libs miss the “law of unintended consequences” - since everything they do is based upon how they FEEL - AT THAT moment.
It will be funny to watch MA turn red by their own stupidity.
“Hoisted on their own petard”
Pick this lock lying sack of crap.
Dictator, Socialist and Liar in Chief
From looking at the Michigan bill it looks like the democrats have made sure there are loopholes to get out of the compact if it looks like a republican might win. In fact I suspect they’ve left themselves plenty of loopholes to make sure they can’t lose.
There is something definitely wrong with that graphic! I do not see 57 states! /s
“If this passes, people in the midwest might as well stay home on election day.”
Yep...stay home and continue preparations for the coming political ‘reboot’...
It’s time to take back the country.
The progressives would love to be able to ignore fly over country and just have the population centers wag the dog
.
You can sugarcoat this any way you want to, but the fact is if you live in a heavily Democrat state like Maryland and this bill kicks in you are wasting your time voting in a Presidential election.
States are free to determine their own laws for allocating their Electors. Most states are winner take all (whichever candidate wins that particular state gets all the state’s electoral votes) but Maine and Nebraska allocate their electors on a Congressional District basis.
There are 538 electors total, 1 for each seat in Congress (435) and the Senate (100) plus 3 for Wash., D.C. 270 are needed to win the election.
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.