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

Skip to comments.

Group wants to retire the Electoral College - Targeting Gov. Rick Perry
radio Iowa ^ | October 14, 2011 | Dar Danielson

Posted on 10/14/2011 7:39:32 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

The national spokesperson for group that seeking to take the selection of the president out of the hands of the Electoral College says the movement is gaining steam.

Tom Golisano of the “National Popular Vote Initiative” was in Des Moines Thursday talking about the effort.

The group needs states that have 270 — or half of the electoral college votes — to approve the change to make it happen. “There’s a lot of enthusiasm around our position now, it’s more a feeling of when and no if it’s going to happen,” Golisano. He says 10 or 11 states have signed up and they have bills in the legislatures of 35 states. He says it’s an effort that’s long overdue.

Golisano says the group had first targeted the 2016 election to get enough states to change, but says the increased momentum makes 2012 a possibility. He says one hurdle there’s a lot of misunderstanding about how the electoral college works and also about the movement to change to the popular vote.

^

^

^

[snip]

^

^

^

There are now television and newspaper ads running in Iowa touting the change to the popular vote that attack Texas Governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry. Golisano says Perry’s the only candidate that’s taken a stand to stay with the electoral college.

“It’s unfortunate Mr. Perry has taken somewhat most of the brunt of this, the fact is he has put his position in writing, and no one else has, and that’s why we’ve focused on Rick Perry,” Golisano says. Golisano says he’s more encouraged now than he has been about Iowa making the change to the popular vote, but wouldn’t say what he thought the chances were of that happening.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: democracy; electoralcollege; gopbots4perry; perry2012; pouter4perry; republic; romeyperry2012; romneybots4perry; whinerrick; whinewhinewhine

1 posted on 10/14/2011 7:39:40 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shield; Conservativegreatgrandma

2 posted on 10/14/2011 7:41:25 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Little doubt, we’ll
be alinskyed again!


3 posted on 10/14/2011 7:43:04 AM PDT by gunnyg ("A Constitution changed from Freedom, can never be restored; Liberty, once lost, is lost forever...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; RoosterRedux; jonrick46; deepbluesea; RockinRight; TexMom7; potlatch; ...
Perry Ping....

IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.

IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************


4 posted on 10/14/2011 7:43:23 AM PDT by shield (Rev 2:9 Woe unto those who say they are Judahites and are not, but are of the syna GOG ue of Satan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

NO to National Popular Vote and NO to La Raza Rick !


5 posted on 10/14/2011 7:46:26 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Rick Perry has more red flags than a May Day Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
I saw this group's ad on TV and laughed. It may help Perry--not hurt him.

They're getting press.

6 posted on 10/14/2011 7:46:41 AM PDT by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shield

“His hair is always perfect. But his ideas are a mess.”

The ad is the first full-page attack against a candidate of its kind this caucus cycle.

The second ad, a 30-second TV spot set to air in Iowa, uses a child with Perry-esque hair to paint the governor as a lifelong politician who has never understood the Constitution.

“Rick Perry was born to be a politician. You could tell from the first time he lost his marbles,” says the ad’s voiceover, showing a young Perry losing a game of marbles.

“Wait,” says the young Perry, “we need to change these results.”

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111014/NEWS/310140038/-1/mobilehomes/Group-vote-change-targets-Perry-ads


7 posted on 10/14/2011 7:49:18 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Conservativegreatgrandma

How nutty!


8 posted on 10/14/2011 7:50:00 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

It is silly. The person they are most afraid of, Rick Perry, is the person we all get behind. They can slice and dice him all they want...it will not stop Rick Perry, The Lord will see to that.


9 posted on 10/14/2011 7:52:45 AM PDT by shield (Rev 2:9 Woe unto those who say they are Judahites and are not, but are of the syna GOG ue of Satan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Golisano is basically a Donald Trump Mini-Me. Perry is right to oppose this lamebrained scheme to subvert the Constitution. And he’s right to support repeal of the 17th Amendment. Whether he gets the nomination or not, he’s consistent as a states’ rights advocate and should be applauded for it.


10 posted on 10/14/2011 7:54:21 AM PDT by rfp1234 (RFP's Law: Whoever blames Bush first shall lose the argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shield

Bump!

Lawyers, unions, environmentalists, MSM — he has a battle ahead.


11 posted on 10/14/2011 7:54:30 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The Electoral College is a moderating influence on the excesses of a mob democracy. It is a last chance to save the electorate from itself.


12 posted on 10/14/2011 7:56:23 AM PDT by depressed in 06 (I'll follow an eloquent Allen West out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rfp1234

hear, hear!


