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

Skip to comments.

Activists celebrate blows to Electoral College
WorldNetDaily ^ | 04/07/2009 | Drew Zahn

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii; US: Illinois; US: Maryland; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: 12thamendment; 14thamendment; 15thamendment; 17thamendment; 19thamendment; 20thamendment; 22ndamendment; 23rdamendment; 24thamendment; 25thamendment; 26thamendment; acorn; democrats; electoralcollege; fifteenthamendment; hawaii; illinois; maryland; newjersey; voterfraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last
50 out of 270 isn't that special. Plus I believe the Supreme Court would probably invalidate this anyways.
1 posted on 04/07/2009 8:21:39 AM PDT by GoldStandard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

Keep telling yourself that.


2 posted on 04/07/2009 8:23:35 AM PDT by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

2016 as a possible death date for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


3 posted on 04/07/2009 8:24:28 AM PDT by stan_sipple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

More reasons to secede.


4 posted on 04/07/2009 8:24:29 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

Wouldn’t it require a constitutional Amendment?


5 posted on 04/07/2009 8:25:03 AM PDT by zeebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

I’m so glad I left the People’s Republic of Maryland...

I hope Missouri doesn’t endorse this nonsense!


6 posted on 04/07/2009 8:25:24 AM PDT by wk4bush2004 (SARAH PALIN, 2012!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
It's pretty blatantly unconstitutional. Of course, this is the U.S. Supreme Court...they've let unconstitutional things slide before.
7 posted on 04/07/2009 8:25:42 AM PDT by GoldStandard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard
Suppose states were to pass a law compelling the electors to vote for a Republican? That would be clearly unconstitutional. But why is it any less unconstitutional to take their discretion away by compelling them to vote for the candidate with the plurality?


8 posted on 04/07/2009 8:26:24 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

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.”


9 posted on 04/07/2009 8:26:30 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

one of our superlib legislators, retired polysci prof of course, is proposing this too in Nebraska


10 posted on 04/07/2009 8:26:31 AM PDT by stan_sipple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard; All

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.


11 posted on 04/07/2009 8:26:36 AM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

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.


12 posted on 04/07/2009 8:26:42 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

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.


13 posted on 04/07/2009 8:27:17 AM PDT by Hildy (Dr. King had a dream. Obama has an ELF who has a “plan”.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

Also, these are blue states any way.


14 posted on 04/07/2009 8:27:59 AM PDT by Perdogg (University of North Carolina - 2009 NCAA basketball champs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

And so goes quiet middle America...if we’re even still allowed to vote by that time.


15 posted on 04/07/2009 8:28:00 AM PDT by EBH (The world is a balance between good & evil, your next choice will tip the scale.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

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.


16 posted on 04/07/2009 8:28:06 AM PDT by newfreep ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." - P.J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple

November 5, 2008 to be precise


17 posted on 04/07/2009 8:28:43 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.htm

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.


18 posted on 04/07/2009 8:29:35 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
I’m so glad I got to live in a FREE AMERICA. Remember to write down your memories...

It was good while it lasted. It was truly a noble experiment.
19 posted on 04/07/2009 8:30:42 AM PDT by Canedawg (Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny- M. Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Suppose states were to pass a law compelling the electors to vote for a Republican? That would be clearly unconstitutional. But why is it any less unconstitutional to take their discretion away by compelling them to vote for the candidate with the plurality?

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.

20 posted on 04/07/2009 8:31:02 AM PDT by GoldStandard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

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.


21 posted on 04/07/2009 8:31:15 AM PDT by techcor (I hope Obama succeeds... in becoming a one term president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

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.


22 posted on 04/07/2009 8:31:40 AM PDT by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Suppose states were to pass a law compelling the electors to vote for a Republican? That would be clearly unconstitutional.

What about the part of the Constitution that says that electors may be chosen in a manner directed by the State legislatures?

23 posted on 04/07/2009 8:31:49 AM PDT by pnh102 (Save America - Ban Ethanol Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

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.


24 posted on 04/07/2009 8:33:56 AM PDT by MuttTheHoople
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

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.


25 posted on 04/07/2009 8:35:18 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (John Galt was exiled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard
50 out of 270 isn't that special

Chipping away little by little so people like you can think that it's really not THAAAT bad.

