Skip to comments.Dissenters in GOP rethink Electoral College [Fred Thompson joins those trying to destroy it]
Posted on 06/03/2011 7:25:02 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Popular-vote pact picks up steam
A once-sleepy movement that would upend the Electoral College, reverse two centuries of constitutional practice and elect presidents by direct popular vote has quietly picked up momentum in recent days, with Republican Party leaders scrambling to stanch a steady stream of defections by GOP state lawmakers to the plan.
Under the idea introduced in 2006 by Stanford University consulting professor John Koza, states that join the NPV compact pledge to give all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote - even if a majority of the states voters supported another candidate. If a group of states with an accumulated tally of 270 electoral votes - the bare majority - sign on, the practical effect would be that the popular-vote winner instantly becomes the Electoral College winner as well.
A rash of Republican state legislators have signed on as co-sponsors and even sponsors of this years spate of NPV bills. At a May 12 news conference, two prominent Republicans former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and former Gov. Jim Edgar of Illinois endorsed the compact.
Were perpetually kind of rolling the dice in presidential elections in this country and risking electing someone who didnt get the most votes, Mr. Thompson said at the event. Its an unnecessary risk.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Insanity.WTF is wrong with Fred?
In addition to the damage done by the marxist, this would be the final nail in the coffin.
Fred Thompson..and here I was ready to welcome him as a president. RETIRE you old geezer; preferrably to a country that does have mob rule.
Fred Thompson: Mr. “States Rights”.
(Unless it’s critical for the Republic.)
No! Direct popular vote will open the floodgates of massive voter fraud. At least the electoral college limits the incentive to continue stuffing Chicago, Baltimore, and NYC ballot boxes once the Dem has won that state. With this scheme, we can expect 100% turnout of living and dead voters in every corrupt district and long past the level of current Dem fraud. This must be stopped, and it’s a reason to go beyond the ballot box and peaceful protest in resisting the ruling class tyrants. The Constitution is not something to be worked around with a sleazy scheme.
I can only say that I disagree with those that wish to fix something that ain’t broken.
Destruction of the electoral college is the institution of mass rule-——a form of “pure” democracy which destroyed ancient Greece and allows for tyranny of the masses. Here’s what will happen: a few large cities will forever govern this country. The Electoral College minimizes the effects of voter fraud now rampant in most major cities, most notoriously Chicago. Electoral voting contains the effects of regional voter fraud. Those advocating for its eradication are either ignorant or democrats.
Fred Thompson should take up selling Viagra or reverse mortgages or something. He sure flopped as a presidential wannabe.
This is nullification and it is inherently unconstitutional.
I was never a fan. I just wasn’t comfortable with the way he sidestepped answers during debates.
This is the world’s largest incentive for inner city vote fraud which is plenty bad already.
I would support a system where one candidate had to get 50% + 1 votes. If no candidate was able to, then there would be a runoff between the top two.
What REALLY sucks is our insane method of selecting our candidate. I would prefer a single day when ALL the candidates were voted on by ALL the states.
FRed, if this is what you are thinking, you’re nuts!
Time to hang it up. Go take some Viagra and bang that young wife of yours and be happy.
This is precisely the nonsense known by the self-contradictory label of “states’ rights” - it is state legislatures illegally undertaking to defy the Constitution: nullification.
Fred needs to blow his nose, clear his head me thinks.
I don’t remember him being awake during the debates.
NO! The same reasoning applies now that applied in Philadelphia in 1776. Large cities would carry everything, always. Small states would always be dragged along by the nose. Mob rule. It’s bad enough in California with that already — the libs load the big cities to the gills, all the people who work for a living do not have the votes to equal that.
Now this. If the Electoral College is abolished, then why not get rid of the whole “states” idea altogether? Just call them provinces of the federal government.
“Absolute proof the Oligarchy is having a hissy fit about the prospects of Flyover Country electing their president!!!!”
Indicates to me that the Oligarchy can only “manufacture” votes in the inner cities of the big states.
Okay, what lobbyist group is “lobbbying” Fred Thompson and others to proclaim this particular view?? (Follow the money).
If we want the US to be like Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, ok....vote me in as dictator for life and I will give you free stuff..., wait that’s almost what we’ve got now!
Fred is and old senile has-been who is looking for attention any way he can get it. Only a fool would do away with the EC. Popular vote? Really? That is the vehicle that undermined the 10 Amendment and effectively destroyed state sovereignty—when the PV was used to elect senators rather than election by the state legislatures.
But, hey, who needs the Constitution anyway? Right Fred? I mean you are so much more enlightened than those who drafted that august document!
