Skip to comments.New York joins campaign to end Electoral College role in presidential elections
Posted on 04/18/2014 12:11:57 AM PDT by Olog-hai
New York has joined the campaign to effectively end the Electoral Colleges role in determining winners of presidential elections.
Under the National Popular Vote Compact, which Gov. Cuomo signed off on Tuesday, the state has agreed to award its electoral college votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.
Currently New Yorks electoral colleges votes go to the winner of the states popular vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
My hope is they won’t succeed. To have national elections decided by a couple of states and large cities would be ruinous for the country.
New York, by means of it’s huge population, would obliterate the voice of the smaller states.
That is NOT what the founders intended.
If Cuomo thinks it’s a good idea you know it’s bad.
if anyone wants to do the math, i’m willing to bet that the states that pass this would usually go democratic anyway, so those college votes will be dem one way or the other. I don’t see it makes a difference.
Basically, it means no campaign funding will be established for states like Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Vermont, South Dakota or North Dakota. Nor would I waste any campaign stops in twenty of the fifty states.
I’d put my efforts strictly into ten key states....bulk on campaign promises to bring money and projects to the ten....and just about forget there are any other states or citizens in the US.
In the beginning, there was a fair amount of fear that both Virginia and Penn would be unfairly attracting the bulk of voters, thus controlling the outcome of future Presidential elections. The electoral college was the only method to ensure small states had a voice.
If you want to hear progressives screaming just get a few states with Republicans in control of the legislature and which have massive dem voter fraud in large cities to change from winner take all to dividing up the electoral votes according to the percentages.
Yeah, that will work. Imagine if the Republican Candidate wins the Popular Vote and all the Democrat needed were the Electoral Votes from New York to win the Electoral College and the Presidency.
With that scenario, under the “law”, they would have to give all their Electoral Votes to the Republican.
Heads will explode in NYC and the NYT Building will burst into flames.
The RICO act should be used to put all the State legislators who vote for this "compact", at a minimum, in Federal prison and the leaders of the movement should be executed for publicly advocating and fostering treason.
The causes of the Civil War pale in comparison to what are now routine clear and open violations of the Constitution by both State and Federal officials.
Three-fourths of what's wrong with this country today would never have happened had Grant been the one surrendering to Lee. We'd have different problems, but I seriously doubt they'd be as bad as we're having now.
These states are agreeing to award their Electoral College votes on the basis of the votes of people in OTHER states.
Haven’t reviewed the language of the Constitution, but I don’t recall anything about people voting for the electors from states they don’t live in.
Grant didn’t surrender to Lee because it was Lincoln that called out to God for help. And FWICR, the Confederacy had no intention of taking over the rule of the northern states. A divided USA would have gone nowhere, something tells me, and might have been reabsorbed by Britain.
With that scenario, under the law, they would have to give all their Electoral Votes to the Republican.
No, they would simply say "It was just a informal agreement; we're not bound by it," and award their electoral votes to the Dem. The blue states are that corrupt.
ANYTHING New York wants needs to be rejected without review.
Then we know for sure that there wasn't a Christian south of the Mason-Dixon and God loves a man who goes to the whorehouse now and again.
We know that because while Lee, Jackson, and the majority of the Southern leadership would never lower themselves to going whoring, God obviously loves men like Lincoln who visit a whorehouse now and again prior to marriage.
Divided? That's another canard from the BS artists. Had Grant surrendered to Lee the South would be in charge with no reason to form a separate nation. They could simply stick to their interpretation of the Constitution which would have been the path of least resistance for them anyway given the number of "Copperheads" in Congress and Union State legislatures.
Really? Lincoln praying? The industrial output and massive population advantage of the north decided that conflict. I also don’t believe England was capable of taking either side or even a beat up state or two. BTW, the united USA doesn’t appear to be going anywhere good at this point in time.
The South would not have wanted to be ruled from Washington nor the North from Richmond, so yes, the Confederacy would have remained separate if they had won.
Who in the Confederacy’s leadership called out for prayer and fasting to God for their victory? Lincoln is on the record doing that, at least. So any propaganda against Lincoln has a curse on it.
But there is, of course, another school of thought which goes to the denial of the citizens' vote if the Elector who is pledged candidate A is forced by the state to vote for candidate B. One man, one vote and all that.
Here is the excerpt from Wikipedia which I found:
"A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than the person pledged or does not vote for any person. 24 states have laws to punish faithless electors. In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While many only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact, states like Michigan also specify that the faithless elector's vote be voided. As electoral slates are typically chosen by the political party or the party's presidential nominee, electors usually have high loyalty to the party and its candidate: a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than criminal charges.
Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date. For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett-Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do. This was done as an act of protest against Washington, D.C.'s lack of congressional voting representation. That elector's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes."