13 posted on 10/14/2011 8:02:03 AM PDT by Irenic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Golisano is another Leftist billionaire who thinks he is smarter than those that came before him. This is nothing more than the more populous, Democrat-controlled states wanting to exert their influence over the presidential elections. Golisano is from NY and, while I appreciate his efforts to save the Buffalo Sabres, I don't appreciate his efforts to strengthen the Democrat Party.
14 posted on 10/14/2011 8:03:11 AM PDT by Major Matt Mason (Democrat Party = Communist Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

They are targeting Perry because Perry spoke out and signed a letter against the national popular vote campaign.

GOP factions unite against presidential popular vote push

Aug. 2, 2011

“Leading party officials, including Republican Governors Association Chairman Rick Perry of Texas, House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have sent a joint letter supporting Mrs. Joslin’s resolution to put the RNC on record against the national popular vote campaign.

In their letter, Mr. Perry, Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell warned that the “states that sign onto this plan could withdraw from it ahead of any election in which their favored candidate is expected to lose the national vote, destabilizing elections even further.””

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/2/gop-factions-unite-against-president-popular-vote/


15 posted on 10/14/2011 8:08:21 AM PDT by Clairity ("The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected." -- VP Dick Cheney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shield

“The person they are most afraid of, Rick Perry, is the person we all get behind. They can slice and dice him all they want...it will not stop Rick Perry, The Lord will see to that.”

Amen!


16 posted on 10/14/2011 8:10:25 AM PDT by Clairity ("The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected." -- VP Dick Cheney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I saw that one.


17 posted on 10/14/2011 8:13:39 AM PDT by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
There is another group [ME] that says that we should consider abolishing the electoral college at the same time that we make it so that you, again, need to be a land owner in order to vote. If you don't have skin in the game you should not be allowed to vote. Or maybe it should be based on taxation. If 1% pay 57% of the taxes, they should have 57% of the vote.

Or you get the number of votes equal to your tax rate. There you go, Warren Buffet's secretary will have more votes than Warren Buffet.

You want support for lowering the tax rate of the rich, tie the rate to the votes and these protesters will change their tune.

18 posted on 10/14/2011 8:14:13 AM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The vote fraud perps are salivating over the opportunity to stuff ballot boxes in cities they control.

THE PARTY WILLING TO COMMIT THE MOST FELONIES WOULD WIN EVERY TIME!


19 posted on 10/14/2011 8:16:16 AM PDT by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

20 posted on 10/14/2011 8:24:53 AM PDT by RightGeek (FUBO and the donkey you rode in on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; Alamo-Girl; xzins; P-Marlowe; Jeff Head
Golisano says Perry’s the only candidate that’s taken a stand to stay with the electoral college.

Well, whatta surprise! Maybe this has something to do with the fact that Perry is the strongest constitutionalist in the race for the GOP presidential nomination this time around — and he is of intentionalist persuasion.

To end the electoral college (established at Article II, Section 1) would take a constitutional amendment (Article V), not a simple "vote" of like-minded states.

Do these people believe the Constitutional mandate is "optional," whenever they'd like a "better" outcome than what it prescribes?

Sounds to me like they prefer a "rule of men," not a rule of law.

21 posted on 10/14/2011 8:26:24 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darth
“The vote fraud perps are salivating over the opportunity to stuff ballot boxes in cities they control.”

Exactly. One advantage to the EC system is that massive vote fraud in, say, Chicago can only accomplish so much—if the state's votes are going to the Democrat, it really does not matter for the Presidential election.

However, with a national total vote, each fraudulent vote in Chicago will nullify any legitimate vote anywhere in the nation.

22 posted on 10/14/2011 8:33:14 AM PDT by Stat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Cincinatus' Wife; Alamo-Girl; xzins; P-Marlowe; Jeff Head

We would be crazy to get rid of the electoral college...that is the heart of our republican form of government when selecting the president.

I do, however, think that awarding electors by congressional district and 2 at large per state is more in the spirit of the Constitution’s intent than is the state winner-take-all system.


23 posted on 10/14/2011 8:36:07 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: shield

Plus, from what I’ve seen of Perry, he’s not one to back down just because of name-calling. (Even though this batch of name calling is particularly bad.)


24 posted on 10/14/2011 9:12:34 AM PDT by MizSterious (Apparently, there's no honor when it comes to someone else's retirement funds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
That is right. Perry will not back down especially when the bully pundits try to put him on the spot to get him to bite. Perry has been governor for 11 years, he knows how to handle the pundits and you just can not trick Perry into saying something absurd like others running have. That shows the lack of experience others have. In fact, it is very glaring proving the neophyte label.
25 posted on 10/14/2011 9:21:02 AM PDT by shield (Rev 2:9 Woe unto those who say they are Judahites and are not, but are of the syna GOG ue of Satan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
They're wasting their time an money. They need a vote from both houses and 3/4 of the state legislature. I doubt any of the small states are going to want to vote themselves into irrelevancy.
26 posted on 10/14/2011 12:40:49 PM PDT by Hugin ("A man'll usually tell you his bad intentions if you listen and let yourself hear it"--- Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
The group needs states that have 270 — or half of the electoral college votes — to approve the change to make it happen... Golisano says the group had first targeted the 2016 election to get enough states to change, but says the increased momentum makes 2012 a possibility.

