Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Electoral College in danger

  1. #1

    Default Electoral College in danger

    The National Popular Vote bill has now been signed into law in states possessing 61 electoral votes. This is almost one-quarter of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the National Popular Vote interstate compact into effect.

    Maryland – 10 electoral votes
    New Jersey – 15 electoral votes
    Illinois – 21 electoral votes
    Hawaii – 4 electoral votes
    Washington – 11 electoral votes

    They are upping the efforts to get rid of it

    http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pepsi View Post
    The National Popular Vote bill has now been signed into law in states possessing 61 electoral votes. This is almost one-quarter of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the National Popular Vote interstate compact into effect.

    Maryland – 10 electoral votes
    New Jersey – 15 electoral votes
    Illinois – 21 electoral votes
    Hawaii – 4 electoral votes
    Washington – 11 electoral votes

    They are upping the efforts to get rid of it

    http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
    They have to Amend the Constitution, otherwise it will most certainly be struck down after the first election cycle to use nothing but 'the popular vote'.
    "Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H.L. Mencken

    Μολὼν λάβε

    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt


  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Red Leg View Post
    They have to Amend the Constitution, otherwise it will most certainly be struck down after the first election cycle to use nothing but 'the popular vote'.
    No they don't. The constitution gives the state the right to appoint electors in any way each state sees fit, so the states that adopt this legislation agree to appoint electors according to the national popular vote.

    It's an end run around amending the Constitution.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  5. #4

    Default

    Not quite sure what to think of this. On the one hand, it would get rid of redistricting problems, but on the other, it would probably give more power to urban voters at the expense of rural voters.

    -t

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Red Leg View Post
    They have to Amend the Constitution, otherwise it will most certainly be struck down after the first election cycle to use nothing but 'the popular vote'.
    No, they don't have to using this procedure because the Constitution allows the states to distribute electors however they please. I am disappointed to say the least that Washington is on the list. I had no idea it was even being considered here.
    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
    Quote Originally Posted by GK Chesterton
    It is often supposed that when people stop believing in God, they believe in nothing. Alas, it is worse than that. When they stop believing in God, they believe in anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke
    Nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tangent4ronpaul View Post
    Not quite sure what to think of this. On the one hand, it would get rid of redistricting problems, but on the other, it would probably give more power to urban voters at the expense of rural voters.

    -t
    Redistricting problems have to do with the House of Reps. It only plays an extremely minor role in the Electoral College.
    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
    Quote Originally Posted by GK Chesterton
    It is often supposed that when people stop believing in God, they believe in nothing. Alas, it is worse than that. When they stop believing in God, they believe in anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke
    Nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    No they don't. The constitution gives the state the right to appoint electors in any way each state sees fit, so the states that adopt this legislation agree to appoint electors according to the national popular vote.

    It's an end run around amending the Constitution.
    Having many, many, many more reps - as originally intended would make the reps more responsive to the voters and largely negate corporate lobbying efforts.

    -t

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tangent4ronpaul View Post
    Having many, many, many more reps - as originally intended would make the reps more responsive to the voters and largely negate corporate lobbying efforts.

    -t
    Yes more Reps and Senators are needed.

  10. #9

    Default

    All the states that on board with this are liberal Democrat states.

    Therefore, in all likelihood, in order for these laws ever to result in making a difference in a presidential election, it would have to be in a situation where the Democrat wins the electoral votes, but the Republican wins the popular vote, in which case these liberal states that would have otherwise delivered their electors and the White House to the Democrat, will instead, because of their own laws, have to deliver their electors and the White House to the Republican instead.

    Or, to generalize this fact without making it a partisan thing, for any state to pass such a law as this, the only time is will ever take effect will be when that state, because of this very law, will have to force its electors to vote for a candidate other than the one who won the most votes in that state.

    I don't know why any state would ever want to pass a law that would require its electors to vote against what the people of that state choose in the election. But if that's what they want to do, it's their loss.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    All the states on board with this are liberal Democrat states.

    Therefore, in all likelihood, in order for these laws ever to result in making a difference in a presidential election, it would have to be in a situation where the Democrat wins the electoral votes, but the Republican wins the popular vote, in which case these liberal states that would have otherwise delivered their electors and the White House to the Democrat, will instead, because of their own laws, have to deliver their electors and the White House to the Republican instead.

    Or, to generalize this fact, apart from any partisan terms, for any state to pass such a law as this, the only time is will ever take effect will be when that state, because of this very law, will have forced its electors to vote for a candidate other than the one who won the most votes in that state.

