Skip to comments.States That Changed Electoral College Rules?
Posted on 09/05/2012 5:26:58 AM PDT by Repulican Donkey
What States Changed Electoral College Voting Rules
A few states made pacts that said they’d change their rules (split votes, etc.) if other states did, to award based on the NATIONAL popular vote. To my knowlege, no state unilaterally changed its electoral vote rules. IIRC, they’re still winner take all for each state’s poopular vote.
then look for them to steal the election.
then look for them to steal the election.not so strange how only democrats are against honest elections and voter ID..most of holders time is spent trying to rig the2012 election.
What will the deep blue states who have signed on to the concept of ignoring their voters going to do when the national electorate elect the wrong, non-dimocratic, person while their state elects the correct person?
Frankly, I think there would be a massive lawsuit the first time electors were required to vote contrary to the popular vote in a state, especially if it were to occur in one that has to satisfy the pre-clearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act.
Keep in mind that the rules don't require the electors to change their votes until enough states have passed a similar law to comprise a majority of electoral votes (270 of 538).
Here's the website:
So far, they have a "commitment" for 132 electoral votes, from 8 states and DC: VT, MD, WA, IL, NJ, MA, CA, HI.
“Looks like there are 9 states that have signed up for this, all solid democrat (of course).”
Not that it can be legally challenged right now, because it lacks the state to bring it into effect, but the national popular vote violates the Compact Clause of the Constitution that bars states from entering into compacts or treaties with one another.
Assuming Romney wins and gets to replace a liberal judge or two, expect the Supreme Court to strike it down if 270 EV worth of states ratify this. (I would have said expect the Supreme Court to strike it down, since it is so obviously unconstitutional but for John Roberts’s weird Obamacare decision.)
Here in Michigan, now former GOP chair, Saul Anuzis got his butt chewed for pimping the national popular vote using official MI GOP stationary making it seem that the party was supporting it.
More recently he’s been promoting a green jobs ballot initiative that wildly inflates the numbers of green jobs that would be created.
That was my first thought. Hilarity would ensue; it would absolutely make national headlines.
Maine and Nebraska both distribute one electoral vote per Congressional district and two at-large, but they've done it for a while and not as part of the current national popular vote movement. In fact that method moves in the opposite direction so that one city's ballot box stuffing can only affect three EVs instead of the whole state's number or even the whole nation in a national popular vote.
If the constitution still mattered, Article I, Section 10 would prohibit this:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Based on all but the 2010 vote, your version of “popular” may well be the most accurate usage.
Maine and Nebraska.
This district level electoral voting is what I would like to see deployed nation wide. The two at large would be awarded to the individual who received a majority of the popular vote and the individual who received the majority of the districts. Should either of the two at large electoral vote conditions not be met, then the Gov would appoint for that electoral vote.
It would be allowed if Congress consents. If they ever get to that point, watch out.
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.