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

Skip to comments.

EDITORIAL: Blue states try raiding Electoral College
The Washington Times ^ | April 23, 2014 | Editorial

Posted on 04/24/2014 11:00:50 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

The fondest dream of the modern Democrat is to neutralize the votes of the yokels in Peoria and put important decisions in the hands of sophisticates in places like San Francisco and Manhattan. The modern Democrats took a step closer to realizing their ambition last week when New York joined nine other liberal states with laws to undermine the Electoral College.

Blue states have been rushing to sign up for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. So far, the list includes — in addition to New York — California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia. All have agreed to allocate electoral votes according to the popular vote.

Upon leaving Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman what form of government had the Founders bequeathed, “a republic or a monarchy?” The wise old Ben Franklin replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

This effort is being undertaken to destroy the last vestiges of republican governance, ensuring there is no longer a republic to keep.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: constitution; tyranny

1 posted on 04/24/2014 11:00:50 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The wise old Ben Franklin replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

Not much longer, Ben, if the Liberals get their way.


2 posted on 04/24/2014 11:02:46 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

This can only serve to hurt the blue states. It could end up costing them an election.


3 posted on 04/24/2014 11:04:24 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Exactly. Also, it’s pointless if no red states or important swing states sign on.


4 posted on 04/24/2014 11:07:29 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Wouldn’t dropping the electoral college require a Constitutional amendment? I see this as another attempt by liberals to circumvent the Constitution.


5 posted on 04/24/2014 11:12:14 AM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Serve’em right to wake up on Wednesday morning and realize their vaunted compact left them holding their own puds....

That would be sweet.


6 posted on 04/24/2014 11:12:20 AM PDT by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Once again the Progressives will push and push until they get what they want and most here on Free Republic will whine and complain, moan and groan, but let the “blue” states have their way because it might interrupt their afternoon smoke.
Most people don’t understand the electoral college and feel this is a great idea.
In short, you will allow the largest of states with the most population dictate who your president will be. Most likely a Democrat . A Progressives wet dream.


7 posted on 04/24/2014 11:15:27 AM PDT by lucky american (Progressives are attacking our rights and y'all will sit there and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

They aren’t dropping the electoral college, states can decide to allocate them however they want. I don’t see this lasting beyond an election where a Republican wins the popular vote and Massachusetts has to give all its electoral votes to the Republicans.


8 posted on 04/24/2014 11:20:23 AM PDT by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
I see this as another attempt by liberals to circumvent the Constitution.

Why not? It's not as if anything's stopping them. Nearly all power has apparently been ceded to the President and his "czars." Armed bureaucracies like BLM and EPA enforce their unconstitutional autocratic "laws." The IRS is being morphed into an Obama-style gestapo. Who cares? Facebook and the Kardashians is what Americans are really focused on.

9 posted on 04/24/2014 11:21:25 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

“Also, it’s pointless if no red states or important swing states sign on.”

Unfortunately that isn’t necessarily the case, especially in the long term. As soon as the electoral vote total of the states agreeing to this reaches 270 the intent of the constitution will have been subverted and America’s chief executive will be elected by popular vote. It’s worth noting that this is happening concurrently with the push for amnesty, which could add millions of immigrant (ie. Democrat) voters to the roles of blue states.

While it’s interesting to speculate on what might happen if a Republican were to win the popular vote and not the Electoral College there really is no chance of that ever happening, especially given the changing demographics of America’s population.


10 posted on 04/24/2014 11:23:12 AM PDT by Junk Silver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Guess its time to let each state have two votes, period, in the Presidential election.


11 posted on 04/24/2014 11:26:29 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
I don’t see this lasting beyond an election where a Republican wins the popular vote and Massachusetts has to give all its electoral votes to the Republicans.

The problem is that I haven't seen an exit clause in the compact. There is no provision for dropping out once the compact is fulfilled.

What happens if one state were to drop out, and then that reduces the compact to less than 270 votes? Is the compact now nullified? Do the other states (compacting or not) go to the Supreme Court to force the dropping state to remain?

-PJ

12 posted on 04/24/2014 11:27:28 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

It’s not eliminating the electoral college. The electoral college will still be in place. The states involved will simply name electors that are pledged to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.

Unfortunately, this whole scheme is perfectly constitutional. The Constitution allows states to choose their electors in any manner determined by the legislature of that state. Citizens of the states do not have any Constitutional right to even vote in a Presidential election. Theoretically, a state legislature could just vote to select electors that are pledged to a given candidate.