    I don't know why any state would ever want to pass a law that would require its electors to vote against what the people of that state choose in the election. But if that's what they want to do, it's their loss.
    It doesn't matter yet at all. The law they passed only applies after states adding up to 270 electoral votes pass it.
    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
    Quote Originally Posted by GK Chesterton
    It is often supposed that when people stop believing in God, they believe in nothing. Alas, it is worse than that. When they stop believing in God, they believe in anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke
    Nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nate895 View Post
    It doesn't matter yet at all. The law they passed only applies after states adding up to 270 electoral votes pass it.
    Right, but once that happens, the only way it will ever take effect will be so as to make some states force their own electors to vote for a candidate other than the one the majority of voters in that same state picked.

    And since the participating states are overwhelmingly Democrat strongholds, these laws, if they ever made a difference in the outcome of an election, would almost certainly do so by putting a Republican in office that the people of those states voted against.

  13. #12

    Default

    i am trying to come up with a good message that could be use agianst this. Is this one to long, not good anothe? what you think.


    "Part of the reason the Electoral College is in danger is because its role in our government is a mystery. Many Americans today have little knowledge of the intent behind the Electoral College.

    This national effort to dismantle the Electoral Collegeare being led by a group called National Popular Vote (NPV), which is attempting to achieve direct popular election of the president without using a constitutional amendment. Leaders of NPV are making an end-run around the diffi cult process of amending theConstitution by instead asking states to pass legislation establishing a multi-state compact that would result in the direct election of our president. ! eir objective is to tie all the various states’ electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, even if the majority of a state’s citizens vote against that particular candidate.

    The National Popular Vote bill has now been signed into law in states possessing 61 electoral votes. This is almost one-quarter of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the National Popular Vote interstate compact into effect.

    Maryland – 10 electoral votes
    New Jersey – 15 electoral votes
    Illinois – 21 electoral votes
    Hawaii – 4 electoral votes
    Washington – 11 electoral votes

    Just how little regard does NPV have for smaller states? Such as the Gem State?

    Enough that they can be completely excluded from the process without as much as a whimper. According to NPV’s website," National Popular Vote bill would reform the Electoral College by guaranteeing the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The bill would enact the proposed interstate compact entitled the ‘Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.

    ’The compact would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the membership in the Electoral College (that is 270 of 538 electoral votes)."

    Therefore, states that pass the NPV legislation will pledge their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the state popular vote, thus assuring that the winner of the national popular vote receives a majority in the Electoral College. And it will only take the consent of states that together make up 270 electoral votes, leaving smaller states with no say at all.

    Advocates of this movement believe the Electoral College is a relic. They believe a direct national popular vote would be more democratic, would recognize the nationwide presidential preference, and would truly carry out the dream of equal representation.

    The Founding Fathers had seen the dangers of placing ultimate power into a single set of human hands. Accordingly, they feared that placing unlimited power to elect the president into the politically naive hands of the people could lead to a "tyranny of the majority." In response, they created the Electoral College system as a process to insulate the selection of the president from the whims of the public.

    Preserving Federalism. The Founding Fathers also felt the Electoral College system would enforce the concept of federalism -- the division and sharing of powers between the state and national governments.

    Under the Constitution, the people are empowered to choose, through direct popular election, the men and women who represent them in their state legislatures and in the United Sates Congress. The states, through the Electoral College, are empowered to choose the president and vice president.

    Critics argue that by taking the selection of the president out of the hands of the public at large, that Electoral College system flies in the face of democracy. America is, after all, a democracy, is it not? Let's see.

    Two of the several recognized forms of democracy are:

    * Pure or Direct Democracy -- All decisions are made directly by a majority vote of all eligible citizens. By their vote alone, citizens can enact laws and select or remove their leaders. The power of the people to control their government is unlimited.

    * Representative Democracy -- The citizens rule through representatives who they elect periodically in order to keep them accountable. The power of the people to control their government is thus limited by the actions of their elected representatives.

    The United States is a representative democracy -- under a "republican" form of government as provided for in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government..." (This should not be confused with the Republic political party which is merely named after the form of government.)

    In 1787, the Founding Fathers, based on their direct knowledge of history showing that unlimited power tends to become tyrannical power, created the United States as a republic -- not a pure democracy.

    The Founders were unanimous in their desire that no single entity, be it the people or an agent of the government be given unlimited power. Achieving a "separation of powers" ultimately became their highest priority.

    The critics, can they really say that in 213 years of operation, the Elector College system has produced bad results? Have thier fears ever come true? Only twice in its history have the electors stumbled and been unable to choose a president, thus throwing the decision into the House of Representatives. Who did the House decide on in those two cases? Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.

    As a part of their plan to separate powers and authority, the Founders created the Electoral College as method by which the people could choose their leader while avoiding at least some of the dangers of a direct election.."
    Last edited by Pepsi; 02-01-2010 at 04:27 PM.

