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

Skip to comments.

Dissenters in GOP rethink Electoral College [Fred Thompson joins those trying to destroy it]
The Washington Times ^ | June 2, 2011 | Valerie Richardson

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.

*snip*

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 state’s 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.

*snip*

A rash of Republican state legislators have signed on as co-sponsors and even sponsors of this year’s 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.

“We’re perpetually kind of rolling the dice in presidential elections in this country and risking electing someone who didn’t get the most votes,” Mr. Thompson said at the event. “It’s an unnecessary risk.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; US: Illinois; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: ec; elections; electoral; electoralcollege; fred; fredthompson; illinois; jimedgar; nationalpopularvote; tennessee; thompson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last

1 posted on 06/03/2011 7:25:07 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Insanity.WTF is wrong with Fred?


2 posted on 06/03/2011 7:28:34 PM PDT by Farmer Dean (stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

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.


3 posted on 06/03/2011 7:28:46 PM PDT by Outlaw Woman ("...; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,... "Hosea 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Fred Thompson: Mr. “States Rights”.
(Unless it’s critical for the Republic.)


4 posted on 06/03/2011 7:29:35 PM PDT by Yossarian ("All the charm of Nixon. All the competency of Carter." - SF Chronicle comment post on Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

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.


5 posted on 06/03/2011 7:29:39 PM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I can only say that I disagree with those that wish to fix something that ain’t broken.


6 posted on 06/03/2011 7:30:22 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

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.


7 posted on 06/03/2011 7:30:22 PM PDT by cthemfly25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Fred Thompson should take up selling Viagra or reverse mortgages or something. He sure flopped as a presidential wannabe.


8 posted on 06/03/2011 7:30:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

This is nullification and it is inherently unconstitutional.


9 posted on 06/03/2011 7:31:06 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Outlaw Woman

I was never a fan. I just wasn’t comfortable with the way he sidestepped answers during debates.


10 posted on 06/03/2011 7:31:08 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

This is the world’s largest incentive for inner city vote fraud which is plenty bad already.


11 posted on 06/03/2011 7:31:41 PM PDT by RightGeek (FUBO and the donkey you rode in on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

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.


12 posted on 06/03/2011 7:33:12 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Two wolfs and a lamb vote on the dinner menu. Lamb is served.
13 posted on 06/03/2011 7:33:42 PM PDT by JPG (Sarah Palin, driving the MSM crazy one day at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

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.


14 posted on 06/03/2011 7:34:34 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yossarian

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.


15 posted on 06/03/2011 7:34:44 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Fred needs to blow his nose, clear his head me thinks.


16 posted on 06/03/2011 7:35:08 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I don’t remember him being awake during the debates.


17 posted on 06/03/2011 7:35:39 PM PDT by Outlaw Woman ("...; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,... "Hosea 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

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.


18 posted on 06/03/2011 7:36:22 PM PDT by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean
Thompson is senile. Didn't you watch him slowly roll to a stop in 2008? He's done. This is a bad idea and he has no business adding his feeble two cents' worth. Fuhgeddaboudit.
19 posted on 06/03/2011 7:36:48 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
This is really sad. Nobody pays attention to the Tenth Amendment anymore. If the federal government tells a state to, say, change a stop sign, the state had better do it fast or risk penalties.

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.

20 posted on 06/03/2011 7:39:04 PM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I carrying this lantern?, you ask. I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“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.


21 posted on 06/03/2011 7:39:52 PM PDT by mo ("If you understand, no explanation is needed; if you do not, no explanation is possible")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

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!


22 posted on 06/03/2011 7:45:39 PM PDT by khnyny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!
Electoral College is our only sure protection against localized electoral corruption, particularly at a time when Demonrat precincts are "accomplishing" >100% voter turn-out.
23 posted on 06/03/2011 7:47:53 PM PDT by Nevermore (...just a typical cracker, clinging to my Constitutional rights...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
Direct popular vote will hand over the election to the control of California with 120 million voters, New York with 85 million, and Florida with the same 85 million.
24 posted on 06/03/2011 7:48:53 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

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.


25 posted on 06/03/2011 7:49:01 PM PDT by TCH (DON'T BE AN "O-HOLE"! ... DEMAND YOUR STATE ENACT ITS SOVEREIGNTY !When a majority of the American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Article I, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution states: "... No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, ..."