The best way around this is to recognize that there really is no such thing as a national popular vote. What is tallied and reported as such is simply the total of all the official, certified state election results. I would be interested if one of these popular vote laws were challenged in court on the basis that the law is invalid because there is no actual national popular vote. I’m not an expert, but it seems that this is a valid reason for a challenge to such laws.


13 posted on 04/24/2014 11:39:49 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Honestly, I don’t see how you could stop a state from dropping out of such an arrangement if they so choose. The Constitution is quite clear that states can select members of the Electoral College using any method that they choose. Further, interstate compacts without the permission of Congress are unconstitutional. Therefore, the only way to make the national popular vote laws constitutional would be to characterize them as being implemented solely on a state-by-state basis, voluntarily by individual states. IOW, each state would pass a law stating that their electoral votes would go to the national popular vote winner and that this change would only be implemented upon passage of similar laws in enough states to yield a total of 270 or more electoral votes. There would be no legal basis to compel a state that passed such a law to actually adhere to it.


14 posted on 04/24/2014 11:44:38 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
The aged 1960s Marxist-Alinsky campus radical, psycho spoiled brats and their ideological issue have but one tenet, the ends justify the means. Dems never give up..

We do truly have two Americas. It will not end until "a crisis shall have been reached and passed."

The Elector Hunt Begins [Election 2000]

"One battle-tested Democratic consultant has even begun a quiet intelligence-gathering operation that could aid a last-ditch Gore strategy in the Electoral College. Bob Beckel, who managed Walter Mondale's 1984 Democratic presidential campaign and has close ties to [Warren] Christopher, has been checking into the background of Republican electors, with an eye toward persuading a handful of them to vote for Mr. Gore. If Mr. Bush eventually prevails in Florida but wins none other of the most closely contested states, he would have 271 electoral votes. Three GOP defections could make Mr. Gore president . . . The Gore camp itself has disavowed any intention of seeking to sway GOP electors."

Even Slate published stories about it. At least it made it that far into the MSM.

And if the spoiled brats can't win that way there's always race war..

Race war? Al Gore himself stopped the effort by the Democrats to start one in 2000 during the election dispute. That's the way I read the quote from his daughter Karenna.

A quote from one column (November 19, 2002) of Frum's I post often contains this (the quote is by Karenna Gore) and it's about the 2000 post-election day turmoil. It sure seemed to me that the Dems were ready to spark race riots -- which IMO the MSM would have demanded that Bush concede and bow to the "will of the people" (a phrase often included in MSM reports on the turmoil).

"He [Al Gore] said, 'We have to do what's best for the country, and it is not good for the country to have this kind of divisiveness.' And he was on the phone, really calling off the dogs. There were people who wanted to fan the … the flames of the racial issue and have real unrest. And he was on the phone asking them not to, because of what was best for the country not because of what was best for him politically. And that's really who he is."

Looks like the link to the Frum article was 404ed and most of the others are expunged also except for FR and a couple of others. The original source was an ABC 20/20 Nov. 15, 2002 B. Waters interview. This part was deleted from the air but Frum had it in (National Review?) now also disappeared. google in quotes, "the flames of the racial issue and have real unrest"

History being "adjusted"? American Stalinism at work? Stalin was a kind of spoiled brat who managed to kill 60 million fellow citizens, I believe.

15 posted on 04/24/2014 11:45:15 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
“This can only serve to hurt the blue states. It could end up costing them an election.”

My prediction is this: If it appears that it will cost them an election, they will renege on the compact.

In 2000, I believe that G.W. Bush would have won handily if they had followed this rule. I think Nixon would have won over Kennedy, Obama might even have lost in 2012.

I bet there is some fine print, such as, “The compact only goes into effect once all states sign on” or some such.

16 posted on 04/24/2014 11:47:04 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

That change would, unlike the national popular vote laws, actually require an amendment. The Constitution quite clearly states that each state will have a number of electors equal to the number of Representatives and Senators representing that state in Congress. (Plus, via amendment that DC will have three electors).


17 posted on 04/24/2014 11:47:08 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I should read before commenting. The rule is clearly there, as they award the votes to the person getting the popular vote *nationally*, not by state.


18 posted on 04/24/2014 11:50:07 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and Obama won the popular vote in 2012. How would a law requiring states whose EV’s totaled at least 270 to vote for the popular vote winner throw an election to the loser of that popular vote?


19 posted on 04/24/2014 11:50:31 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stremba
Therefore, the only way to make the national popular vote laws constitutional would be to characterize them as being implemented solely on a state-by-state basis, voluntarily by individual states.

Yes, I've written about this issue before.

However, the way to make it Constitutional is simply to get Congress to approve it.

