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

Skip to comments.

Dick Morris: Democrats Conspiring to Rig Electoral College, Law Passed in 9 States So Far
http://www.newsmax.com/Morris/morris-democrats-electoral-college/2014/04/15/id/565661/#sthash.4nEW7Y ^ | Tuesday, 15 Apr 2014 09:26 AM | Dick Morris

Posted on 04/15/2014 11:40:27 AM PDT by Lucky9teen

A plan, now stealthily making its way through state legislatures with astonishing speed, would junk the Electoral College and award the presidency to the winner of the popular vote.

The plan involves an Interstate Compact where states would commit to select electors pledged to vote for the national popular vote winner regardless of how their own state voted. When enough states pass this law, sufficient to cast 270 votes which is the majority of the Electoral College, it will take effect.

So far, nine states and the District of Columbia, casting 136 electoral votes, have joined. This is halfway to the 270 needed to put the compact into effect. The ratifying states are: Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Vermont, California, and Rhode Island.

Both houses in New York have passed it and it's on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s desk.

It has already passed in the House in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon. These states, plus New York, represent 107 votes. Combined with the others they are up to 242 votes. They need 270.

Who is pushing this?

All of those ratifying voted for Obama.

The movement is funded, in part, by the Center for Voting and Democracy, a George Soros-funded election group.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: California; US: Colorado; US: Connecticut; US: Delaware; US: District of Columbia; US: Hawaii; US: Illinois; US: Maine; US: Maryland; US: Massachusetts; US: Michigan; US: Nevada; US: New Jersey; US: New Mexico; US: New York; US: North Carolina; US: Oregon; US: Rhode Island; US: Vermont; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: amnesty; arkansas; california; colorado; connecticut; delaware; dickmorris; districtofcolumbia; electionfraud; electoralcollege; electoralvote; electoralvotes; georgesoros; hawaii; illinois; interstatecompact; maine; maryland; massachusetts; michigan; nationalpopularvote; nevada; newjersey; newmexico; newyork; northcarolina; oregon; randnesty; rhodeisland; soros; truethevote; vermont; votefraud; voterfraud; voting; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: CedarDave; leapfrog0202; Santa Fe_Conservative; DesertDreamer; OneWingedShark; CougarGA7; ...
NM Ping list.

Yeah, the source isn't one of our favorite people, but still...

I had no idea that NM was thus throwing away its Constitutional rights and responsibilities.
But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that they are.

41 posted on 04/15/2014 12:23:42 PM PDT by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lacrew
This isn’t new....and its unconstitutional.

When's THAT ever stopped the left?

42 posted on 04/15/2014 12:25:53 PM 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 2 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
It has already passed in the House in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon.

Funny, but I don't recall voting on this in the last election.

Good thing my elected officials are smarter & more caring than me and made the decision for me.

43 posted on 04/15/2014 12:28:46 PM 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: Captain Compassion

Correct
and even those who think they want that to happen will lose if it does


44 posted on 04/15/2014 12:30:54 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Could this be a way/means for Obama to claim eligibility for a new election under the new system, OK by the Constitution, so it would open a new gate for him to run for another two terms???


45 posted on 04/15/2014 12:35:30 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LostInBayport

While it’s certainly not unconstitutional, I would think it would be very difficult for such an arrangement to be binding. If Massachusetts, for instance, decided that a Republican popular vote winner should not receive the electoral votes that Massachusetts should give based on this law, I would think it would be very difficult for a challenge to be made if the legislature of Mass. decided just to award the electoral votes to the Dem candidate.

Such an action would also be constitutional. The Constitution places no restriction on how a state legislature determines the recipient of a given state’s electoral votes. It merely says that the electoral votes shall be determine by a method determined by the state legislatures.

I also don’t necessarily think that the agreement to cast electoral votes for the popular vote winner actually represents an interstate compact, especially if the language of the laws is written carefully. For instance, a law stating that “The electoral votes in a Presidential election for the state of (INSERT NAME OF STATE HERE) shall be awarded to the candidate who gains the most popular votes nationwide. This provision shall take effect at such time as other states have passed similar provisions such that the total number of electoral votes allocated to the states that have passed these provisions represents a majority of the electoral votes at stake in the election.” It would seem to me that this is a law governing only a particular state’s electoral vote tally, not a direct compact among other states.

Another poster above, though, pointed out a real weakness in this popular vote agreement, namely the fact that there is no such thing as an official national popular vote tally. Any state who wishes to render such a compact ineffective would merely need to artificially inflate the popular vote total of one candidate in its certified totals. I can see no way of defining national popular vote other than as the total of the official state tallies. Therefore, any state has the power to skew the national popular vote to its own liking.


46 posted on 04/15/2014 12:36:24 PM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

This pact among states is very clearly unconstitutional.

“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.”

Has Congress consented to this Compact?

If a state triggers this law, without having congressional approval, that state has violated the constitution.


47 posted on 04/15/2014 12:39:56 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

I support the district method. Whoever wins a majority of the congressional district gets that district’s electoral vote. If no clear winner, hold a run off election 30 days later with only the top two candidates on the ballot.

The candidate that gets the most votes within a state also gets one of the state’s electoral votes. The candidate that wins the most districts within that state gets the other state electoral vote. If there is a tie with the number of districts, the Govener decides.


48 posted on 04/15/2014 12:42:47 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt

Yeah, the source isn’t one of our favorite people, but still...

I had no idea that NM was thus throwing away its Constitutional rights and responsibilities.
But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that they are.


I never even saw that it was being discussed in the legislature here & I am shocked that Susanna Martinez would sign something like this!


49 posted on 04/15/2014 12:43:56 PM PDT by leapfrog0202 ("the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery" Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

50 posted on 04/15/2014 12:45:24 PM PDT by JPG (Yes We Can morphs into Make It Hurt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

You are misrepresenting the true nature of this compact.

For starters, it is called the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.” It actually uses the very word (compact) that is explicitly prohibited by the constitution.

Moving on. This most certainly is NOT a case of NJ going along with whatever happens in NY (which btw may violate the Voting Rights Act). It is a binding agreement among states. In short, say on July 20, 2016, enough states have joined to amass 270 electoral votes....no state can leave the compact until after January 20 of the next year. That means that, if on July 21st, 100% of the NJ legislature decided to back out...they could not. They would have abdicated their ability to choose their method of determining electors.


51 posted on 04/15/2014 12:49:46 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LostInBayport
So if it should occur that a Republican wins the popular vote, but the democrat the electoral college...Massachusetts will overrule its voters (democrat in large part) and vote for a Republican?

I would guess that the Massachusetts legislature would just meet in emergency session, and then change the law back to the way it was. No way will the GOP gain anything from any of this.

52 posted on 04/15/2014 12:49:50 PM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ExpatCanuck

Morris was right. Just saying...”

...Agreed. Morris was one of many that said Romney had it.


53 posted on 04/15/2014 12:53:44 PM PDT by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
There's a website devoted to this.

FWIW, the number of electoral votes this movement claims as of 9/14/13 is 136, 50.4% of the electoral votes it needs (270) to activate.

The good news is that as of today, those numbers are still what they have. No forward motion in seven months.

54 posted on 04/15/2014 12:56:39 PM PDT by upchuck (Support ABLE, the Anybody But Lindsey Effort. Yes, we are the ABLE!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

The current winner take all electoral system is suicide for the Repubs. With the exception of TX, all the big states are solidly RAT so the Repubs pretty much HAVE to win everything else which is extremely difficult. Unless we go to a proportional electoral system the Repubs may NEVER win another Presidential election.


55 posted on 04/15/2014 12:57:29 PM PDT by Brooklyn Attitude (Things are only going to get worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
Morris wrote:I don't think being stuck for the last seven months is astonishing at all.
56 posted on 04/15/2014 12:59:25 PM PDT by upchuck (Support ABLE, the Anybody But Lindsey Effort. Yes, we are the ABLE!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

No.


57 posted on 04/15/2014 1:04:42 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
The ratifying states are: Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Vermont, California, and Rhode Island.

Hmm, Blue State, Blue State, Blue State, Blue State, Blue State, Blue State, Blue district, Blue State, Blue State, and Blue State. Why am I not surprised.

If this ever did come to pass, however, I wouldn't think it would be as bad as some predict, because it will motivate conservative voters to turn out and vote even in the Bluest of Blue states. As it is now, a conservative in Massachusetts knows his state will go for the Democrat, so why vote?

My preference is for states to apportion one Electoral Vote to each Congressional district's popular vote, with two Electoral Votes for Statewide popular vote. This, too, would encourage those in conservative parts of a Blue State, (Kalifornia comes to mind,) to get out and vote.

58 posted on 04/15/2014 1:11:29 PM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
So, enough states pass this scheme. They have to tell their voters that they're not choosing the state's electors but just contributing to a national vote total that will.
Then the next Presidential election the popular vote difference is 100,000. What candidate wouldn't think there's at least 2,000 fraudulent votes in each state? There were 35,000 people who appear to have voted in NC and FL last time. They sue in 100 counties across the country. How long until those kinds of discrepancies get resolved through the courts.

Meanwhile some states have absentee ballots that aren't going to be counted because their election laws say they only get counted if that state's results are close. They could be decisive.

What happens in the compact states? They don't have a popular vote winner and won't for months. If their electors aren't chosen before Dec 10 they lose "safe harbor" and can be challenged. If one backs out and they get below 270 then the rest have to back out. But they already told their people they weren't voting for their electors, just getting lumped in with the popular vote.

59 posted on 04/15/2014 1:15:06 PM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LostInBayport
Massachusetts will overrule its voters (democrat in large part) and vote for a Republican?

Watch them call a special session of the legislature and change the rule back.

60 posted on 04/15/2014 1:29:44 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Do The Math)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 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