Posted on 01/29/2007 7:40:26 AM PST by seetheman
You and I see this issue in the same light....it's the secession-starter, for sure, and it's coming to a confrontation for us in flyover country very soon, if this socilaist effort continues.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the nation is oblivious to the boiling of the frog that has been going on since FDR (and even before).
If Oregon is for it, you can bet it's as far left as it can get.
>he's 70 or so, I believe.<
Ah, 70. The beginning of wisdom. I remember it well. :o)
So Oregon wants to make itself meaningless....
decides how the Electors are selected.
But it doess't say how the legislatures can dictate how the electors shall vote!
Dear Congressman Billybob,
"It is flatly unconstitutional for any state to "give away" its power to choose Presidential Electors to any out-of-state source of any kind."
Why? The Constitution appears to give to the legislature the power to determine the method by which to choose the state's electors.
I think that it's possible that the interstate compact clause is more likely to get in the way (although I've seen good arguments why it doesn't).
I'm interested in an explication of your assertion that it would be flatly unconstitutional.
Thanks,
sitetest
"Myself, I see some red states then testing whether secession IS Constitutional..."
Nice to ponder but there isn't any way any of the red states will seriously contemplate it (except Texas, they are just that fanatical...;-) Nobody has the guts to do it. Not in our nature anymore.
You said -- "Thank goodness. This will not happen."
But, the *very same thing* can be accomplished without changing the Constitution. And that's what is going on in various states. So, the Constitution remains the same -- but -- it's of no relevance when every state apportions the Electoral Votes according to the popular vote. That's where the battleground is now -- at the state level -- because it's easy to do an "end run" aournd the Constitution (and nobody can do anything about it -- i.e., it's *not* Unconstiutional for the state).
Regards,
Star Traveler
The article said -- "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."
They're idiots. I guess they want to make Oregon non-relevant, in terms of a Presidential candidate coming to campaign.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Let me say one more thing about this "move" -- which is "on" in many other states. It's a Democrat maneuver to *minimize* the influence of smaller population areas and concentrate on big population areas.
What Democrats would do, then, is *ignore* all the rural and outlying areas and *only* concentrate on *major population areas* -- i.e., the big cities. And that's where they seem to have a bunch of strength anyway.
The Republicans have to scrape up all the Electoral votes from all the lower population areas (in addition to a few "big" wins, too), in order to score an Electoral College win. The Democrats, on the other hand, will simply pour *heavy money* into highly concentrated liberal areas (the big cities) and *bypass* rural and "fly-over" America.
Thus, they can campaign in just a small handful of cities and "walk all over" the rest of America. That's why the Electoral College was put in -- in the first place -- to prevent big population areas from "walking all over" the smaller population areas and trampling on the rights of these minorities.
Regards,
Star Traveler
The libs keep getting traction from the 2000 'stolen election'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million;
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000
States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."
No it doesn't, yet somehow, mysteriously, the electors today vote according to each state's policy, which, except for a couple of states, is winner take all.
You said -- "It will guarantee that non-I5 Oregon will have no representation at the federal level."
And isn't that the goal of the Democrats? I think so...
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said -- "So Oregon wants to make itself meaningless...."
No, *rather* -- the Democrats want to make the Republicans meaningless (across the country) and ignore "fly-over America" and all the smaller population and rural areas.
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. -- It's part of a "bigger picture" and not related to Oregon...
If I read this right, it means there is no need for oregonians to vote. They won't be counted.
This means it is unconstitutional, on many levels.
You said -- "Guess where politicians would direct thier efforts if population was all that counted?"
Your population and political map illustrates exactly what I was talking about in Post #71. That's exactly what they would do. That's why the Electoral College system was put in there -- in the first place -- to reassure the original states, back then, that they would have just as good "representation" as the higher population areas. There were fears of that very thing, back then, in our history.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Nothing ever did. The parties put up a slate of electors. Instead of the state's vote determining which parties electors are sent to the EC, Oregon is saying the national popular vote will decide. Once an elector gets there, it is their personal choice who to vote for.
IIRC, one elector voted for Edwards for President.
Not strictly true. Their vote would still be counted toward the "popular" vote. The votes just wouldn't count as much, particularly when counted against the vote fraud this kind of law will likely foster.
There goal sure the heck isn't the representation of their state.
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.