That said, states today can implement this on their own without needing a compact. They just have to, on their own without other states, start awarding their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote right now. They don't have to wait for all the other compacting states to join before doing so, if they are true believers in this as the method of awarding their votes.

Lead by example on this issue. Don't wait for a critical mass to form first.

-PJ

20 posted on 04/24/2014 11:51:16 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stremba

Good point.

DC shouldn’t have any vote.


21 posted on 04/24/2014 11:54:02 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The state legislatures will direct the electors as to how they cast their votes.

I guess rogue votes could still be cast.

I find this whole movement puzzling.

How could a state legislature think it would be a wise thing
to direct the electors to vote against the will of the voters?


22 posted on 04/24/2014 12:12:56 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Democrats will be for it until the GOP wins the next election and New York finds itself voting Republican.

Actually, they will be for it until the first time they perceive it costing them an election.

Aside from that, I can’t imagine why any state would voluntarily dis-empower itself. Strange.


23 posted on 04/24/2014 12:18:17 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junk Silver

“Unfortunately that isn’t necessarily the case, especially in the long term. As soon as the electoral vote total of the states agreeing to this reaches 270 the intent of the constitution will have been subverted and America’s chief executive will be elected by popular vote. It’s worth noting that this is happening concurrently with the push for amnesty, which could add millions of immigrant (ie. Democrat) voters to the roles of blue states.”

If they have 270 electoral votes, from immigrants or otherwise, then it still doesn’t matter that they are allocating delegates according to the popular vote, or the traditional method. They’ve already got national elections sewn up at that point, with or without this law.


24 posted on 04/24/2014 12:32:31 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

“They’ve already got national elections sewn up at that point, with or without this law.”

You are correct. What I see here is Democrats preparing for a future with massive majorities in the big cities due to Amnesty. It is conceivable that a Leftist candidate could then get a majority from urban voters while the “flyover” states voted differently, thus creating an Electoral majority without a popular win.

The founders crafted this system to help keep the union intact, it troubles me to watch their intent being subverted.


25 posted on 04/24/2014 12:38:49 PM PDT by Junk Silver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Assuming these Maoist states manage to enact their plan and there's an election where it actually affects the outcome it seems likely that SCOTUS would weigh in.One can only imagine which side they'd take.
26 posted on 04/24/2014 12:49:48 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Stalin Blamed The Kulaks,Obama Blames The Tea Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junk Silver
The founders crafted this system to help keep the union intact, it troubles me to watch their intent being subverted.

There is no law, no regulation, no rule, no Constitution that the Left cannot subvert.

That is what they do!

27 posted on 04/24/2014 12:50:16 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Outstanding reason #276 why secession is the only answer.
28 posted on 04/24/2014 12:51:06 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Stalin Blamed The Kulaks,Obama Blames The Tea Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

If in effect and Ted Cruz gets 50.01% of the popular vote, he won’t get 1 blue state elector.


29 posted on 04/24/2014 12:53:20 PM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
I'm sure the state of Massachusetts would figure out a way to give its electoral votes to the Democrat, if that would determine the winner, regardless of the compact. Democrats always play Calvinball.

This may be why the Democrats are so unconcerned about the IRS targeting of political opponents--they figure they will always have the White House, between schemes like this one and granting citizenship to illegal aliens, so they will never be the potential victims of the IRS.

30 posted on 04/24/2014 2:09:16 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"My prediction is this: If it appears that it will cost them an election, they will renege on the compact."

I think you are correct.

31 posted on 04/24/2014 3:18:32 PM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The odd part is that there isn’t even a “state-by-state” vote for President.

In each state, there are a slate of electors pledged to each candidate. The “vote” taken is for the slate of electors. Now, some states make this clear, some not so clear; some states may in fact say you are voting for a particular person, and then have laws requiring the electors be assigned based on popular vote. But in man states, not a single vote is cast for a candidate.

In fact, I wonder if there is a chance for a major play here. What if it so happens that a few big republican states are states that have clear election laws that show they are NOT voting for a candidate? And then what if the democrat loses big, but the next day files suit claiming that only 30 states actually cast a “vote” for an actual person, and that the democrat has the most of those votes, and therefore is the “national vote winner”.?

What i can’t figure out is why a person living in ANY state would want their own state to pass a law that says their own vote doesn’t count.

The legal problem with this policy is that no two states count votes the same way. Which is fine in a system where each state is simply electing their slate, because you can argue that within the state, all individuals had equal opportunity to vote for that slate.

As soon as you have the possibility of a popular vote mattering, you will open the vote to claims of 14th amendment violations, as a voter in Virginia could argue that he was denied “equal access” to vote because unlike Oregon he had to go to the polls.


32 posted on 04/24/2014 7:59:04 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | 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