Not to disappoint
Posted on 11/16/2008 2:45:18 PM PST by presidio9
How would you like to have your state's vote count a little differently when it comes to presidential elections?
Under a recent proposal sponsored by New York state Sen. Joseph Griffo, R-Rome, the country’s popular vote would be the deciding factor of where some states’ Electoral College votes would go when it comes to choosing future U.S. presidents.
The National Popular Vote bill, which has been introduced into both the New York state Assembly and Senate, would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states will win the presidency, Griffo said. Any state that is part of this compact would give their electoral votes to whoever won the country-wide popular vote, he said.
“We in New York know how it feels to be treated as if we were politically irrelevant — an entire state and its voters are ignored by one party and taken for granted by the other,” he said. “That’s not the democracy I want to leave as my legacy to the future.”
Griffo recently called for New York state to support the National Popular Vote Bill as part of his reform effort to ensure that people’s voices are heard at every level of government and that the popular vote is given more clout.
Deansboro resident Gary Ford said the proposal isn’t in the best interest of the state. If New York’s Electoral College votes go toward the country’s popular vote, even if that’s not what the state voted for, it takes away the purpose of voting, he said.
“Why are even bothering to vote?” asked Ford. “Our votes are supposed to reflect the best interest of the country and our region, and they are supposed to gel.”
Not a big impact
While in theory, this concept may be a good idea, it likely wouldn’t have that big of an impact overall, said Hamilton College professor Philip Klinkner.
“At the end of the day, it wouldn’t make much of a difference,” he said. “In most presidential elections, the popular vote winner wins the Electoral College.”
That backfired in the 2000 presidential election between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George Bush, when Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the Electoral College. However, that was the first time that’s happened in more than 100 years, Klinkner said.
“I’m not sure that there’s a big problem there,” he said.
Support of the National Popular Vote bill is gaining ground, Griffo said. Bills to create the National Popular Vote passed 11 legislative chambers last year, he said.
Spending more time and money visiting many of the states that were considered throwaways before would definitely change the way campaigning is done, Griffo said. That could also be considered a downside of the bill, he said, since it would make campaigning more costly.
Klinkner agreed it could change the way candidates campaign and put more focus on New York.
“Republicans might be a little more tempted to campaign upstate — you might see more visits by presidential candidates,” he said. “Maybe it helps a little, but maybe it hurts a little.”
Future action; concerns
Another one of the questions still unanswered is whether this type of binding compact could be upheld by law. Regarding constitutional issues, Griffo said there are none he’s aware of, but it’s likely that point will be raised or litigated.
More than 25 states have taken some sort of action toward enacting a law of this nature, he said. Concerns also come from traditionalists who question changing a process that seems to work well most of the time.
“It’s the lack of familiarization — it’s new, so people are kind of fearful,” he said.
The ideal situation would be to get this plan in place for the 2012 election, Griffo said. That way, there will be four years to make people understand the concept, debate it and discuss it.
“I don’t see that we’ll pass it this year, maybe it will take longer. I think it could work or I wouldn’t support it,” he said. “There are many challenges facing the state … this is only one element of things we’re dealing with. I recognize there are more significant issues.”
I forgot to add: A “Republican form of government”, to me, means that the electors for the state are chosen by the people only of the state, not by others outside the state. Whether it’s done by winner-take-all or apportioned by congressional district, a state’s votes in the EC should be decided by the people of that state and nobody else.
Get rid of ACORN, which disenfranchises legitimate voters and the 17th Amendment which disenfranchises States, THEN we’ll talk about disenfranchising Congress of their EC votes. Until then, I kind of like the idea of check and balance. Even though Congress is to blame for ACORN and the 17th.
And if ACORN is able to pull it off in George, Minnesota and Alaska for 60 rat votes, we are going to see the Socialist Workers Republic of the States of America forging progress over the cliff
And the Founders left it to the states to determine how they allocate their electoral college votes. If a state wants to give its votes to the national popular vote winner, fine.