26 posted on 04/07/2009 8:35:53 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MuttTheHoople

“Committed into an agreement”......”NO STATE SHALL ENTER INTO A TREATY, ALLIANCE OR CONFEDERATION”.


27 posted on 04/07/2009 8:36:02 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MuttTheHoople

“Committed into an agreement”......”NO STATE SHALL ENTER INTO A TREATY, ALLIANCE OR CONFEDERATION”.


28 posted on 04/07/2009 8:36:20 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

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.


29 posted on 04/07/2009 8:36:57 AM PDT by techcor (I hope Obama succeeds... in becoming a one term president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Yes, I thought that myself. The Repubican presidential candidate gets the most popular votes in the US.
The Democrat candidates carries New York and can become President with New York's electoral votes-does anyone seriously believe the electoral votes with go to the Republican.

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).

30 posted on 04/07/2009 8:36:59 AM PDT by Maine Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

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.


31 posted on 04/07/2009 8:37:11 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard
Plus I believe the Supreme Court would probably invalidate this anyways.

it'll depend on the court makeup

32 posted on 04/07/2009 8:37:23 AM PDT by wardaddy (America, Ship of Fools)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

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.


33 posted on 04/07/2009 8:38:48 AM PDT by GoldStandard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

right, these liberal voters will disenfranchize themselves.


34 posted on 04/07/2009 8:39:01 AM PDT by Perdogg (University of North Carolina - 2009 NCAA basketball champs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

Such a bill was introduced in Arkansas this session.. haven’t heard the final determination of it, but think it finally died... I pray.


35 posted on 04/07/2009 8:39:07 AM PDT by TheBattman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

14th Amendment, equal protection clause. Depends on who is on the SCOTUS, though.


36 posted on 04/07/2009 8:42:00 AM PDT by PhilosopherStones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeebee
Wouldn’t it require a constitutional Amendment?

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.

37 posted on 04/07/2009 8:44:00 AM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard
They ain’t “chipping” away at anything yet

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?

38 posted on 04/07/2009 8:44:57 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple

Texas will be a Democratic State by 2020.


39 posted on 04/07/2009 8:45:09 AM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard
Looks as though the anti-American Nazi are in full swing and with the new appointees to the Supreme Court they will NOT declare this to be unconstitutional. So we will have to live with the votes of foreign nations like California, New York and one or two others who will elect the Emperor every 4 years. The rest of us just stay home.
40 posted on 04/07/2009 8:45:11 AM PDT by YOUGOTIT (I will always be a Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

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!


41 posted on 04/07/2009 8:45:31 AM PDT by dr huer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

“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?


42 posted on 04/07/2009 8:46:18 AM PDT by edcoil (Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner Liberty is a well-armed lamb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
This is what the Constitution says regarding the selection of Electors by the States.

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.

43 posted on 04/07/2009 8:48:44 AM PDT by uncitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Obama was talking about his administration being the only thing protecting corporations from pitchforks....we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.


44 posted on 04/07/2009 9:07:34 AM PDT by My Favorite Headache (An oath to a liar is no oath at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
My first reaction is to observe there is a real distinction between a constitutional grant of power in the state legislature to choose an elector and vesting power in the state legislature to make the choice a nullity even before the choices is made.

A quick look at Wikipedia indicates that there is not a dispositive case on the issue. Here's part of what is said there:

"Faithless electors

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.[20]

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.[21] 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.


45 posted on 04/07/2009 9:11:00 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

I think people better take a long hard look at the map from the Nat pop vote site if they think they’re safe.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/


46 posted on 04/07/2009 9:11:17 AM PDT by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
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.

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.

47 posted on 04/07/2009 9:19:33 AM PDT by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

Imagine.

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.


48 posted on 04/07/2009 9:29:06 AM PDT by ZULU (Obamanation of Desolation is President. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

If voting worked the government wouldn’t let us do it see president obama election ACORN snickers.


49 posted on 04/07/2009 9:37:00 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: zeebee

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.

Stupid.....


50 posted on 04/07/2009 9:37:24 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (Ein Volk, Ein Riech, Ein Ein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 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