Abolition of Electoral College under way

World Net Daily

A movement is sweeping the nation that could eliminate the Electoral College in national elections, and with it much of this country’s republican form of government, instead giving unstoppable control over the White House to any coalition the major population centers would choose to create.

Maryland’s state legislature already has given approval to a proposal that would, in conjunction with other states’ efforts, eliminate the college, and similar plans have already been approved by single legislative houses in Hawaii, Colorado and Arizona. In seven more states – Washington, Montana, California, New Mexico, Louisiana, West Virginia and Connecticut – the plans have been endorsed by legislative committees.

And in 28 more states the proposals have been introduced while legislative writers in another eight states are working on plans, according to a report from the group called National Popular Vote, which is lobbying for the change.

You can read the entire article here.

53 Responses to “Abolition of Electoral College under way”

  1. globalist_elitist Says:

    The title of this article is inaccurate. The National Popular Vote movement would not “abolish” the electoral college – it would reform it.

    The facts are:

    1. The Constitution creates the electoral college system in which the states determine how their electoral votes are allotted

    2. State law determines how those votes are allotted

    3. This plan does nothing to undermine #1 or #2. If an individual state decides that it wants to give its electoral votes to the electors of the national popular vote winner, then this is entirely within the scope of their constitutionally delegated powers.

    “State’s rights” people are only for “state’s rights” when it means white privelage and non-white subjugation.

  2. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    This has nothing to do with Segregation or Race. Shutup.

    This has to do with a state being able to voice who it wants to be President, even if that isn’t a popular viewpoint.
    Under this system, a thirdparty candidate could never get any electoral votes, it would make third party’s even LESS likely to catch the eye of the media.

    Furthermore, as i’v already stated—it removes a states right to declare who it wants to be President. In ‘04, Bush lost California by 10%, but under this system—he’d have still gotten there electoral votes
    Why should someone who lost by 10% in California get all of California’s electoral votes?

  3. globalist_elitist Says:

    No state is forcing anything on any other state.

    Each state is making a decision for itself.

    Why do YOU think you get to tell California how to divide up its electoral votes? What gives YOU the constitutional authority? What gives the federal government the authority?

    Answer: NOTHING.

  4. Trent Hill Says:

    It doesn’t matter GE. Even if California doesn’t agree to it, after a majority of the electoral college passes it—it’ll go into effect anyway.

  5. Richard Winger Says:

    If Mexico and France can get along OK with a direct popular vote for president, and if every state can get along OK by electing its governor with a plain old popular vote election, what is the problem with a national direct popular vote? As to third parties, if the Reform Party can elect the Governor of Minnesota in 1998 with a plain old simple popular vote, why is that system harmful to minor parties? Third parties also won gubernatorial elections in Alaska and Connecticut (both in 1990), and in many earlier elections in many states.

    As to “Republican form of government” we will continue to have a republican form of government if we elect the president by direct popular election. “Republican form of government” means the voters choose an executive and a national legislature, and they enact laws. That is differentiated from “direct democracy”, in which the voters themselves, either assembled in town hall-type meetings, or by voting on ballot measures, enact or repeal laws.

    As far as federalism, we will still have federalism, even if we elect the president by national popular vote. We will always have federalism as long as we have the 10th amendment, which says the the federal government has no functions other than those listed in the US Constitution, and that everything not mentioned belongs to the states, and/or the people.

    The existing electoral college legitimizes the idea that it is OK to give some voters more power than other voters. That unfortunate philosophy also justifies depriving third party voters of their voting rights. One evil justifies another. Removing one evil will make it easier to fight other evils. And it is an evil for government to give some voters more power than other voters. The government must treat all voters equally, just as it must give equal justice in the courts (thus the image of the blindfolded statue of Justice).

  6. Trent Hill Says:

    As iv stated before—Im not neccesarily against this proposal. Just pointing out that GE’s reasoning for it is wrong. I’d have to read the bills, which I haven’t done yet.

    Although I will say this, the idea of “spoiling” an election will grow.

  7. George Phillies Says:

    Ignored in this is that there is no ‘national popular vote total’.

    For example, in several states it was for many years true that absentee ballots were not totalled if they could not change the outcome of the election.

    The proposal here appears to void the fundamental compact on which our country was founded.

  8. Cody Quirk Says:

    GE, why the heck do you have David Duke’s website linked to your TPW name?

  9. Richard Winger Says:

    It is wrong to say there is no official national vote total for presidential elections. Both the Federal Election Commission and the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives calculate the official national popular vote total for president, and publish the returns. The FEC is required to calculate this, because the federal campaign public spending law treats parties differently if they polled at least 5% for president, than other parties. Therefore, the FEC must know which parties met that standard. The FEC publishes the returns in a book called “Federal Elections (year)”.

  10. George Phillies Says:

    The ‘official national vote total’ is the total of the state reports, whcih only need to be accurate enough to determine who won in each state. The uncounted votes in a number of states might be substantially larger than the 2000 national vote total difference.

    Note that there has never been doubt as to whether or not a party qualified under the 5% rule. The D, R, and Perot ‘96 votes were obviously way over; otehrs were obviously way under. If on some date a party were very close to 5% there might very well be litigation as to whether they were entitled to funds or not, and (recall the Arizona Sherif and the odd gun law) there would be no constitutional basis for compelling county or town officers to perform a recount for Federal purposes.

  11. globalist_elitist Says:

    Trent – California does not control other states. Should they? Why? Becuase they agree with you? If they do?

    No one is twisting anyone’s arm. If Michigan wants to give its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, then you are not authorized to prevent them from doing so. The Constitution, the president, the Supreme Court, etc., have no such authority. IT IS UP TO THE STATES THEMSELVES.

    Cody – I’ve been waiting for someone to ask me that. It is a link to DavidDuke.com in which Ron Paul is profiled. He, along with Tancredo, appear to be the Dukesters top choices for president in ‘08.

  12. matt Says:

    GE,
    That’s a low blow and you know it. Smearing by association is as old as the hills and anyone could see through a stupid smear like this. For one thing, it’s just a reprint of a C-SPAN interview, posted without commentary. This is miles from an endorsement. Most likely Duke is just trying to pump up his site traffic a little bit by posting something about a big mover in the paleoconservative movement.

    If you had a link that actually contains a ringing endorsement by David Duke for Dr. Paul, you would have posted it. I guess you prefer innuendo and childish bullshit to fact. Or at least that’s what I’m assuming, unless you provide a link that actually says that. I’m sure not interested in rooting around in a bunch of white supremacist garbage looking for it.

    Call me if you find Dr. Paul endorsing David Duke. That would be news. This is just a smear, and a retarded one at that.

  13. SovereignMN Says:

    GE is right that the Constitution says that the states can grant their electoral votes however they see fit. However, just because something is Constitutional doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

    States would be very foolish to go along with this movement. Instead of making a statement about who should be President they would be going along with the crowd.

    If enough states followed down this path then the campaigns would be strictly waged in the population centers, primarily along the coasts. These are the most liberal parts of the country so all it would do is continue both parties push towards socialism.

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    Sovereign, Agreed.

    GE, I’ll oppose you on two counts. The first is the California issue:
    My point is, if the majority of the electoral college agrees to this bill (and Montana doesn’t). Montana has only 900,000, so candidates will largely ignore this rural area,and only concentrate on urbanized areas.
    Next you’ll want to hold Gladiator games, and give bread out to the proletariat?

  15. Michael Says:

    Were it not for the Electoral College instead of the possibility of having a recount in four counties in Florida in 2000, we would have had to have had a recount of ALL the precincts in ALL of the counties in ALL of the states. Let’s have the good common sense to keep it.

  16. Darcy Richardson Says:

    “Were it not for the Electoral College instead of the possibility of having a recount in four counties in Florida in 2000, we would have had to have had a recount of ALL the precincts in ALL of the counties in ALL of the states. Let’s have the good common sense to keep it.” – Michael

    Actually, it would have been quite the opposite. Regardless of the outcome in Florida, where tens of thousands of African-American voters were deliberately disenfranchised, Gore won the popular vote by more than a half-million votes nationally. It wasn’t even close, at least by historical standards. No recount would have been necessary.

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    Michael, a fine point.

    Also,
    I never hit my second point.
    GE, just because David Duke posts something about Ron Paul doesn’t mean anything. Just because someone endorses a candidate or a party doesn’t mean anything. Have you heard of Saint Michael Jesus the Archangel? He’s a republican candidate for president. Have you heard of Ole Saviour? He’s a Democratic candidate for president. Just because David Duke endorses someone, that doesn’t mean that by association they are ruined too.

  18. Trent Hill Says:

    Darcy, you’re dodging the point. HAD it been closer, a recount of ALL precincts (costing millions) would have been neccesary.

  19. Darcy Richardson Says:

    “Darcy, you’re dodging the point. HAD it been closer, a recount of ALL precincts (costing millions) would have been neccesary.” – Trent Hill

    What point am I dodging? Michael referred specifically to the 2000 presidential election and that’s what I responded to. Besides, exactly what mechanism would trigger a nationwide recount in a direct popular vote when one candidate receives 543,000 votes more than his leading opponent? Citing the potential cost of a recount is the worst of all arguments made by those who oppose reforming the Electoral College.

  20. globalist_elitist Says:

    Matt – “That’s a low blow and you know it.” I DO know it. Duke is anti-war, and so am I. Sharing one view doesn’t mean anything. And no, he is not endorsing Paul, nor is Paul endorsing him. But they share a lot of similar views. If that’s a “retarded smear,” then so be it.

    SNM - You are right. Just because something is constitutional does not mean that it is a good idea. But just because Trent thinks something is a bad idea does not mean that it is unconstitutional, or against what the “founders intended.”

    To all – I disagree that national popular vote would concentrate campaigns in “urban” (i.e. black) population centers. Instead, it would force candidates to campaign for every vote. Every vote should be equal. If you disagree, then there’s nothing to debate. But I can tell you this – a natioanl popular vote would make a trip to Alaska a lot more viable than the current system does. The rural Utah voter’s vote, which is essentially worthless now, should be equal to the college professor from Columbus, OH’s vote. Should it not? Why is the professor from Columbus worth more than the Christian polygamist in Utah?

  21. globalist_elitist Says:

    While it is true that a truly close national election would create major problems under a national popular vote, the likelihood for there being problems is much smaller than under the current system. There hasn’t been a truly close national vote count since JFK/Nixon way back in 1960. By comparison, there have been dozens of extremely close statewide vote counts.

  22. Trent Hill Says:

    Darcy,

    He used 2000 as an example, but was alluding to a close National Election.
    Also, even if the total was off by more than a few votes. A recount of that many votes could/would turn up a significantly different number than the first vote. Because the system is currently localized, the most we can end of recounting is 34 million (California). Besides GE, your last statement doesn’t mean anything except exactly what I am saying—elections are close sometimes. It’s easier for a state-wide election, but definetly possible in a national election.

    “If that’s a “retarded smear,” then so be it.”
    It is.

  23. Brandon H. Says:

    I was not sure about this, but Ron Paul is against the National Popular Vote, and few are more knowledgeable about the Constitution than him, so I am going to lean against supporting this.

    Still, I wish all states would distribute their votes similar to Nebraska and Maine (distribute by Congressional Districts).

  24. globalist_elitist Says:

    You don’t have to be a genius to read and understand the constitution. It is not a long read. Ron Paul can be against national popular vote. I would be highly surprised if he said that the plan being floated were unconstitutional, and if he did say that, he would be absolutely wrong.

    Again, the facts are:

    1. The Constitution creates the electoral college system in which the states determine how their electoral votes are allotted

    2. State law determines how those votes are allotted

    3. This plan does nothing to undermine #1 or #2. If an individual state decides that it wants to give its electoral votes to the electors of the national popular vote winner, then this is entirely within the scope of their constitutionally delegated powers.

  25. George Phillies Says:

    There is a point here being overlooked. Suppose we have a close election and large state A, which rejected this scheme and only counts absentee ballots if they matter, went 60-40 for candidate X, while the nation went very slightly for candidate X. There is no way to force State A to do a recount, even if there are good reasons for supposing that counting the absentee votes etc would move State A to 59-41 for candidate X, thus moving the country to ‘very slightly for candidate Y’. A state not participating in the scheme has no reason to support a recount, and possibly some motive to support any of a range of legal arrangements that have the effect of hacking the ‘national popular vote total’.

  26. globalist_elitist Says:

    To the above, I say “Oh well.”

  27. Richard Winger Says:

    It is a fantasy that any state ever fails to count all its legal absentee votes. Even if there were such a state, Bush v Gore (the US Supreme Court decision) said it violates the 14trh amendment for any state to treat any voter unequally with any other voter. Every legal voter has a right to have his or her vote counted.

  28. Joe Murphy Says:

    Brandon H. – I agree that electoral votes should be distributed by congressional districts. This way in a state like PA where the final vote was close, the loser who won several cong. dists’ would still have something to show for their efforts. I have never liked the winner take all approach the states use now. I strongly oppose the national popular vote craze that is sweeping the nation, though I agree it is not unconstitutional just dumb.

  29. Cody Quirk Says:

    Cody – I’ve been waiting for someone to ask me that. It is a link to DavidDuke.com in which Ron Paul is profiled. He, along with Tancredo, appear to be the Dukesters top choices for president in ‘08.

    =Wow! Then I guess the Democrats really are communists since the CPUSA has repeatedly endorsed and worked for Democratic candidates.

  30. Andy Says:

    “Cody – I’ve been waiting for someone to ask me that. It is a link to DavidDuke.com in which Ron Paul is profiled. He, along with Tancredo, appear to be the Dukesters top choices for president in ‘08.”

    So what if Duke has Ron Paul on his new site? I’m sure you are trying to spin this as meaning, “See, Ron Paul is a horrible racist that wants to oppress people!” but this is pure nonsense. I remember a few years back Ron Paul was thinking about running for President and he talked about having Walter Williams as a potential Vice Presidential running mate. Walter Williams is BLACK. Also, Aaron Russo has endorsed Ron Paul for President and is actively working on his campaign. Aaron Russo is JEWISH. So much for Ron Paul being a horrible racist.

  31. undercover_anarchist Says:

    To the best of my knowledge, Ron Paul is not a racist. More than just racism defines David Duke. The fact that they share so many ideas should call into question those ideas. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re bad (Duke, Paul, me, and you are all anti-war), but it is food for thought. And a “retarded smear” for fun, too.

  32. Cody Quirk Says:

    And a “retarded smear” for fun, too

    -And a very retarded one at that.

  33. SovereignMN Says:

    GE says: “The rural Utah voter’s vote, which is essentially worthless now, should be equal to the college professor from Columbus, OH’s vote. Should it not? Why is the professor from Columbus worth more than the Christian polygamist in Utah?”

    First off, there is no such thing as a Christian polygamist. Nice try though.

    Secondly the United States is not, repeat IS NOT, a democracy. The current electoral system was put in place exactly because of this argument. The Founders knew that if this country was “The United State of America”, instead of the “United StateS of America”, that the large population centers would dominate the will of the country at the expense of the smaller rural areas. The less populated rural regions were given a certain level of autonomy for the very purpose of protecting their interests from being overrun by a numerical majority from outside their area.

    If you want to remove all vestiges of state boundaries then why stop at the electoral college? Why not abolish the entire U.S. Senate as well? After all, the voter in North Dakota has more sway in the Senate than the voter in California.

  34. globalist_elitist Says:

    First off, our definitions of “democracy” are not the same. You see it as a tyranny of the majority, completely unlimited and unbound, and obviously a bad thing. I see democratization as a good process. Extending the vote to non-property-owning whites; a good thing. Extending the vote to black men; a good thing. Extending the vote to women; a good thing. Extending the vote to people ages 18-20; a good thing. These were all instances in which electoral politics became more democratic. If “democracy” is this inherent evil that you make it out to be, then these are all bad things, I guess. I disagree.

    If you disagree that all votes should be treated equally, then we have a fundamental disagreement, and neither of us is going to convince the other. But you have to admit, as I believe you have, that you do not believe that a rural Utah person is equal to a urban Ohian.

    As for the Senate, obviously it has been corrupted from its origianl purpose as being essentially an ambassadorship of the state governments, with senators being sent by state legislatures. The purpose of the senate was to put a check on federalism.

    But you must think the founders were really stupid. The Constitution says that states can determine their electors any way that they want. The National Popular Vote does not infringe upon the Constitution. Direct election of senators, as passed by a constitutional amendment, is entirely legal. If the founders did not want the constitution to be amended, then they would have not outlined provisions to do so. If they did not want National Popular Vote, then they would have outlined a procedure for how a state should determine its electors or excluded any methods that they saw unfit.

    You can argue that NPV is a bad idea. I disagree. But you can’t say that it is either unconstitutional or “against what the founders wanted” unless you think the founders were a bunch of idiots.

    Also, there are Christian polygamists. It is a religion. You are obviously very ignorant of other cultures. Shame on you.

  35. SovereignMN Says:

    GE says: “But you can’t say that it is either unconstitutional”

    =Never have. Please don’t put words into my mouth. We are in agreement here.

    GE says: “or ‘against what the founders wanted’ unless you think the founders were a bunch of idiots.’ ”

    This is flawed logic. Just because the founders put a method in place for the States to act a certain way, or a method in place to amend the Constitution doesn’t mean the Founders would have endorsed such a move. They weren’t tyrants.

  36. globalist_elitist Says:

    But if it were really “against their intentions,” then they would have crafted exclusionary language into the constitution. It may not have been what they intended, but it wasn’t AGAINST their intentions. Their intention was to let the states decide.

  37. Trent Hill Says:

    “First off, our definitions of “democracy” are not the same. You see it as a tyranny of the majority, completely unlimited and unbound, and obviously a bad thing. I see democratization as a good process. Extending the vote to non-property-owning whites; a good thing. Extending the vote to black men; a good thing. Extending the vote to women; a good thing. Extending the vote to people ages 18-20; a good thing. These were all instances in which electoral politics became more democratic. If “democracy” is this inherent evil that you make it out to be, then these are all bad things, I guess. I disagree.”

    No one thinks that letting women, blacks, and young people vote was a bad thing (...well….except Joe, Angela,and Lofton. But they’re crazy). However, Democracy IS a mob-rule. That is why we don’t have a complete democracy,and why I don’t want one. As long as this is representative, the government can’t be manipulated like Ancient Rome.

  38. Trent Hill Says:

    Does anyone know Ron Paul’s 1Q fundraising totals?

  39. Chris Says:

    As long as this is representative, the government can’t be manipulated like Ancient Rome.

    Rome was a republic for about 450 years of its existence. Even during the Imperial period, they still considered themselves a Republic and day-to-day government was still republican in nature.

    There was never any time during the history of the Roman Republic/Empire when government was “democratic” in the sense that you use the word.

  40. Chris Says:

    Does anyone know Ron Paul’s 1Q fundraising totals?

    FEC report here.

    Total receipts: $639,989

    He smokes Jim Gilmore and out-raised Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee, John Cox, and Duncan Hunter. In the battle for 1st in the 2nd tier, he seems to be winning.

  41. Darcy Richardson Says:

    “Does anyone know Ron Paul’s 1Q fundraising totals?”

    Trent,

    According to the FEC, Paul raised $639,989 in the first quarter and spent only about $115,000.

  42. Darcy Richardson Says:

    Oops, sorry. I didn’t see Chris’s response.

  43. undercover_anarchist Says:

    The distinction between “democracy” and “republic” is a modern one. Ask Darcy, I’m sure he knows this.

  44. Trent Hill Says:

    “Total receipts: $639,989

    He smokes Jim Gilmore and out-raised Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee, John Cox, and Duncan Hunter. In the battle for 1st in the 2nd tier, he seems to be winning.”

    So does that make him the top second tier candidate?
    Where did Tancredo place in fundraising? What about Hagel?

  45. Former_Michigander Says:

    Allocating electoral votes by congressional districts would be far worse than the current system. In my former home state of Michigan, for example, Bush carried 10 districts in 2004, while Kerry won only 5, yet Kerry won the statewide vote very comfortably. The CD system would have elected Bush in 2000, even though Gore had 537,000 more popular votes nationally, so it would not reflect the nationwide vote any better than the current statewide winner-take-all system does. Moreover, there are only 41 presidentially competitive congressional districts in the US - 9% of the districts. That’s even less competition than the statewide winner-take-all system, where only about a third of people live in the 16 battleground states.

  46. Winston Smith Says:

    GE/UA again prove their nuttiness, guilt by association. If I were to run as a MP, and some one contributed a few poundsto my run, would I then have to interview him and find out his whole life story-make sure he has not ever looked at David Duke’s site, had a racist thought, etc??

    Though police are we then, eh chums

  47. John Koza Says:

    George Phillies is incorrect in saying there is no official national count of the popular vote in presidential elections. Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report their November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” You can see these Certificates for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site. The U.S. Constitution requires the Electoral College to meet on the same day throughout the U.S. (mid-December) and therefore sets a final deadline for vote counts from all states. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court has interpreted section 5 as making 6 days before the Electoral College the effective deadline for finalizing vote counts.

  48. John Koza Says:

    Trent Hill worries that, under a national popular vote, “Montana has only 900,000, so candidates will largely ignore this rural area.” In fact, a national popular vote is the ONLY way to make Montana matter in presidential elections. The small states, such as Montana, are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state. Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. Presidential candidates don’t poll, visit, advertise, organize, or worry about issues of concern to states that they cannot possibly win or lose.

    Presidential candidates generally make about as many campaign stops during the 3-month campaign as there are congressional districts (435). And, they allocate their advertising money roughly in tune with their visits. The money and visits are currently concentrated in just 9 closely divided battleground states. 88% of the money is focused onto just 9 closely divided battleground states: Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and New Hampshire. 99% of the money goes into just 16 states.

    A national popular vote would create a 50-state campaign in which candidates would spread their attention over the entire country, roughly corresponding to population. That is, they would tend to visit each state roughly as many times as the state has congressional districts. Instead of concentrating 88% of their attention in just 9 states, the Democratic candidate would suddenly care about how many votes he got in Montana, and the Republican would care about Maryland.

    A national popular vote would mean that every person’s vote would matter, regardless of where it is cast.

  49. Middleton Says:

    An April 16 posting says that NPV “removes a states right to declare who it wants to be President.” First of all, the NPV law is a law state that is passed by a state legislature. It doesn’t remove any “right” that the state doesn’t want to give up.

    The posting also objects to the fact that “In ‘04, Bush lost California by 10%, but under this system—he’d have still gotten their electoral votes.” So what? Who cares who gets the most votes within a particular state? The whole point of NPV is that the states are joining together to say that the person who gets the most votes in all 50 states should be President. Under NPV, the states are agreeing, in advance, to give their entire combined pool of electoral votes (enough to elect a President) to the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states. The presidential election is not about choosing presidential electors. It is about choosing a person to serve 4 years as President. The entire purpose of presidential electors is to show up in mid-December at the meeting of the Electoral College and spend 10 minutes casting their totally predictable votes, in accordance with state law. If you want to know who got the most votes in a particular state, read a newspaper.

    If you insist on making electoral votes reflect only the vote in each individual state (instead of the national popular vote of all 50 states and DC), it becomes possible for a second-place candidate to win the White House.

  50. Freelancer Says:

    Do any of you remember that no government can operate or should operate without the consent of the governed. The states formed the federal government. And the people formed the state governments. This is still observed even today. Whenever you want to change the Constitution you need permission from the states to amend the Constituion. Before a state constitution is amended they need consent from the governed ( the people vote on the amendment ). Since both the states and people are governed the E.C. reflects that, ( 2 Senators + Representatives ). I don’t have time to defend this or to go into detail.

    John Koza-

    If a state really feels like it is being disadvantaged by its concerns not being addressed… we live in a free country there are more than two parties to choose from. They can vote for a third party candidate. I agree with SovereignMN. After the Electoral College goes then next will be the U.S. Senate.

  51. globalist_elitist Says:

    NO AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY.

    At least not to the U.S. Constitution.

    Are you retarded?

    States determine how their electoral votes go. There’s nothing in the constitution telling them that they can’t award them to the winner of the NPV. NOTHING.

    Perhaps state amendments would be necessary if the state constitutions determine how electoral votes are allocated.

    Look, there is no way the E.C. is ever going to be ablished. NPV is not a plan to abolish the E.C. It is a plan to render it irrelavent in a completely constitutional manner. No amendment to the U.S. Constitution is necessary.

  52. globalist_elitist Says:

    And again, you show your complete and utter lack of constitutional knowledge.

    NPV does not require a constitutional amendment.

    Equal representation in the Senate cannot be abolished, EVEN BY AMENDMENT. Read Article V, moron. It is the only thing that cannot be undone.

    And besides, based on the amendment process, there is no way for either of these “goals” to be accomplished via amendment. Perhaps the Senate could be abolished or rendered powerless, but the small states would never allow this.

  53. Freelancer Says:

    GE-

    It’s not nice to call names. Don’t judge me. I know what the Constitution says. No state can be deprived of their equal sufferage in the Senate “without its consent”. However, if someone really wanted to they would look for a loophole. I think Congress could pass an amendment and try to get each state to consent to lowering their Senators to zero and essentially abolish the Senate. But this would require ALL the states to ratify it. And not very many states would go along. Can the Senate be abolished? Seriously, I don’t think so. The U.S. Senate is here to stay.

    And yes GE, I understand the NPV. It is a compact between states. The states have the right to decide how the electors are chosen. Even by the national popular vote. I think the reason why people are so hyped up about this it is that if enough states join and elect the President this way for a long time, people will get so used to this that they’ll just decide to abolish the Electoral College all together.

    One other thing. Please, try not to be so rough with people. :)

Leave a Reply