Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Liberal attempts to abolish Electoral College takes back door route thru State Legislatures
Flopping Aces ^ | 05-18-11 | Mataharley

Posted on 05/18/2011 2:30:54 PM PDT by Starman417

Just as every Christmas brings the same tired argument over nativity scenes, Christmas trees and Santa Claus, every election cycle brings forth a fresh attempt to ignore the Constitutional establishment of the Electoral College, and allow the city centers to run roughshod over rural Americans. The 2012 election is no different, but it does bring a fresh approach to the age old problem of a "popular vote" Presidential election... by having the state legislators pass a law, obligating their EC votes to the national popular vote winners.

Under this scheme, state legislatures would pass legislation that would bind them to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote—even if the candidate that got the most votes nationally did not carry that individual state. In short, this would be a de facto popular vote for President—and done without amending the Constitution.

So far, seven states and the District of Columbia (with a combined 77 electoral votes) have enacted laws that do precisely this. Should similar laws be enacted in states with an additional 193 electoral votes, de facto popular election of the President will be achieved.

The California legislature, firmly in Democratic hands, was poised to pass similar legislation this week, but with opponents raising fierce objections, the vote was delayed. In Delaware, newly elected state GOP Chairman John Sigler told us, “Liberal Democrats in the state legislature have offered HB 55, and all the Republicans are against it. Republicans here are strongly opposed because it would repeal the Electoral College by implication. And in basically writing off many states, rural areas, and people, it would lead to rule by tyranny.”

The Human Events article is a tad behind since, as of the end of April 2011, Vermont - Bernie Sanders territory - became the eighth state to enact such legislation.

This is a completely different concept than the more common winner-takes-all method used by 48 states. In this case, a state's vote is cast per their electors, but can be changed by national popular vote after the fact. Who in the world could think that a popularity contest should be a state's deciding factor? And what state legislator thinks this is appropriate representation for his/her constituents?

Various lawsuits have been mounted... pro and con... on the concept of EC vs it's reflection of a popular vote. In 2008, Washington DC Green Party member, Asa Gordon, mounted a legal challenge, which met the same fate as many legal arguments for more lofty causes... dismissed for lack of standing. Gordon's lawsuit, targeting then Veep, Dick Cheney, was in fear of Cheney's power, presiding over the Senate, and how his power would affect certification of the 2008 election results.

Gordon's lawsuit is the favored legal template for progressives, seeking to reform the EC into a popular vote movement. Apparently, when the cause is near and dear to a progressive's heart, they see a "lack of standing" - or a non ruling on the merits - as a bonus. Other cases with dismissals for the same standing reason, and with less popular causes, have not enjoyed the dismissal's elevation in stature.

(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: constitution; election; electoral; electoralcollege; mobrule; nationalpopularvote

1 posted on 05/18/2011 2:31:04 PM PDT by Starman417
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Since the constitution does not specify the manner in which state electors are chosen (other than precluding chosing Senators and Representatives) this appears to be entirely constitutional. It is pretty hard to believe small states would go along with it. Nor do I like it.


2 posted on 05/18/2011 2:38:48 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

It’s simple...

If this comes to pass, then Red States and flyover country will get together and seceed...

What’s the point of having 9 or 10 (blue) states picking the president EVERY election?


3 posted on 05/18/2011 2:38:51 PM PDT by bfh333 ("Hope"... "Change"... You better HOPE you have some CHANGE after the next 4 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
Liberal attempts to abolish Electoral College takes back door route thru State Legislatures

I have used the term 'Mob Rule' on several occasions, and this is what I'm talking about.

Grant amnesty for illegals, abolish the Electoral College, and we will have a Leftist dynasty.

4 posted on 05/18/2011 2:39:48 PM PDT by He Rides A White Horse ((unite))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bfh333

They can have the east and west coasts, just leave us the Texas Coast!


5 posted on 05/18/2011 2:45:18 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Let the blue states take themselves out of the election process if they wish! The first time a democrat looses because of this idiocy they’ll all change their laws back so fast the ink will burn!


6 posted on 05/18/2011 2:49:16 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bfh333

If this comes to pass, then Red States and flyover country will get together and seceed...

No they won’t. Everyone acts like that is the easiest thing to do. The process would be grueling and not one state will do so.


7 posted on 05/18/2011 2:56:58 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
8 posted on 05/18/2011 2:57:49 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

I assume this is a result of the Soros program to elect “progressive” Secs of State.


9 posted on 05/18/2011 3:02:55 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Letting the States decide - I’d call that the front door.


10 posted on 05/18/2011 3:05:08 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
The Constitution forbids compacts between states. The question will be whether this is a compact or not.

-PJ

11 posted on 05/18/2011 3:12:27 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Everyone's Irish on St. Patrick's Day, Mexican on Cinco de Mayo, and American on Election Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Not quite...maybe....

All interstate compacts that impact on federal supremacy have to be approved by a vote of Congress. This MIGHT fall under under a clause in the Constitution (see below). It wouldn’t pass the current Congress if that is the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL

“Supporters of the compact believe the compact would be valid without congressional approval, but some critics maintain that the congressional approval is necessary before the it can go into effect. According to Every Vote Equal, although Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution requires that interstate compacts receive the consent of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), and several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except where a compact encroaches on federal supremacy.

