Posted on 01/29/2007 7:40:26 AM PST by seetheman
Salem, Ore. (AP) -- Population wise, Oregon is far overshadowed by its neighbors to the north and south.
But during recent presidential election years, candidates have tended to bypass staunchly blue Califoria and Washington in favor of campaigning and advertising in the Beaver State.
That's because Oregon is considered one of those magic handfuls of swing states whose electoral votes are up for grabs, a definite second-tier electoral target after voter-rich states like Pennsylvani, Ohio or Florida.
But Oregon's status could change under a pending bill in the Legislature that would award the state's seven electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of who wins the state. Similar legislation, which is being filed in more than 45 other legislatures around the country, won approval from the members of the Colorado state Senate this past week.
The popular vote movement, coordinated by a California-based group, National Popular Vote, has been picking up steam nationally since the 2000 election came down to some hanging chads in Florida. The idea got another jolt when President Bush handily won the popular vote in 2004 - but could have been forced to yield to Massachusetts John Kerry, had 60,000 votes in Ohio swung the other way.
"I think this is very promising," said House Majority Leader Dave Hunt, D-Gladstone, a key backer of the popular vote legislation in Oregon. "Clearly, the national electoral college is antiquated. I believe that whoever wins the popular vote should win, whether that is a school board or the U. S. presidency."
Currently, it takes 270 electoral votes to be elected president. Each state has one elector for every member that it has in the U.S. House and Senate.
Changing that system would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution - politically, a difficult mountain to climb. The legislation proposed by the National Popular Vote group, though, would bypass that by getting states to agree to give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner, regardless of their own state's leanings.
Such an agreement would not take effect unless adopted by state legislatures representing a majority of electoral votes. California's Legislature passed it in 2006, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the plan. A spokeswoman for Gov. Ted Kulongoski said he'll wait to see what action the Oregon Legislature takes before making up his mind on the proposal.
Oregon is on the group's list of key states for this year's legislatures, said Barry Fadem, a co-founder of National Popular Vote, who was in Salem this past week to tout the plan.
Moving to such a system, Fadem said, means that "no presidential candidate will be able to write off any state. How many years has Utah, for example, run up a huge majority for the Republican candidate all of which is totally wasted?"
And after the elections, he said, it guarantees that issues like ocean policy in California, or hurricane preparations in Mississippi, will get as much federal attention as the future of the coal industry in Pennsylvania or ethanol subsidies in Iowa.
Voter participation, he said, which is traditionally higher in closely contested states, could also increase all over the country.
The idea has its fierce detractors, some of whom have argued that in a close national vote, chaotic recounts would be demanded in every state. Wayne Kinney, a Democratic National Committeeman who lives in Bend, said he fears that moving to such a system would mean relatively small states like Oregon would be overlooked.
"Logic tells you, you go where the votes are," he said. "Look at how they campaign here in Oregon - they do a lot more in Portland than in Burns."
Kinney's joined in his objectios by Vance Day, chair of the Republican Party in Oregon, who said he'd be uncomfortable with an interstate compact bypassing the U.S. Constitution.
"The constitution will prevail over their binding together - there will be litigation," Day, a laywer, predicted.
Legislation on the popular vote isn't the only elections-related matter lawmakers will consider during this year's session. The League of Women Voters is tracking a potential attempt to do away with the state's "double majority" rules, which require 50 percent of voters to turn out for property tax measures backed by schools and local governments.
But the debate over the popular vote is one that would resonate most beyond the state's borders, Hunt said.
"It will increase the likelihood that both presidential candidats would come to a medium-sized state like Oregon, because instead of just being in one column or the other, we would have 3.5 million people, and a lot of potential voters," Hunt said. "And anything that encourages the county of every vote I think is a good thing."
And the World Series Trophy should be awarded to the team that scores the most runs in the regular season - no need to mess with those individual games scores...
I thought Colorado voted on this back in 2004? I guess their legislature doesn't care.
They file these bills all the time, I don't know why the media insists on reporting it like it's anything unusual or new. Get back to me when one passes completely and is signed by the state's governor.
Personally I'd like to see these kinds of laws past in liberal states that like this kind of stuff, California, New York and Massachusetts. Let the liberals make it harder on themselves to win. Give them the rope.
Unconstitutional in every way. If ALL laws were purely passed as a "popularity contest", there would be NO minority rights....
This socilialist policy in its purest form, where CA plus NY, plus the Northeast and Northwest=Democrat/Socialist President will win every time.
The rest of the country becomes dis-enfranchised and their votes become over-whelmed by sheer numbers of entitlements-recievers, and lunatic leftist wacko's.
It is a viable movement that is moving forward, including in CA, MA, and NY. The idea is to circumvent the electoral college and have the vote decided by popular vote. It gives more power to the large states and urban areas.
OMG. That's insane.
Thank goodness. This will not happen.
President Bush handily won the popular vote in 2004 - but could have been forced to yield to Massachusetts John Kerry, had 60,000 votes in Ohio swung the other way.
But under this proposal then Oregon's Electoral votes would have gone to Bush. This means that if Ohio (20 EV) had gone to Kerry and Oregon (7 EV) had this law in place, then Bush would have won 275 to 264.
That is, the Court will slap it down unless Hillary Clinton sneaks into the White House and names a couple of her lawyer friends to the Court, who had their ethics surgically removed at birth.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "Announcement: I'm Not Running for President"
Probably, but voter fraud could increase dramatically.
The most partisan of the states could have the most reckless of verification and validation standards, with the unstated goal of boosting their side in the general election. Once such is the perception of opposed states, there may well be a competition to see who can cook up the most votes, becoming more and more blatant over time.
True, and it also sows the seeds of some very bad regional dissension. I think in some respects it would mirror the impetus behind the Populist movement in the late 19th century, although the conservative/liberal roles will be reversed this time.
A look at the red/blue electoral maps will show exactly how the battle lines will be drawn -- how many election cycles would it take before the red regions take umbrage to being ruled by the whims of the blue bits?
This was soundly defeated in Colorado...
It doesn't bypass the Constitution at all. Article II, Section 1 clearlys says that each state's legislature decides how the Electors are selected. Why the Oregon Legislature would want to reduce Oregon's importance in the Presidential race is beyond me, but they do have the authority to do it.
Electoral College / Constitution bump.........
Boy, what a lie. Bush won that state by much more.
This is just unconstitutional, but since when did liberals care abouts anyones rights.
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.
wouldn't this violate the above?
Please check my previous post. I do believe this would violate the Constitution.
Article. II.Section. 1.
Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Actually, this proposal is not unconstitutional in any way - the electoral votes are to be apportioned in the manner in which the legislature of the state deems appropriate - this could be a coin flip if they wanted to.
Now, having said that, I don't agree with the proposal, and the state is simply giving up its representation by doing so. The voters of the state should hold the legislature accountable for acting contrary to their best interest.
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.