It depends on whether a left-wing court controls or conservatives control the court. If the former, the court will hold that the inherent power of the state to appoint electors under this federal system implies the right to control their vote as well and that liberal majority on the court will use Ray vs. Blair as precedent.
Do these new state laws contain provisions to eliminate or punish electors who don’t go along with the Democrat scheme?
I can’t imagine loyal Republican electors voting for the Democrat just because the state legislature has expressed a wish that they do so.
Or have the legislatures put in place a whole new system where the Democrat conspiracy chooses all the electors AFTER the November election?
Why is this not unconstitutional?
In 1787, the smaller states would have never signed the Constitution if they had understood the Electoral College could be overturned without an Amendment.
I see Lincoln as the one who started us on the path that his fellow president from Illinois is leading us down now. If you love an all powerful national government, you have to give props to Lincoln. The Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Obama agendas would not have been possible without Lincoln obliterating states rights first. I obviously do not see Lincoln the same way you do. I’ll leave it there.
The only thing stopping full out communism orders, and kill orders of the opposition are our Guns. We are very close...
Destruction of the Constitution is the goal.
Slavery is a crime against God. Read the Confederate constitution.
God punished the South.
States do not have rights. People have rights.
It is really sad to consider how stupid our “modern” country is. Majority rule is the road to back into slavery, a trip down history’s lane paved with the results of dictators and death.
Majority rule will not ‘fix’ what is the corruption of the electoral college. It will exasperate the corruption and fraud.
No. No, no, no, no. And no.
Not when they could just stroll down to the slave quarters or pick themselves a comely "house" gal, eh?
You are correct. I was referring to the political powers that are reserved for the state governments by our constitution which President Lincoln obliterated.
Suppose a Republican wins the majority vote but a Democrat would nevertheless prevail in the electoral college under the old regime. I have no doubt that some Democrat electors in those states with such a law would disobey the law and vote according to their pledge, which is for the Democrat. If the governor of that state is a Democrat, it is unlikely that his Attorney General will prosecute or otherwise try to enforce the law compelling the vote to go to the Republican. If a Republican governor and a Republican Attorney General, would he attempt to bring sanctions, including perhaps criminal sanctions, against recalcitrant Democrat electors who refused to obey the state law and vote for the minority Republican?
The opportunities for corruption are obvious. It is also conceivable that the state legislature could make a declaration concerning the vote which might or might not be respected.
At the end of the day if a court decides this issue, which is not entirely clear, it would be the height of irresponsibility because it wrecks the federal system compromise on behalf of small states to permit such a law to stand although the pressure to do so because of the superficial appeal of one man one vote will be hard to resist.
Article 1 Section 10
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State...
Well, the EC creates inequality now. If my vote decides where say Nevada’s 4 EC votes go to but my neighbor who lives across the street in California where his vote decides where CA’s 55 EC votes go. Who has more influence on the Presidential election? Because of the EC it makes a mockery of the “one man, one vote” mantra.
Now if the nation followed Maine and Nebraska where they apportion their EC votes by CDs and the overall popular vote of the state would win the Senate votes then we can talk about a fairer EC. I think it would force candidates to visit smaller states as well.
Lincoln was desperate to keep the union together. The international bankers in Europe were trying to destroy us, using the wealthy slave owners in the South.
The British had moved tens of thousands of troop into Canada, foreseeing an opportunity to invade and TAKE BACK THEIR COLONIES.
NY is soooo ahead of the times with its love for statists and communist mayors.
Excuse me, but doesn’t this require a Constitutional amendment, since it is fundamentally changing how elections will be determined?
The idea that 4 or 5 states will determine who is president or the worst scenario, people in a state vote for one candidate but electoral vote goes to the other candidate. This is called disenfranchisement and would violate the 14th and 15th amendments.
The quite elegant model crafted by the Founders is a model that well represents the people in the process of selecting a President.
It should not surprise anyone that the left wants to scrap it. Doing so will advance their cause by leaps and bounds.
Better that we simply ‘fix’ the present issue with the EC, in some States.
The Electoral votes should be cast by Congressional District, with the two that represent the Senators being cast based on the popular vote of the State.
If your Congressional District votes Dhimmicrap, then your Electoral Vote would be cast for the Dhimmicrap candidate. If the district votes otherwise, the Electoral Vote would be cast for that candidate with a plurality of the vote.
This levels the playing field and reduces the disparate impact of the large metro areas in many states. It also preserves the intention of the Founders in assuring a process that best represents each citizen.
“one man,one vote’ was never the Constitutional mandate.
the compromises were made to ensure that the populous states couldn’t simply dictate to the others. “one man,one vote” is simple mob rule.
so, the states mentioned must be purged from the union. They don’t like the union, they are removed from the union
The British dispatched 11,000 troops to Canada in response to the US Navy boarding one of their mail ships and removing Confederate diplomats form it. Lincoln issued a non-apology and released the diplomats. That was pretty much the end of that. I do believe Lincoln was desperate though, mostly because statist leaders get that way when their authoritah is challenged. Look at the fits Obama throws when he doesn’t get his way if you don’t believe that. In our time it appears that the bankers may be trying to destroy us again, this time with the help of Lincoln’s statist ideological progeny Barrack Obama.
