Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oregon, other states, consider end run around Electoral College
The News Review & AP ^ | January 29, 2007 | julia silverman

Posted on 01/29/2007 7:40:26 AM PST by seetheman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-119 next last
I live in Oregon and had no idea our newly Democratic controlled legislature was considering this legislation. How this would benefit Oregon in anyway is beyond me. Its also scary that it is being brought before 45 other legislatures across the country (probably mostly also newly Democratic).
1 posted on 01/29/2007 7:40:28 AM PST by seetheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: seetheman

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...


2 posted on 01/29/2007 7:43:13 AM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seetheman

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.


3 posted on 01/29/2007 7:45:07 AM PST by NapkinUser (http://www.teamtancredo.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seetheman
" award the state's seven electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally"

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.

4 posted on 01/29/2007 7:47:45 AM PST by traditional1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
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.

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.

zEvery Vote Equal

5 posted on 01/29/2007 7:52:03 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: seetheman

OMG. That's insane.


6 posted on 01/29/2007 7:53:30 AM PST by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seetheman
Changing that system would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution

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.

7 posted on 01/29/2007 7:54:41 AM PST by Michael.SF. (It's time our lawmakers paid more attention to their responsibilities, and less to their privileges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seetheman
It is flatly unconstitutional for any state to "give away" its power to chose Presidential Electors to any out-of-state source of any kind. If the legislatures of a majority of states are dumb enough to go for this gimmick, the Supreme Court will slap it down.

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"

8 posted on 01/29/2007 7:55:41 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (Please get involved: www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seetheman
Voter participation, he said, which is traditionally higher in closely contested states, could also increase all over the country.

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.

9 posted on 01/29/2007 7:57:17 AM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
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.

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?

10 posted on 01/29/2007 8:00:58 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
I thought Colorado voted on this back in 2004? I guess their legislature doesn't care.

This was soundly defeated in Colorado...

11 posted on 01/29/2007 8:04:34 AM PST by NorCoGOP (Visit my blog! http://shawnsblogroom.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: seetheman
" . . . 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."

In other words, they are proposing to disenfranchise the voters of Oregon, making their vote contingent upon the outcome of the national popular vote. I certainly hope the voters in Oregon won't stand for this outrage. The Constitution does not specifically say how a state's electoral college representatives must vote, and there are instances of specific rogue electors voting against the state's popular vote, but this proposal will institutionalize that rogue element. The Dems must think that more than half the time they'll win the national popular vote, so they can steal the Oregon votes no matter what.
12 posted on 01/29/2007 8:05:34 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seetheman
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.

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.

13 posted on 01/29/2007 8:06:55 AM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seetheman

Electoral College / Constitution bump.........


14 posted on 01/29/2007 8:08:46 AM PST by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
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.

Boy, what a lie. Bush won that state by much more.

This is just unconstitutional, but since when did liberals care abouts anyones rights.

15 posted on 01/29/2007 8:09:20 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: seetheman
Hm. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3:

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?

16 posted on 01/29/2007 8:09:28 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa; seetheman

Please check my previous post. I do believe this would violate the Constitution.


17 posted on 01/29/2007 8:10:30 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
Like it or not, it is in no way unconstitutional.
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.


18 posted on 01/29/2007 8:12:00 AM PST by Tatze (I'm in a state of taglinelessness!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

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.


19 posted on 01/29/2007 8:13:05 AM PST by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: seetheman
Loss of an Independent Electoral College will chance this Republic into a mobocracy. Another bad side effect is to give the Supremes even more power, if that is possible.
20 posted on 01/29/2007 8:13:32 AM PST by ASOC (The phrase "What if" or "If only" are for children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-119 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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