Every Vote Equal argues that the compact could never encroach upon federal power since the Constitution explicitly gives the power of casting electoral votes to the states, not the federal government. Derek Muller, an opponent of the compact, argues that the NPVIC would nonetheless affect the federal system in such a way that it requires Congressional approval.[28] Regardless, supporters of the NPVIC plan to seek congressional approval if the compact is approved by a sufficient number of states.”


12 posted on 05/18/2011 3:14:26 PM PDT by SonofReagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

and, let’s not forget....

Soros’ Secretary of State Project!!

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/04/soros-eyes-secretaries/print


13 posted on 05/18/2011 3:24:51 PM PDT by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; Starman417
...bind them to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote—even if the candidate that got the most votes nationally did not carry that individual state.

Three times Democrats have lost the presidency but carried the "popular vote" and the very first time it advantages Republicans, they'll throw a fit and scuttle this idea.

Heads will explode if CA, or some other "blue" state, is forced to abandon their voter's choice of a Democrat and award all electoral votes to the Republican.

14 posted on 05/18/2011 3:28:04 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Obama will be president until 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
The Constitution forbids compacts between states. The question will be whether this is a compact or not.

Since this whole risky election scheme depends entirely on the actions of other people in other states, then I would absolutely say that yes this is a compact.

Just my $0.02.

15 posted on 05/18/2011 3:40:45 PM PDT by DarthFuzball ("Life is full of little surprises." - Pandora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll
That's absolutely true, unfortunately, the odds are not in favor of a Republican ever getting the popular vote and not the electoral one.

As Democrats consolidate power in the cities with union thugs organizing GOTV and undocumented voters they'll be able to create larger and larger "popular vote" majorities.

It will be "mob rule."

16 posted on 05/18/2011 3:42:00 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Obama will be president until 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
The conditions which would make the rule binding only if enough other states have a similar binding rule are stupid. In the only situations where they'd have an effect, that effect would be to render elections undecidable.

I would suggest, though, that the remedy for all this nonsense would be for some states to delay the release of the individual vote tallies for the top two candidates until January 31, or until the runner-up waives the delay. Prior to that, the states should identify the top two candidates and their ranking, along with their combined vote total, along with the ranks and individual vote totals for the other candidates.

So if outside the state of Springfield, USA, Bob is behind by 1,000,000 votes, but he may have won Springfield by 2,000,000 votes, Bob wouldn't be able to confirm his victory unless or until Springfield reveals his winning margin. If Bob's opponent Joe decides that he'll concede the state of Springfield to Bob, then Bob would have no standing to demand that Springfield reveal Bob's winning margin. It will have declared Bob the winner, which would be its only duty. If Joe thought he might have won Springfield, he could contest the election there, revealing the margin, but if his electoral vote count elsewhere would give him the victory (even losing Springfield) he could simply have Springfield keep the numbers secret. Voila--the other states' efforts to use the popular vote would be rendered ineffective.

17 posted on 05/18/2011 4:23:43 PM PDT by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

So, if I read this right, if a Republican wins the popular vote, even it’s by only one vote, then the State of California, if they pass this law, would have to give their electoral votes to the Republican. How does that hurt us?


18 posted on 05/18/2011 4:26:36 PM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: He Rides A White Horse
"Grant amnesty for illegals, abolish the Electoral College, and we will have a Leftist dynasty."

And then we'll Civil War II. It seems to me that the continual Leftist/Democrat Party attacks on constitutional government and the quickening disintegration of American society is leading our nation to this outcome.

19 posted on 05/18/2011 4:30:39 PM PDT by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: StormEye
And then we'll Civil War II.

It will be a short war. I wonder where libs think the food for their cities will come from? I'd give it about a week.

20 posted on 05/18/2011 4:47:25 PM PDT by 6SJ7 (atlasShruggedInd = TRUE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: murron

CA can change the law back.


21 posted on 05/18/2011 4:53:43 PM PDT by heiss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

If the Electoral College is ever abolished, then about four states will determine who will be president: California, Florida, Texas, and New York. Can you see a Republican ever being elected president again? I don’t.


22 posted on 05/18/2011 5:24:59 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StormEye
And then we'll Civil War II. It seems to me that the continual Leftist/Democrat Party attacks on constitutional government and the quickening disintegration of American society is leading our nation to this outcome.

I believe that America will continue its polarization. I fear that the worst is yet to come.

23 posted on 05/18/2011 6:01:44 PM PDT by He Rides A White Horse ((unite))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SonofReagan

Interesting point but I do not believe this would come into the realm of federal supremacy like the compacts which are forbidden under the constitution. This is murky stuff for me here but I don’t see how this is different than any of the dozens of other organizations formed by the states. It would not interfere with federal authority in any way.

Nor would it be necessary for any states to carry this effort. Private organizations could do the job as effectively and would have not constitutional prohibitions standing in their way. And, of course, the states could do it one by one.


24 posted on 05/18/2011 9:28:36 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson