PDA

View Full Version : Liberal States to bypass the Electoral College



Shooster
07-19-2010, 09:00 PM
The state Legislature is poised to give final approval this week to a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

Both the House and Senate have approved the National Popular Vote bill. Final enactment votes are needed in both chambers, however, before the bill goes to the governor's desk, the Globe reported last week.
(snip)
Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already adopted the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website.

Supporters of the change say that the current Electoral College system is confusing and causes candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states.
Why does this not surprise me. Can they do this?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/mass_may_join_e.html

Rockntractor
07-19-2010, 09:09 PM
I don't think this is up to individual states, they still have to participate in the electoral college.

Articulate_Ape
07-19-2010, 09:17 PM
Why does this not surprise me. Can they do this?

Short answer? Yes, a state legislature can pass any law or resolution they want. Will it pass Constitutional muster? Save a Constitutional amendment, not a chance in hell.

lacarnut
07-19-2010, 09:19 PM
I don't think this is up to individual states, they still have to participate in the electoral college.

Yep and it it unlikely that a Repub will win more than one of those states.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-19-2010, 09:37 PM
Short answer? Yes, a state legislature can pass any law or resolution they want. Will it pass Constitutional muster? Save a Constitutional amendment, not a chance in hell.


I said the same thing about McCain-Feingold.

marv
07-19-2010, 10:18 PM
Can they do this?

Nope! I don't even think they could muster a majority in Congress........

PoliCon
07-19-2010, 10:26 PM
Given that the electoral college is a constitutional mandate - it would take a court packed with progressives for it to pass constitutional muster.

Articulate_Ape
07-19-2010, 10:33 PM
Given that the electoral college is a constitutional mandate - it would take a court packed with progressives for it to pass constitutional muster.

You mean "bypass" surely. To pass Constitutional muster it would require an amendment be ratified by ratified by three-fourths of the states. In short, not happening.

PoliCon
07-19-2010, 10:35 PM
You mean "bypass" surely. To pass Constitutional muster it would require an amendment be ratified by ratified by three-fourths of the states. In short, not happening.

You know what I mean. :p

Rockntractor
07-19-2010, 10:36 PM
I'm waiting for the ruling to come from the supreme court that the constitution is merely a list of suggestions that may no longer apply. I expect it in my life time.

Bleda
07-19-2010, 10:41 PM
I'm waiting for the ruling to come from the supreme court that the constitution is merely a list of suggestions that may no longer apply. I expect it in my life time.

The Constitution is more what you'd call “guidelines” than actual rules.

PoliCon
07-19-2010, 10:43 PM
I'm waiting for the ruling to come from the supreme court that the constitution is merely a list of suggestions that may no longer apply. I expect it in my life time.

IF we allow the left to keep choosing SCOTUS nominees - it will.

Rockntractor
07-19-2010, 10:54 PM
The Constitution is more what you'd call “guidelines” than actual rules.

I 'm not sure i would agree, if that were the case i think they already would have found a way to do away with it.

Bleda
07-19-2010, 11:00 PM
I 'm not sure i would agree, if that were the case i think they already would have found a way to do away with it.

0:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bplEuBjppTw

:p

fettpett
07-20-2010, 02:22 AM
Not surprsingly that website spins historalical and Constitutional history for their own purpose.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m1.php#m1_3

While the essensice of what they say is techincally true. It's inheirtently false due to the fact that none of these were issues at the time. We are a Republic, we elected reperesnatives to vote for us, either in Congress, President or the Electoral College. I hate the arguments agianst the EC as they are intelectually flawed and sometimes outright lies/mistruths/misunderstnadings.

I had a coworker/friend that I had this debate with. He believed that the EC wasn't even part of the Consitution but added in as an Amendment later on. goes to show the horrible state of our social sciences in this country

noonwitch
07-20-2010, 10:56 AM
You mean "bypass" surely. To pass Constitutional muster it would require an amendment be ratified by ratified by three-fourths of the states. In short, not happening.



That's what I always thought, too. Like ERA, which didn't pass because it wasn't ratified by enough states.

Satanicus
07-20-2010, 01:31 PM
You guys weren't concerned when Gonzo said the constitution doesn't give us the right to Habeas Corpus ?

Our most fundemental right was taken, and you guys defended it.

More fake outrage.

fettpett
07-20-2010, 01:34 PM
You guys weren't concerned when Gonzo said the constitution doesn't give us the right to Habeas Corpus ?

Our most fundemental right was taken, and you guys defended it.

More fake outrage.

bullshit. Gonzo was a bad AG (not as bad as Holder) why don't you go walk off that short pier troll

Satanicus
07-20-2010, 01:35 PM
bullshit. Gonzo was a bad AG (not as bad as Holder) why don't you go walk off that short pier troll

And yet you all defended him taking HC

PoliCon
07-20-2010, 02:05 PM
You guys weren't concerned when Gonzo said the constitution doesn't give us the right to Habeas Corpus ?

Our most fundemental right was taken, and you guys defended it.

More fake outrage. do you have anything on your menu besides red herrings?? :rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape
07-20-2010, 03:41 PM
And yet you all defended him taking HC

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

I am not necessarily defending it in this case, but is defensible I think. So defensible, in fact, that your "Dear Leader", President Barack Obama has continued the suspension (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html), unsurprisingly after he promised during his campaign to restore it.

Never bring a knife to a gunfight, you silly fool.

fettpett
07-20-2010, 05:27 PM
And yet you all defended him taking HC

find the posts where any of us have defended the suspension HC? you wont find them

will someone ban his dumbfuck ass please

PoliCon
07-20-2010, 05:31 PM
Why let him hijack thread with these red herrings?

Hawkgirl
07-20-2010, 06:42 PM
Clearly, they're still upset about Gore losing the election...

PoliCon
07-20-2010, 10:40 PM
Clearly, they're still upset about Gore losing the election...

always bent out of shape when they don't get their way. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
07-20-2010, 10:42 PM
Clearly, they're still upset about Gore losing the election...

I think they are still counting votes.

Satanicus
07-21-2010, 07:09 AM
Gore got more votes than Jr.

The people wanted Gore, not Bush.

lacarnut
07-21-2010, 07:40 AM
Gore got more votes than Jr.

The people wanted Gore, not Bush.

Boo Hoo. Cheater could not win his home state. People that know him best voted for Bush. Ha ha.

Lager
07-21-2010, 08:40 AM
Gore got more votes than Jr.

The people wanted Gore, not Bush.

Now that the veiil is lifted and you see what Gore really is all about, aren't you glad he didn't win?

marv
07-21-2010, 09:59 AM
You guys weren't concerned when Gonzo said the constitution doesn't give us the right to Habeas Corpus ?

Our most fundemental right was taken, and you guys defended it.

More fake outrage.
But it was okay during the Civil War when it served a noble purpose, wasn't it? Means justifying the ends is okay - except by conservatives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Some

(snip)
Libtards like to re-write history. Unfortunately, it's showing up in elementary and high school text books already.

Gore? That part of history will be selectively re-written - without the masseuse!

PoliCon
07-21-2010, 11:14 AM
Gore got more votes than Jr.

The people wanted Gore, not Bush.


sure they did. :rolleyes:

Zathras
07-21-2010, 11:17 AM
Gore got more votes than Jr.

The people wanted Gore, not Bush.

And if the President was elected via the popular vote that might mean something. But, as we use the Electoral College to determine the Presidency, it doesn't really mean anything does it.

marv
07-21-2010, 12:39 PM
I see some research on the why and wherefore of the EC was created.

It was intended to prevent populous states like NY, VA , or PA from overrunning less populous states like SC, RI or DE with the popular vote. It also promoted the idea of two major political parties without shutting out minor parties.

It was a brilliant idea.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

PoliCon
07-21-2010, 01:04 PM
I see some research on the why and wherefore of the EC was created.

It was intended to prevent populous states like NY, VA , or PA from overrunning less populous states like SC, RI or DE with the popular vote. It also promoted the idea of two major political parties without shutting out minor parties.

It was a brilliant idea.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

It also leveled the playing field between urban and rural voters as well.

Satanicus
07-21-2010, 04:49 PM
But it was okay during the Civil War when it served a noble purpose, wasn't it? Means justifying the ends is okay - except by conservatives.

Hey genius, HC can be suspended during INVASION or a REBELLION.

The Civil War was a rebellion.

Why did Gonzo take HC ? ...Was it an invasion or rebellion ?

Satanicus
07-21-2010, 04:52 PM
I see some research on the why and wherefore of the EC was created.

It was intended to prevent populous states like NY, VA , or PA from overrunning less populous states like SC, RI or DE with the popular vote. It also promoted the idea of two major political parties without shutting out minor parties.

It was a brilliant idea

Ya, if you have something against one man one vote.

Why should Wyoming votes count for more than NY votes ?

The votes are not equal, one means more than the other.

I prefer a democracy to the EC

PoliCon
07-21-2010, 04:53 PM
Hey genius, HC can be suspended during INVASION or a REBELLION.

The Civil War was a rebellion.

Why did Gonzo take HC ? ...Was it an invasion or rebellion ? Ask Obama since he's continued the policy.

PoliCon
07-21-2010, 04:54 PM
Ya, if you have something against one man one vote.

Why should Wyoming votes count for more than NY votes ?

The votes are not equal, one means more than the other.

I prefer a democracy to the EC

And the founding fathers loathed the concept of democracy. You're more than welcome to relocate. Canada has direct 1 man 1 vote elections.

fettpett
07-22-2010, 10:26 AM
Ya, if you have something against one man one vote.

Why should Wyoming votes count for more than NY votes ?

The votes are not equal, one means more than the other.

I prefer a democracy to the EC

well then, go live in a democracy then....I hear Cuban and Venezuela are taking applications

the United States is a REPUBLIC not a Democracy. not a "Representative-Democracy" like most of Europe/Canada. It's more a "Republic with Democratic tendencies" due to the direct election of the reps. Why don't you go read the Federalist papers and study some history to understand that

Odysseus
07-27-2010, 10:43 AM
What the legislatures are doing is requiring that their electoral votes go to the winner of the national popular vote. Since the states determine how their electoral votes are allocated, this is not, in itself, unconstitutional, although it could generate challenges when people realize that no matter how they vote, their states' electoral votes will go to the national winner, rendering the votes within the states null and void except as part of the national tally.

But, as long as the liberal states are doing this, they are screwing themselves big time. The effect would be to suppress voter turnout in those states that adopted this plan, and to tip the scales in favor of a candidate who is more popular across the nation than in a partisan enclave.

Take a state like Massachussetts, which will not go Republican unless the ballots are delivered by flying pigs at mach 2. Under this plan, Massachussetts' electoral votes would have gone to Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Obama in 2008, but they have gone to Bush in 2004 (ironic, since Bush's opponent was from Massachussetts), and Reagan in 1980 and 1984, not to mention GHW Bush in 1988. It takes Mass out of play and puts it in the tally of whoever wins the popular vote, which means that it would end up in the Republican count more often than not.