If we do not cut the necks of these elite bastards, then we shall soon have an oligarchy rather than a representative republic. Mob rule by “democracy”—and is that not the term with which these change agents constantly use when referring to our system of government? They never use the word “constitutional republic.” Always their axiom is “democracy.” These individuals are wolves in sheep’s clothing, bar none. They pretend themselves “conservatives”—but nothing could be further from the truth.
Oh yes, they throw the conservative base a bone here and there—anti-abortion, pro-marriage, pro “free-market”—anything to keep our focus off their treasonous machinations. Like true masters of the illusionist art they keep us distracted from what their real object is. And we are mostly too stupid to notice. Too caught up in the little distractions they throw at us, so not to see the war they wage against our freedom.
Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Willard Romney, George HW Bush, George W Bush, etc, et al. All of them dupes of the banking cartels—and all of them co-conspirators in the NWO of the elite oligarchs.
So this compact among states to circumvent the Constitution is in and of itself UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
He was good as Knox Pooley.
I saw him up in New Hampshire, and was appalled.
He looked really, REALLY old and tired. NOT someone you wanted in charge.
Yeah. Too bad that we don't have executives, legislators, or judges who pay any attention to such matters now.
Except for 2 states [ME and NE], its winner-take-all in each state [which kinda sucks for those districts that DO NOT vote for that candidate].
NOW, they want to change a state’s electoral votes if the National Popular Vote [NPV] goes to the other candidate [even if that candidate wins with LESS than 50% of the NPV].
The FAIREST method would be to allocate the electoral vote of a district within a state to the WINNER of that district. The remaining 2 electoral votes would go to the overall winner of the STATE’S Popular Vote [SPV].
Thats the way it works in ME and NE ...
That’s exactly why the left wants this. They want inner city thugs to control us.
Is the NPV compact even constitutional?
If (just suppose), Zero were to lose the popular vote next year, but could manage enough electoral votes for re-election; except that California has already signed on to the NPV ... bet your bottom dollar the issue would be going straight to the Supreme Court.
what did you expect from draft dodging head of senate centrist coalition?
Always a Rino..
And yet a large contingent here at FR thought Fred Thompson was the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and ignored the real conservative in the race—Duncan Hunter.
I respected Fred once, not any more. I thought he was a Constitutionalist but I guess not. Oh, well.
The Electoral College is there because the States were the sovereign units. A President had to be elected by a majority of the several States’ electors, not by “the people.” By the same token, Senators were to be elected by State legislatures, not “the people.” The only group to be elected directly by popular vote was the House of Representatives.
Hopefully, Sarah Palin, being from Alaska, will never, ever hop on that wagon.
Yeah I was a Hunter fan but he just wasn’t well known.
NOT necessarily ...
SCOTUS has ruled that a state's decision on how to allocate electors is plenary and that there is no inherent constitutional right for an individual citizen to select [vote for] an elector. This decision trumps the Compact Clause of the Constitution.
OTOH, SCOTUS HAS ALSO RULED that once a state grants it's citizens the right to vote for electors - then:
"... the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter."
Furthermore, SCOTUS has ruled that:
"The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another."
These 2 views are diametrically opposed to each other. The state's right to determine how the electors are selected AND the individual voter's right to equal protection of his vote under the 14th Amendment.
So, SCOTUS would have to decide whether this proposed "compact" is constitutional ...
Fred never saw a liberal cause he didn’t want to hug.
NEVER and FU fred... I want my damn $2500..00 back that you pissed away... you ass faced turncoat!
As far as I am concerned it was a ruse. After Chinagate, I never trusted him.
And that is the only constitutional version that I would agree with.
I remember the first time I read such a proposal here on FR and I thought about and posted something to the effect of, "Hey, now the 43% of votes for Pubbies in California would count for something." Then someone here replied to my post with two simple yet scary words: "National Recount" Needless to say that was the last time I even considered messing with the Electoral College.
I tried to warn ‘em, but most wouldn’t listen.
And watching the developing 2012 race it seems that most haven’t learned much, quite frankly.
To be a turncoat he would have had to have once been on your side. I'm just sayin' ...
I for one am in favor of eliminating the electoral college. I would replace it with a system where the winner in each county gets a point. Most points wins. This way you can win NYC and it counts the same as winning a small town upstate.
Is is really fair to win a state like Pennsylvania just because you won Philly?
Leave congress alone and just apply it to the senate and the presidency.
Each state can choose to award its electoral votes however it likes, BUT that decision must be on its own. Entering into an agreement or compact with another state to award its electoral votes according to the compact is clearly prohibited by the Constitution (unless Congress gives its consent first).
Nope. In '08 he was never anything more than a stalking horse for McCain. That's it. Worked beautifully, too.
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.