So this compact among states to circumvent the Constitution is in and of itself UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

26 posted on 06/03/2011 7:50:08 PM PDT by VRWCmember (_!_)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

He was good as Knox Pooley.


27 posted on 06/03/2011 7:51:31 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

I saw him up in New Hampshire, and was appalled.

He looked really, REALLY old and tired. NOT someone you wanted in charge.


28 posted on 06/03/2011 7:52:17 PM PDT by rlmorel (Capitalism is the Goose that lays The Golden Egg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
So this compact among states to circumvent the Constitution is in and of itself UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Yeah. Too bad that we don't have executives, legislators, or judges who pay any attention to such matters now.

29 posted on 06/03/2011 7:54:16 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Some of us still 'hold these truths to be self-evident'..Enough to save the country? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

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 ...


30 posted on 06/03/2011 7:54:58 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

That’s exactly why the left wants this. They want inner city thugs to control us.


31 posted on 06/03/2011 7:55:07 PM PDT by conservativebuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

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.


32 posted on 06/03/2011 7:58:22 PM PDT by eclecticEel (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: 7/4/1776 - 3/21/2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eclecticEel
Is the NPV compact even constitutional?

No.

33 posted on 06/03/2011 8:00:45 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Some of us still 'hold these truths to be self-evident'..Enough to save the country? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

what did you expect from draft dodging head of senate centrist coalition?

Always a Rino..


34 posted on 06/03/2011 8:00:45 PM PDT by heiss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
It appears the "elites" in this country think they know better than those that came before them. Fred must want more gigs in Hollyweird.
35 posted on 06/03/2011 8:04:49 PM PDT by Major Matt Mason (RINO's are more interested in defeating conservatives than they are in defeating Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TCH

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.


36 posted on 06/03/2011 8:05:05 PM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I respected Fred once, not any more. I thought he was a Constitutionalist but I guess not. Oh, well.


37 posted on 06/03/2011 8:05:36 PM PDT by gunsmithkat (There is no such thing as Too Many Guns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

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.


38 posted on 06/03/2011 8:08:14 PM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunsmithkat

Hopefully, Sarah Palin, being from Alaska, will never, ever hop on that wagon.


39 posted on 06/03/2011 8:08:37 PM PDT by gunsmithkat (There is no such thing as Too Many Guns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

Yeah I was a Hunter fan but he just wasn’t well known.


40 posted on 06/03/2011 8:11:39 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
So this compact among states to circumvent the Constitution is in and of itself UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

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 ...

41 posted on 06/03/2011 8:13:02 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Fred never saw a liberal cause he didn’t want to hug.


42 posted on 06/03/2011 8:13:40 PM PDT by PaleoBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

NEVER and FU fred... I want my damn $2500..00 back that you pissed away... you ass faced turncoat!

LLS


43 posted on 06/03/2011 8:13:48 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("If you lie hard enough and sell your soul... you can scam your way to the top" barack obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Fred Thompson is an outstanding example of the damage a stealth RINO can do. He single-handedly deflected interest in any other conservative presidential candidate while he did his insipid fan dance, and then came in too late and too halfheartedly to do anything about McCain.

As far as I am concerned it was a ruse. After Chinagate, I never trusted him.

44 posted on 06/03/2011 8:14:52 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (If term limits really worked, California would have a responsible legislature.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
Thats the way it works in ME and NE ...

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.

45 posted on 06/03/2011 8:18:17 PM PDT by torchthemummy ("Truth Is A Stubborn Thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

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.


46 posted on 06/03/2011 8:18:39 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Some of us still 'hold these truths to be self-evident'..Enough to save the country? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
NEVER and FU fred... I want my damn $2500..00 back that you pissed away... you ass faced turncoat!

To be a turncoat he would have had to have once been on your side. I'm just sayin' ...

47 posted on 06/03/2011 8:20:09 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Some of us still 'hold these truths to be self-evident'..Enough to save the country? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

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.


48 posted on 06/03/2011 8:20:52 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Sarah Palin - She’s living rent-free inside the MSM’s heads. Credited to Lurk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
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.

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).

49 posted on 06/03/2011 8:21:38 PM PDT by VRWCmember (_!_)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PaleoBob
Fred never saw a liberal cause he didn’t want to hug.

Nope. In '08 he was never anything more than a stalking horse for McCain. That's it. Worked beautifully, too.

50 posted on 06/03/2011 8:21:49 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Some of us still 'hold these truths to be self-evident'..Enough to save the country? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-175 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