Skip to comments.Activists celebrate blows to Electoral College
Posted on 04/07/2009 8:21:38 AM PDT by GoldStandard
Activists seeking to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote to elect the president boast that their movement is almost one-fifth the way to its goal.
Four states Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey which represent 50 of the 270 electoral votes needed to declare a presidential election winner, have committed to an agreement whereby they would grant their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, a move that if adopted by enough states would reduce the Electoral College to irrelevancy.
With most of the nation's states considering similar bills pending in their respective legislatures, activists are looking to 2016 as a possible death date for the Electoral College.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Keep telling yourself that.
2016 as a possible death date for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
More reasons to secede.
Wouldn’t it require a constitutional Amendment?
I’m so glad I left the People’s Republic of Maryland...
I hope Missouri doesn’t endorse this nonsense!
Would it not take a change to the Constitution to accomplish this? I had a prof one time that said “Don’t ever let the Constitution be changed. Once it is open for change, more things will be changed and it will not be for the good of the people. The Constitution is fine the way it is.”
one of our superlib legislators, retired polysci prof of course, is proposing this too in Nebraska
Imagine the fun if popular vote goes Republican but these states vote Democratic and are forced to send Republican electors, especially if this tips the election. I’m sure a loophole would be found.
Unless one wishes Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Phoenix etc. to elect the President, we should be grateful that the SCOTUS would find this invalid.
And the hits keep on coming. I’m so glad I got to live in a FREE AMERICA. Remember to write down your memories so you can tell your Grandchildren what America was like when it was great.
Also, these are blue states any way.
And so goes quiet middle America...if we’re even still allowed to vote by that time.
So the majority of MD could vote for one candidate but the state’s electorial votes could go to another? Doesn’t make any sense...and typical of a liberal idiot.
November 5, 2008 to be precise
This will make fly-over country even more fly over.....
If you thought they ignored the people living in rural areas now, just wait till this passes.
I guess states rights don’t mean a hill of beans to these fools.
Seems like the same thing. Any argument that can be made for this can also be made for states compelling the electors to vote republican regardless of how the voting in the state went on election night.
This whole movement is bogus. The second a Republican wins in this manner (which might have happened in 2004 if Kerry had won Ohio since Bush won by several million votes) the liberals will sue to invalidate the whole process. There is no way they would want the “blue” states like California voting for a Republican. I wish a reporter duing their job would suggest just such a scenario to the supporters. My bet is that person would turn green and throw up. And it doesn’t matter how many documents they swear that they won’t sue. Liberals lie all the time.
This sounds totally UN-democratic. If a large majority in one state votes for one candidate but the electoral votes go to the other candidate, does this make any sense??
The folks pushing this seem to think it will help the Dems but if it has the opposite effect, they will be howling. If a system like this had been in place in 2004 their favorite villains, Bush and Cheney, probably would have gotten a huge majority in the electoral college.
What about the part of the Constitution that says that electors may be chosen in a manner directed by the State legislatures?
I would like to see where an electoral vote goes to whoever wins that particular congressional district, with the overall winner of the State getting the remaining two electoral votes.
Yeah, tell your state’s residents, your constituents, that even though they voted overwhelmingly for one candidate, the state will formally vote for an opponent.
Sure that will go over well.
Chipping away little by little so people like you can think that it's really not THAAAT bad.
“Committed into an agreement”......”NO STATE SHALL ENTER INTO A TREATY, ALLIANCE OR CONFEDERATION”.
“Committed into an agreement”......”NO STATE SHALL ENTER INTO A TREATY, ALLIANCE OR CONFEDERATION”.
Good point. Remeber when in 2000 all the liberals were slobbering over the prospect of some electorals casting their votes for Gore? Nothing has ever forced an electoral representitive to cast their vote even for those their state has chosen. Liberals/democrats would love to win under these conditions but will totally sue to keep from losing under the same scenario.
This works only one way. If the Democrats wins the popular vote in the U.S., those states with this rule instruct their electors to vote for the Democrat. If the Republican wins the poplar vote in the U.S., those states with this rule instruct their electors to vote for the Democrat (if he/she has the most popular vote in that state).
