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

Flopping Aces ^ | 05-18-11 | Mataharley

[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.

[heiss]

CA can change the law back.

[OldPossum]

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.

[He Rides A White Horse]

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.

[arrogantsob]

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.