Actually, they are not looking for an amendment, they are passing an interstate compact.

They still need both chambers of Congress to approve the compact, which is unlikely to happen.

-PJ

27 posted on 10/14/2011 12:47:50 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Everyone's Irish on St. Patrick's Day, Mexican on Cinco de Mayo, and American on Election Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

How would that work? What is an interstate compact? How can that override the Constitution?


28 posted on 10/14/2011 1:00:59 PM PDT by Hugin ("A man'll usually tell you his bad intentions if you listen and let yourself hear it"--- Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Cincinatus' Wife; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe; Jeff Head
I do, however, think that awarding electors by congressional district and 2 at large per state is more in the spirit of the Constitution’s intent than is the state winner-take-all system.

Yet the "winner take all" system is there to help smaller, low-population states defend themselves from being overwhelmed by the "people's will" of the big, populous states. IIRC from my civics class of long ago, this was the Framers' intent for the "winner-take-all" system.

The Electoral College originally was a compromise between those who wanted the President elected by national popular vote, and those who wanted congressional appointment of the President.

The Electoral College has worked pretty well for over 200 years, and personally, I would not like to see it tampered with.

29 posted on 10/14/2011 1:17:17 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you for your kind note, Sister Betty, but you are mistaking the existence of the electoral college for the system that is currently in place. There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests a winner take all system. The reverse is actually true. The Framers called for one elector per representative and one per senator. They left the process to "each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..."(see underlined below)

This was considered sufficient to satisfy the requirement for an electoral college. As you read on, it appears that our current system really isn't that similar at all, but there is not doubt that each elector voted for the President and Vice President on their own. That is why I say that per congressional district is more in tune with the spirit of the Constitution. I do not want to get rid of the Electoral College. I want it to be as close to the original as possible.

Article II, Section 2

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.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

[Article. XII.]

[Proposed 1803; Ratified 1804]

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. — The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.


30 posted on 10/14/2011 2:17:37 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Alamo-Girl; wmfights; P-Marlowe
I do not want to get rid of the Electoral College. I want it to be as close to the original as possible.

Thank you, Brother xzins, for the important reminder. It is quite obvious that our current electoral system of voting for a president/vice president ticket does not conform to the requirements of Article II, Section 2.

But I do not know when the original instruction was changed, or for what reason; nor do I remember when the "winner take all" method was adopted, if I ever did know it.

Can you tell me?

I do confess that I fear "messing around" with the status quo; in the current intellectual/cultural/moral climate, I figure things would only be made worse than they are. IOW, we'd be less likely to get more in tune with the original spirit than to innovate some new thing that would probably drag the law of unintended consequences into effect.

I bet you a nickel that amending what we have now would only get us farther away from the originalist spirit than closer to it.

I don't trust the political class to do the right thing, ever, these days....

The states trying to abolish the Electoral College are very likely run by politicians that see a benefit to their own party in so doing. There is no principled reason for it.

Under current conditions, I think it may be best to leave well enough alone. FWIW, JMHO.

Thank you so much for writing!

31 posted on 10/14/2011 4:06:02 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks shield. Hitlery called for its abolition after Gore failed in his coup attempt after the 2000 election.


32 posted on 10/14/2011 5:25:17 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; P-Marlowe

BB, you are a gem. This is my take on how it worked, but I’ve pinged P-Marlowe who is a bit of a constitutional expert in the law.

The nation was a pioneer nation. They could not easily assemble, travel, or communicate. That was another reason the republican form of representative government appealed to them.

So, they did not have a national election as we know it for president. Instead, their individual state legislatures determined how the electors in that state would be chosen. These electors would be the ones voting for the President and Vice President. The legislature could have appointed them by vote of the legislature or they could devise any number of schemes for the electors to be chosen. The idea was that the individual state legislators were most representative of the people in their own districts. Therefore it would not have been a violation of a democratic REPUBLIC for these representatives closest to their constituencies to select the electors. Or they could have had a popular vote by congressional district or by state. It was up to the legislature.

Electors could have stood for nomination as electors based on their promise to vote for some particular national candidate or they could have stood based on their support for themselves or for the person the group of electors debated was the best person for the nation. What seems clear is that ELECTORS were being selected and NOT directly a POTUS.

After the selection process, these electors met, consulted, and voted for 2 names, a potus and a vpotus. These ballots were collected, the various names listed, and then sent to the president of the senate in the national capitol.