Well, look on the bright side. If these idiots actually succeed in this, people will have to travel to California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania and a couple of other states if they want to see candidates for president. They won’t have to waste their time or money in dinky states like Maryland, Hawaii, Rhode Island, etc., eyc.
it'll depend on the court makeup
They ain’t “chipping” away at anything yet. They’ve gotta get to 270 to implement this and they’re not even close. It’s all or nothing.
right, these liberal voters will disenfranchize themselves.
Such a bill was introduced in Arkansas this session.. haven’t heard the final determination of it, but think it finally died... I pray.
14th Amendment, equal protection clause. Depends on who is on the SCOTUS, though.
This is what the Constitution says regarding the selection of Electors by the States.
"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."
Sounds like the States can do what they want regarding the appointment of the Electors.
Four states Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey which represent 50 of the 270 electoral votes needed to declare a presidential election winner, have committed to an agreement whereby they would grant their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote
What do you call this?
Texas will be a Democratic State by 2020.
If the result is to be chosen by popular vote, then a recount would take forever. A fraud in Maine would be of intense interest to California. Boxes of absentee ballots kept in storage to be thrown into the count at a critical moment. Florida 2000 times fifty!
“but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
What is an office of Profit? Is that a Board member to a company?
Doncha know the Constitution is just a piece of paper now? I'm surprised BO didn't present it as a gift to Queen Elizabeth. Heck, he doesn't need it anyway.
Obama was talking about his administration being the only thing protecting corporations from pitchforks....we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
A quick look at Wikipedia indicates that there is not a dispositive case on the issue. Here's part of what is said there:
Main article: Faithless elector
A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than whom they have pledged to elect, or who refuses to vote for any candidate. There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states. In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While many states may only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact, some such as Michigan specify that his or her vote shall be cancelled.
As electoral slates are typically chosen by the political party or the party's presidential nominee, electors usually have high loyalty to the party and its candidate: a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than criminal charges.
Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date. For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do. This was done as an act of protest against Washington, D.C.'s lack of Congressional voting representation. That elector's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes. "
What the state legislatures are doing here is actually disenfranchising voters of their own state in favor of voters in another state will have established the majority for a candidate. That is significant because a situation as occurred in 2000 might well occur again in which the minority candidate wins the most electoral votes. A situation that this reform is designed to prevent. But do not the voters of this state who voted for the minority candidate have a right to have him elected if their own electoral votes would have put them over the top in the College?
If they do not, why bother conducting an election in that state? The Secretary of State for such a state in question simply waits until 49 other states have established the majority candidate and certifies the election for that candidate within the subject state. This argument holds until enough states adopt this rule which make it impossible to determine a majority.
Finally, there is the argument that the Constitution calls for electors not legislatures themselves directly to determine the winner in the state. This proposed reform entirely goes away with the function of an elector. Presumably they had a function or they would not have been inserted by the framers into the process. The argument is that the legislatures cannot take away that function-whatever it is.
I think people better take a long hard look at the map from the Nat pop vote site if they think they’re safe.
That's correct, so in that respect this effort to effectively void the Electoral College without a Constitutional Amendment could work and still be constitutional. It's a clever plan.
However, it runs into a problem with Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State ...". So there's a strong argument (but not bullet-proof, given the way that the courts give flexibility to the Constitution) that Congress would have to approve a formal agreement among the states. That would only require a majority of both houses of Congress, but Senators from the smaller states would likely oppose it so it wouldn't be easy passing such consent.
Of course this Constitutional issue could be avoided if states made no formal agreement among themselves, but merely promised to cast their Electoral votes for the popular vote winner (when other states totalling 270 Electoral votes had made similar promises). The problem with that is that any state could easily renege on such a promise if it didn't like the outcome.
Imagine the ENTIRE UNITED STATES ruled by voter in NEW JERSEY, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, MARYLAND, and........ Perhaps California, New York, New York and FLORIDA????
THAT would be the result of the elimination of the Electorall College - government by corrupt, Democrat ridden Urban enclaves.
Its all over. George Bush dug the hole and Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are conducting the Funeral. The burial will come when this is accomplished.
If voting worked the government wouldn’t let us do it see president obama election ACORN snickers.
If I recall correctly, the Constitution leaves it up the to states to determine how the electors are apportioned. For example, MA is a winner take all state, yet Maine assigned electors by congressional district.
These people voting for this type of assignment of electors are simply handing the presidency over to New York and California.
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.