That’s what they do now kinda.
First and foremost question in my mind is:
States that pass this law — have they included in the law an expiration date for the requirement of gathering up enough states to meet the threshold of 270 EC?
The next questions equally important:
Can this be considered a stealth convention of States and thus the 270 EC would be considered invalid because there is only 4 ways to change the Constitution defined in the Constitution.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
Note that Item #2
“Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)”
This is exactly what they are doing, however they have changed the threshold from 3/4’s of the states legislative approval to just 270 EC. Thus instead of 38 states ratification requirement, they will attempt to do it with as little as 10 states. (an eyeball estimation of the top 10 States by EC).
However if we take item #1:
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used).
It only requires 2/3 (34) to convene but still 3/4’s to adopt. So again, even the threshold of the notion to change the Constitution has not been met.
Ref map: http://www.270towin.com/
To me at least it seems like the Constitution was designed to avoid such errant meddling. I cannot see how any court could interpret less than 38 states ratifying or even the 34 state requirement for proposing ratification.
Unfortunately there is precedent. Namely Winner take all EC States vs Proportional Distribution of EC states (which there are very few). (check and verify — no source).
Adopting or trying to adopt such a change will result in various conundrums for Politicians (not so to Constitutionalists because it’s pretty clear on how the Constitution is changed).
The likely path is
1. Come an election where a Popular vote doesn’t match the EC vote, there will be Lawsuits filed in every state that that cast faithless the faithless EC (speculation).
2. The SCOTUS, prohibited from interfering by Constitution unless harm is done and an appeal is presented from one of the harmed bodies (I.E Standing) will result, results in an after the fact judgement.(Check & verify, no source, speculative)
3. The election certification body (the house + the senate) will be open to challenge the election. Now, if I were an esteemed member of that body I would in no uncertain terms vote to decertify that terms election process — even if it was my party that benefited. Would your representative do the same?
This is a big giant #10 can of the foulest can of worms if I’ve ever seen one. The U.S EC system is a form of proportional representation. It was never intended to be subject to popular vote because our framers knew that a popular vote would be disastrous. It would undo our country. Perhaps that’s it’s ultimate goal.
If you want to barf this morning read the complete page of amendment process at:
In particular the reference to Akhil Reed Amar’s book ‘The Constitution: A Biography’ and the reference author’s take on it. You won’t be able to sleep tonight.
My idea would be that each state is awarded to whichever candidate wins the most counties in that state. That way you have representation from the entire state and not just the population centers.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3
“Who in the Confederacys leadership called out for prayer and fasting to God for their victory?”
In The Bible, God advises that prayer be unostentatious and of the heart (in secret).
the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address, 1801
Thomas Jefferson apparently thought state governments had rights.
The South paid in lives for slavery, that's true, and the butchers bill was punishment, that's also true. The fact that they lost rather than fighting the Union to a draw that ended with a settlement rather than a surrender was a curse on the whole nation.
A curse we've wallowed in ever since for not admitting that State vs Federal power was as much the cause of that war as slavery was. Instead we've denied reality and taught generations since then that the cause was the one thing that could justify a constant increase in Federal power.
The South was and is still a good whipping boy for a nation that subconsciously knows it's guilty of sins as bad as and far worse than slavery since then. Will the whole nation pay the piper or only the States with the worst record?
How does stealing their land in defiance of the Supreme Court ruling it was illegal to do so and marching the Cherokee halfway across the country compare to slavery? What about the fine Sioux and Cheyenne reservations, what sort of rank does one give condemning generation after generation to enforced squalor and poverty get? Where does sterilization of Cherokee, Apache, and Sioux women without their knowledge or consent rank on the scale of things God punishes? Is that sort of clear genocide aimed at eliminating an entire race of folks better or worse than slavery?
If someone thinks the Civil War was God punishing the South for slavery rather than punishing the whole nation that permitted it they're into some very, very, shallow thinking about what God says is His perfect justice. God's mill grinds slowly but exceedingly fine.
The Civil War was just the warning shot across the nation's bow, not punishment for one or another particularly nasty bunch of folks. When this country is no longer a tool God is using for God only knows what, payment in full will come due. Americans had the best chance so far in history to build, and for a while made the best effort at building, a really Christian nation. But, power corrupts and in that regard we've shown ourselves to be no different than any other nation in history.
And give Duke Ellington a smooch when he drops by. Love the handle Doll.
Universal voter ID, or we’re DEAD.
Stick a fork in the US, ‘cause WE’RE DONE!