The votes were tallied and any name that had a majority of the total number of delegates possible would be the president. Otherwise, the top 3 vote getters were voted on by the House. First, each state must have determined its choice, and then that state got to cast one vote for one of the top 3, the winner having a majority of the states.

This process really doesn’t seem to bear too much resemblance to what we do.

We vote directly for a P/VP, the state awards “all” electors to that team, and in most states that total number of electoral votes gets counted for that candidate in D.C. This is not a violation of the Constitution, but it seems to have cut the legislature and the wisdom of the electors pretty much out of the picture.

JMHO. Hopefully, Marlowe will correct my excesses.


33 posted on 10/14/2011 5:40:56 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
How would that work? What is an interstate compact? How can that override the Constitution?

Interstate compacts are constitutional because they are mentioned directly in the Constitution.

Article I Section 10 Clause 3:

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, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

If a state wants to unilaterally award its Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, it is within its right to do so.

It is only when a state makes its Electoral College votes contingent on other states doing the same that it becomes a compact between states. Compacts between states need the consent of Congress before they can be enacted.

-PJ

34 posted on 10/14/2011 9:16:48 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Everyone's Irish on St. Patrick's Day, Mexican on Cinco de Mayo, and American on Election Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

So this is a compact to award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner? That’s not the same as eliminating the Eledtoral College. Still, it would fall apart as soon as a Republican won and all the Democrat states backed out.


35 posted on 10/14/2011 9:32:16 PM PDT by Hugin ("A man'll usually tell you his bad intentions if you listen and let yourself hear it"--- Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Article I Section 1 Clause 2:

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.

The states can decide to award their electors to the winners of each Congressional district, they can award all electors to the winner in the state, or they can award their electors by vote of the legislature, or they can come up with some other scheme within their state.

All of this is constitutional.

What the state cannot do is make their electoral votes contingent on what another state chooses to do. That makes it a compact between states.

-PJ

36 posted on 10/14/2011 9:44:07 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Everyone's Irish on St. Patrick's Day, Mexican on Cinco de Mayo, and American on Election Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Another point in Perry’s support of the US Constitution!

It’s just sad how many supposed ‘conservatives’ are willing to shred our Constitution over their pet projects.


37 posted on 10/15/2011 7:45:54 AM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; betty boop

Thank you both so very much for sharing your insights! It’s been a very informative sidebar for me.


38 posted on 10/15/2011 9:23:33 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe; Mind-numbed Robot
What a wonderfully meditated essay/post, dear Brother in Christ! Indeed, your description accords beautifully with the plain language of Article II, Section 2 ff.

My, how "times have changed!" I surmise such changes came when the Progressives gained influence, starting around the turn of the Twentieth Century, which ideology was manifest in such luminaries as Woodrow Wilson and Louis Brandeis — people who just knew that they knew "what was best" for all the rest of us....

Thank you ever so much for your elegant essay/post!

39 posted on 10/16/2011 2:40:22 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe; wmfights

I appreciate your kindness, Sister. Thank you.

The current selection process for the presidency is another great loss of state power. The state legislatures actually had as much power in the Constitutional system of governing the nation as did the House, Senate, and President.

After all the legislatures determined those who would select the president, and the legislatures selected the Senators from the various states. They were, therefore, a check over the House, normally considered the most representative of the national bodies.

The Senators would have been super-legislature representatives at the national level, and the presidential selection would have been the result of a process set up in each state to bring electors together to select the best person for the job.

The State Legislatures, then, had direct checks on the power of each other branch of government.

In our day, state legislatures are almost an afterthought.


40 posted on 10/16/2011 5:12:44 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Seems to me those changes centralized power in D.C. and made politicians of Senators. Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!


41 posted on 10/16/2011 8:56:15 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

If they would apportion the electoral college by % instead of winner takes all, there would never be a Democrat elected president. They want to get rid of the electoral college in the hopes of getting only populist presidents. Bad idea for a country designed specifically to avoid that kind of radicalism. Our Constitution and the balance of powers was put in place to ensure that change happens slowly.


42 posted on 10/17/2011 12:35:16 AM PDT by monkeyshine ( The path of the righteous is beset by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop

Absolutely, sister, power was removed from the states and centralized in D.C.

It would be wrong to say that the states did not complain. It would be better to say that they were not heard. In many cases, they were complicit. In many cases, party politics was more important than the Constitution and the nation.


43 posted on 10/17/2011 4:01:58 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; xzins; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe
which ideology was manifest in such luminaries as Woodrow Wilson and Louis Brandeis — people who just knew that they knew "what was best" for all the rest of us....

I am reminded of a Mark Twain quote - It is not so much what we don't know that gets us in trouble as it is those things which we do know that simply aren't true.

44 posted on 10/17/2011 8:59:07 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

LOLOL!


45 posted on 10/17/2011 9:01:46 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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