Posted on 01/29/2007 7:40:26 AM PST by seetheman
Section 1. Time of appointing electors
The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.
"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...":
A state could award elector based on the winner of the World Series and it's perfectly legal.
One week after the election? I never understand this legalese for calendar dates.
Section 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day
Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
"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."
HUH!!!??
Message to the voters, "We're going to take away your vote for the common good. We'll vote for the one OTHER states think best."
What happens if census reapportionment puts theses states back in the minority? Does the agreement then end?
-PJ
This is supported by those who are frequently decrying the disenfranchisement of minority voters. This is the ultimate in disenfranchisement.
But it is in keeping with Leftist ideology: where we see inequalities, we take everything away from everyone and reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator (poverty and enslavement), including the right to vote.
I hope the citizens of Oregon realize that this is an effort by their lawmakers to strip them of the right to have a say in Presidential elections.
Reforming the electoral college is really simple. Apply the Nebraska formula: One of each states' electoral votes are awarded to the winner of each congressional district and the remaining two are awarded 'at-large' to the winner of the overall state vote. Had that applied to the 2000 vote, Bush would have won with a larger margin in the electoral college and all the hue and cry about Florida would have been moot. In 2004 he would have also won with a large margin. Of course, Democrats are not about to do something that benefits Republicans, but it is the fairest way of keeping the intent of the founders. In my home state (CA) all of its electoral votes went for Gore and Kerry even though Bush carried a sizeable number of the congressional districts. Under the Nebraska system Presidental candidates would spend time and effort on states and areas currently ignored, ie CA for Republicans, Texas for Democrats. No longer would states be ceded to the other side and the campaign would again take on a national character, rather than the regional one is has become.
I hope your farm wasn't bet on the CFR decision or the Kelo decision.
That nasty old Constitution just gets in the way of radicalized Liberalism, doncha' know...
Democrat Party Fascism and mob rule is just so fashionable, isn't it?
If the Democrats get away with this bill, it will hasten the break up of the United States of America because the people in flyover country won't stand for this.
If you look at who is supporting this, there are members of both parties pushing it. They realize that they cannot get rid of the electoral college through the constitutional process, therefore the end run with state compacts. The "seductive" argument is that it makes every vote equal nationally for the President, i.e., we will never have someone elected President who doesn't win the popular vote. Of course, it completely ignores the basis of our Republic and the concept of federalism.
I agree that the Dems stand the most to benefit from such a scheme, especially given their corrupt, big city political machines that can manufacture votes.
The amount of desperation shown in this whole mess...makes one laugh. If you have to rig up the election and the electoral votes...why bother voting? That should be the final concept to hit Oregon voters...if the national votes dictate the way of your electoral votes...then you might as well stay home. Surely some people are left up there to understand the process of democracy and how this method works. After you study the electoral college for a couple of days...you come to realize the value of it and why we don't want big states determining the election process of the republic.
I agree with your method. The State Sweepstakes method of assigning Electors is flawed, and the idea of extending that sweepstakes nationwide just compunds the problem.
Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer will retire if Hillary is the next POTUS. With a slight possibility for Scalia to step down, he's 70 or so, I believe.
If Ginsburg makes it that long.
Likewise, where States want to ignore the will of their populace in a National election, they can make the law such that the electors are non-committed to the outcome of even that State's popular vote winner, and proceed to split up the electoral votes as a reflection of its popular vote outcome, which assures the Democrats will get electoral votes in every State (equal to about 40% or more of the total state vote) and then let Kalifornia and New York decide in the Socialist's favor EVERY election.
WHAT A PLAN!
Myself, I see some red states then testing whether secession IS Constitutional, as the United States becomes multiple independent 3rd world countries (formerly States), to defend against the over-running of the intent of the Founders in creating this country.
Or vote for the MVP as POTUS, which is how Hollywood/Kalifornia do now.
Constitutional, eh? Well, I'm SURE that's what the Founders would be pleased.
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.