I am beginning to understand why these liberal states want to cede their electoral sovereignty to the popular vote....
Republicans have LOST 5 of the 6 elections via the popular vote.
Bush lost in 2000 but won in 2004. But that was it.
What will he say when his state votes for the popular vote loser?
New York’s vote didn’t count? We gotta go with Texas?
The Rats are in unknown territory with this one.
The Constitution leaves it entirely up to each state legislature how to select its electors.
OTOH, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State”
Who needs to vote, anyway? Comrades? The central committee knows what is best. Freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom.
no taxation without representation
Actually, kind of funny! When a Republican wins the popular vote, Cuomo will rescind the law.
Bad, bad, bad idea. Are we to trust Cuomo over Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al?
You better believe when the day comes that the Republican nominee receives the plurality of popular votes, the New York and other Democrat legislatures will meet in emergency session shortly after Election Day and change the law to their favor.
Fortunately, these are all in long-conquered territory, so it'll be a wash. When "red" states start going this way is when it's time to be concerned.
Mob rule, just what the founders wanted to avoid. Benjamin Franklin said we would have “A Republic if you can keep it.”
What would he say if he knew we would only keep it for a little over 200 years?
Algore is still eligible...
This will blow up in their faces like a balloon full of shaving cream.........................
Liberals that are for this that I have talked to think our country is a democracy and don’t understand a republic.
If we went to Nat’l popular vote, candidates wouldn’t have to bother making promises to voters in States that have a majority opposition, just hit the cities where most voters are friendly.
oh yeah, it benefits New York to have it gone which is why the thing was implemented
If they thought the “hanging chad” fraud left the 2000 election in limbo, just imagine Florida x 50: “Presidential Candidate X has garnered 10 million votes, Presidential Candidate Y has 10 million 100. Film at 11.”
We need one state to enact a law requiring their electors to vote opposite any popular vote cabal of states.
OK, lets use recent history to see how this will work. How much more important would the vote counts be on the Democrat West Coast if there was a similar close election to 2000? How long would it take to get a mutually acceptable count completed for these States to make their decision? The understated benefit of the Electoral College (EC) is a timely decision on date certain.
Al Gore’s bitter partisan’s constant bemoaning of the US Supreme Court decisions on Florida’s election process lose sight of the fact that time was running out for a decision for the participant selection from Florida. As it stood, Bush43 had a bare-bones transition between the December decision and the January Inauguration.
So visualize a similar election with a squeaking close popular vote and all of the different voting methods and disputable ‘hanging chads’ all over the country. Now remember such localities like King County Washington where sufficient post-election day 2004 ballots were ‘found’ to elect the Democrat candidate for Governor. Multiply this by all of the possible paths to election and then think HOW LONG it would take to find a candidate for these ‘Popular Vote’ states to swing their EC votes to.
Sorry, this is a lawyer’s dream and a nation’s nightmare!
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
I also know this is mainly an attempt to slant elections in favor of liberal urban areas vs. smaller, more rural states-- doesn't this also strike at the federal structure that has always been at the core of the Electoral College?
1state, 1 vote. That would work.