Unless the states constitution states how the electoral votes is to be awarded, there is no constitutional problem with this. Or using a coin toss to allocate the votes.
“Under a recent proposal sponsored by New York state Sen. Joseph Griffo, R-Rome, the country’s popular vote would be the deciding factor of where some states’ Electoral College votes would go when it comes to choosing future U.S. presidents. “
Griffo should be run out of town. This bill would allow Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, San Franciso, Boston, Newark New Jersey, the Raleigh Durham Triangle, Baltimore, etc to select all future Presidents.
Any party opposed to the policies of the Democrats would be finished and states like Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Alabama, Mississippe, etc would not even get any attention from Presidential candidates.
Look at New Jersey. THAT is what you would have on a national level. Not all of that state is liberal Democrat, but the Dems control the political machines in all the big and moderate sized cities in that state and the suburbs and rural areas - mainly non-minority, educated and propductive, exsist only to be parasitized by the deyed inners cities and the Democrat controlled machines which run them
Griffo is either a closet Democrat or an idiot.
The National Popular Vote bill goes into effect only if a group of States which equal a majority of the Electoral Votes (at least 270 of 538) adopt this bill. New York’s passing of this bill would not cause it to go into effect. This bill is a bad idea for New York, and would be a catastrophe for the nation, so I doubt expect this bill to pass in New York.
You are not voting to decide which candidate's electors get our state's votes. Your vote will be pooled with the rest of the country and the winner of the popular vote will get our electors."
Here's a great scenario: The popular vote is "too close to call". Lawsuits are intiated in 435 districts. Some states won't count absentee and disputed ballots unless they're needed. So now states within the compact are suing those states to force them to count them so the popular vote winner can be determined. The entire election sits in limbo for weeks. One of the compact states decides not to wait. To take advantage of "safe harbor" they must appoint their electors by 12/12. So they drop out. Now there are not enough states in the compact to determine the winner so the other states that joined are now no longer in it. Lawyers and judges pick the President. Rioting ensues.
I like the idea too. I have a question about that though. What would the count have been this time under that system?
Having the electoral vote go to the winner of each Congressional District with the 2 extra going to the statewide winner is more feasible. Gerrymandering would play a bigger role than ever and the party that went to this approach first for their states would be at a disadvantage. Hopefully conservative leaning states are more reluctant to make any of these types of changes, but I haven't seen the list of states that have approved it so far.
It looks like Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, and New Jersey have passed the National Popular Vote agreement. Of the 20 chambers that approved it, I see the Arkansas House, Colorado Senate, and the North Carolina Senate that are from possible Red(or battleground) States.
ANYthing they think is a good idea in the New York legislature must prima facie be idiotic...
This cretin is a Republican? I would think that a republican would want to uphold the original intent of the constitution. Further proof there is no republican party in New York and there are no republicans.
How about this? From Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3 (my emphasis added):
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.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_111208/content/01125113.guest.html
Look at the Red/Blue map posted at Rush Limbaugh’s website. Obama would still have won if elector’s were assigned by congressional districts instead of “winner take all”, but it would have been a much closer race.
Unless there is a law requiring a majority vote to win the presidency, a national popular vote law will lead to 100’s of candidates and parties, and a winner who could win with a low percentage of the vote. Twenty-five percent is entirely reasonable. In fact, it could eventually become a strategy to encourage a 100 candidates.
Art IV Sec 4 guarantees to every State a Republican form of government. IMO, this legislation violates that clause of the Constitution.
Not to disappoint
Let me revise and extend...
The RhINOs in the New York Republican Party are (unfortunately) found mostly in our Senate and Assembly. Our county organizations are as useful as mammary glands on a male pig. The only reason for this is that we Republicans from the people’s republic of New York grew up with Nelson Rockefeller as a role model. We’d have done better with Barry Goldwater, and most assuredly with Ronaldus Magnus.
But we are out there.....
Would be in instant violation of the US Constitution. Not that that matters a tinkers Damn anymore...
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,
L
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.