Posted on 06/03/2010 1:02:32 PM PDT by the OlLine Rebel
I heard something on the talk-radio news today, but could not hear it completely. It sounded as if someone in Congress is sending up a bill to eliminate the Electoral College process for presidential elections? I cannot find this anywhere yet. Does anyone know of this or similar story?
I got really angry when I thought I heard they want to delete it and really are trying.
National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences. This bill does not eliminate the electoral college. It does not overlook any state, it does not disenfranchise voters. It does not ignore votes. It gives a voice to the minority party in those states where elections are seen as a foregone conclusion.
It adds up votes of all voters and the candidate with the most popular votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
You’re doing it again. I’ve already read your website talking points.
Exactly - it doesn’t OFFICIALLY eliminate the electoral college. It just castrates it and makes it moot.
the EC has worked for 200 years, no need to change it.
is Gore still pissed or something??? :)
In the EC system, every state counts...a few small states EV’s can add up and be crucial in a tight race.
In a popular vote system, it will simply become a race for the high population centers (New England, Great Lakes, East Coast, Texas, California) While the small states get the shaft (mostly blue states).
The income tax is a lot of bad things, but unconstitutional is not one of them.
The EC is a Constitutional issue. States can not simply circumvent via compact or back room deals. You can’t claim the 10th amendment in an attempt to circument the Constitution. The States must respect Constitutional laws and Federal powers.
Simply pass an amendment changing the EC....that will do the trick.
I smell a court fight.
Oh really? Tell me how.
Frankly I don’t care what the SC at the time thinks. The Founders did not intend for such travesty, because it smacks of “equalizing” and punishing people for producing.
First off, what the Founders thought is irrelevant, because the Constitution was amended in 1913 by the 16th Amendment. Second, as a matter of history, several of the states had income taxes as early as the 1780s, and James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," proposed a federal income tax to pay for the War of 1812 (the war ended before Congress voted on that proposal).
I don’t think what they thought is irrelevent at all! That is the thinking of the “Living Document” fools. They want to interpret it any way they wish and disregard the context in which it was written. They made sure they included many things and excluded others for a reason.
States having IT is another matter for debate. Federal is different - and IIRC what you state was supposed to be “temporary” (as if that would really happen, but one never knows), as I believe was also proposed/instituted several times over the decades.
The Constitution was amended in 1913-- that's why the Founders' thoughts on this topic are irrelevant. The "living document fools" are the ones who want to change the Constitution without amending it.
I know your premise. Sorry, but just because an amendment managed to pass, and some SC members thought it was OK (much as so many today think various communist policies are fine & dandy), doesn’t make it truly “constitutional” in the spirit of the document.
So slavery is still legal? And John McCain is the Vice president?
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.