  14. #13

    Default

    Isn't this really a treaty between the states? If it is then it is specifically forbidden in the Constitution.

  15. #14

    Default

    Would love to see mess that gets created when the popular vote is so close that it requires a recount.
    "Under every government the final resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people...entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain
    under the direction of the most wealthy citizens." - Anonymous framer of the US Constitution, Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791

  16. #15

    Default

    There was a MAY2008 thread on this, but I thought I'd bump this one to provide an update... given the renewed attention the Electoral College is getting due to Hillary's whining.

    Six more states have been added since the OP, but none in the last three years. That brings the EV total to 165 (61% of the total needed)

    JURISDICTION
    EV
    DATE
    Maryland
    10
    2007-04-10
    New Jersey
    14
    2008-01-13
    Illinois 20
    2008-04-07
    Hawaii 4
    2008-05-01
    Washington 12
    2009-04-28
    Massachusetts 11
    2010-08-04
    District of Columbia 3
    2010-12-10
    Vermont 3
    2011-04-22
    California 55
    2011-08-08
    Rhode Island 4
    2013-07-12
    New York 29
    2014-04-15









    The only easy day was yesterday.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntarist View Post
    There was a MAY2008 thread on this, but I thought I'd bump this one to provide an update... given the renewed attention the Electoral College is getting due to Hillary's whining.

    Six more states have been added since the OP, but none in the last three years. That brings the EV total to 165 (61% of the total needed)

    JURISDICTION
    EV
    DATE
    Maryland
    10
    2007-04-10
    New Jersey
    14
    2008-01-13
    Illinois 20
    2008-04-07
    Hawaii 4
    2008-05-01
    Washington 12
    2009-04-28
    Massachusetts 11
    2010-08-04
    District of Columbia 3
    2010-12-10
    Vermont 3
    2011-04-22
    California 55
    2011-08-08
    Rhode Island 4
    2013-07-12
    New York 29
    2014-04-15









    To get rid of the Electoral College you need to amend the Constitution. That would require 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and three fourths of states to agree. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.54a14cd2582e
    "The only thing we have to fear is.... fear itself!" Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
    "Be afwaid. Be berry afwaid" Donald Trump.

    The optimists built this country and made it great- not the fearful. Fear can only destroy.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nate895 View Post
    I am disappointed to say the least that Washington is on the list. I had no idea it was even being considered here.
    I didn't know they were doing it here in Illinois either. It's like it's being done in stealth. What's more there are republicans involved in introducing it. See Kansas for instance
    In January 2017, the House Committee on Federal and State Affairs introduced the National Popular Vote bill (Status of HB2024). Senator David Haley introduced the bill in the Senate (Status of SB148).

    On February 2, 2012, the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee conducted a hearing on the National Popular Vote bill in Kansas (SB 242).

    In February 2011, Kansas Senator Pete Brungardt (R), Roger Reitz (R), Oletha Faust-Goudeau (D), Steve Abrams (R), Jeff Longbine (R), Steve Morris (R), Ralph Ostmeyer(R), and Tim Owens (R) introduced the National Popular Vote bill (SB 242) in the Kansas Senate.
    I think it ought to be getting some airtime so that people can react.
    The only easy day was yesterday.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    To get rid of the Electoral College you need to amend the Constitution. That would require 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and three fourths of states to agree. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.54a14cd2582e
    They aren't proposing to get rid of the Electoral College. Each jurisdiction is allowed to come up with it's own method of selecting electors. In most jurisdictions it's winner take all based upon who gets the most votes in the jurisdiction. Two states base it by Congressional District. What they're doing with this measure is committing their electors based on the outcome of the popular vote in the national election. There's an argument to be made that the interstate pact may be constitutionally unsound; but there's nothing to stop individual states from implementing the new paradigm.

    But as SovereignMN mentioned earlier in the thread ... I can hardly wait to see every local precinct vote being challenged in court in every election when the national vote count is close.
    Last edited by Voluntarist; 09-19-2017 at 02:13 PM.
    The only easy day was yesterday.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntarist View Post
    I didn't know they were doing it here in Illinois either. It's like it's being done in stealth. What's more there are republicans involved in introducing it. See Kansas for instance

    I think it ought to be getting some airtime so that people can react.
    You assume people would care.
    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan






Similar Threads

  1. Changes in The Electoral College?
    By ronpaulhawaii in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-14-2011, 10:14 AM
  2. Electoral College tie?
    By Bradley in DC in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 12:59 AM
  3. Electoral College
    By MozoVote in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-23-2008, 04:08 PM
  4. Electoral College
    By TastyWheat in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-25-2008, 11:33 PM
  5. Electoral College
    By yaz in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 02:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •