Activists celebrate blows to Electoral College

WorldNetDaily ^ | 04/07/2009 | Drew Zahn

[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.

[GoldStandard]

50 out of 270 isn't that special. Plus I believe the Supreme Court would probably invalidate this anyways.

[cripplecreek]

Keep telling yourself that.

[stan_sipple]

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

[P8riot]

More reasons to secede.

[zeebee]

Wouldn’t it require a constitutional Amendment?

[wk4bush2004]

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

I hope Missouri doesn’t endorse this nonsense!

[GoldStandard]

It's pretty blatantly unconstitutional. Of course, this is the U.S. Supreme Court...they've let unconstitutional things slide before.

[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?

[RC2]

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.”

[stan_sipple]

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

[reaganaut1]

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.

[Dutchboy88]

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.

[Hildy]

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.

[Perdogg]

Also, these are blue states any way.

[EBH]

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

[newfreep]

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.

[Gaffer]

November 5, 2008 to be precise

[GraceG]

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.

[Canedawg]

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.

[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?

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.