Oregon Voters to choose to eliminate Electoral College

[INVAR]

Forget Article V, THIS is where the media and the Left are focusing all their attention:

Oregon Voters to choose to eliminate Electoral College

Oregon May Become the First State to Use Direct Democracy to Join the Presidential National Popular Vote Agreement Plan


The Plan is to encourage various states to sign onto an agreement that would require each signatory state to cast its electoral college votes not for the candidate who garners a plurality of popular votes in THAT STATE, BUT for the candidate who wins the most popular votes NATIONALLY.....

So far Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, Vermont, California, New York, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia—comprising 165 electoral college votes altogether (well more than half the needed 270 votes)—have adopted the plan.

Then think about voter fraud, ballot stuffing, Illegal voters
And. ...... Hillary who claims she had the 3 million vote popular lead

The push for pure Mobocracy is well underway.

[Wingnut]

Well that Idea is a steaming pile of no effen good.

As Madison explained in The Federalist, the greatest problem for republican governments throughout human history had been majority tyranny—or what the Founders called majority “faction.” The history of republican government was replete with instances of passionate majorities, fueled by their own narrow interests, governing in a manner adverse to the rights of other citizens and to the common good. Even Thomas Jefferson, who is thought to have been less concerned about the abuses of republican government than his Federalist adversaries, had warned in his Notes on the State of Virginia that an “elective despotism was not the government we fought for.”[3]

Madison was worried, with good historical evidence, that majorities would use the democratic process to expropriate the wealth of the minority. Since the ultimate purpose of civil government, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims, is to secure each man’s natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the American government would not last long if it was not structured in a way that provided for popular self-rule and protected the natural rights of all citizens, majority or minority.

The basic structural elements of the American Constitution—separation of powers, checks and balances, an independent judiciary, and the expression of popular will through the medium of representative institutions (in other words, republicanism instead of direct democracy)—were understood by the Founders as the best way of empowering government to do energetically what the people needed it to do, but also of checking the possibility of abusive government by carefully limiting and channeling its authority.

These constitutional limits on government presented a fundamental obstacle for the original Progressives, who sought to free the power of the national government for the purpose of responding to a set of social and economic problems that the founding generation supposedly never could have envisioned. The Founders’ institutional arrangements and concern for the natural rights of minorities were being abused, Progressives argued, by special interests who were simply trying to game the system for their own advantage and deny equality of opportunity for all citizens.

[Cripplecreek]

When they were trying to push their national vote pact they made sure to include a loophole so they could "opt out" 6 months before the election. If it looked like a tough election for democrats they could opt out or manipulate the system for an advantage.

For what the national popular vote does just look at what the popular election of senators has wrought.

[endicom]

That's not eliminating the electoral college.

[Cripplecreek]

That's not eliminating the electoral college.

More of a sidestep.

Rather than trying to push the national popular vote through directly they use the combined votes of multiple states to manipulate the EC tally.

If my state (MI) were to join a pact with Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio we would be forced to give our electoral votes to whoever wins Wisconsin, Illinois, and indiana. It would be as if Michigan and Ohio voted for the winner and increase the overall electoral vote count in favor of that candidate.

[Taxcontrol]

I would prefer the district system.  Each congressional district awards it's electoral vote to the candidate that one 50+ percent of the vote within that district.  In the event that no one receives 50+ percent, a run off election is held 30 days later between the top two candidates.

State electoral votes are issued as follows:  1 to the candidate that won the most districts and 1 to the candidate that received the most votes in the state.

[driftdiver]

Whats ironic is the popular vote would make Oregon voters irrelevant.

[INVAR]

Whats ironic is the popular vote would make Oregon voters irrelevant.

They don't care, as long as the AGENDA moves forward and the Government assumes all care and all control.

[240B]

Not to worry, if history is a guide. Almost every initiative the Dems have come up with to "rig the game" has boomeranged on them and come back to bite them.


If they are going to do this, then the Federal Lawyers better make sure it is ironclad with no loopholes. Knowing Liberals as I do, if a Republican wins the popular vote, they will suddenly change their minds and go back to the original system. Liberals do not obey laws or rules, and they have no honor or dignity at all. They will do whatever it takes to "win", at any costs. When they see that their plan is failing, they simply renege, or they change the rules. That's how they operate. After all, their motto is, 'by any means necessary'. That should tell you all you need to know.

[Cripplecreek]

They don't care, as long as the AGENDA moves forward and the Government assumes all care and all control.

All these claims that this will end up hurting the democrats never seem to pan out. I have yet to see any of these things really hurt the democrats.

In this case it will just add Oregon's electoral votes to a larger electoral voting block. In effect it does strip the individual state the right to choose their own electors but hey, what could go wrong. Stripping the states the right to choose their senators has worked out wonderfully hasn't it?

[Cyber Liberty]

This is stupid.  People in Idaho will be deciding how Oregon's electors go.  They tell me this passes Constitutional muster, but it sure feels wrong vis the Equal Protection clause.

[txradioguy]

This is stupid.  People in Idaho will be deciding how Oregon's electors go.  They tell me this passes Constitutional muster, but it sure feels wrong vis the Equal Protection clause.

It's wrong. Very wrong.

As wrong as an overbooked United Airlines flight.

[Cripplecreek]

This is stupid.  People in Idaho will be deciding how Oregon's electors go.  They tell me this passes Constitutional muster, but it sure feels wrong vis the Equal Protection clause.

This is exactly the same thing the democrats tried passing when they had one house of the legislature here in MI.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I don't like the idea of this, but I also believe that the electors are choosen by the states so it's not my place to say how other states choose.

One thing I've never seen brought up, are you really going to trust your state's votes to the reporting from other states?  FL is winner-take-all, so if we count our votes and determine our winner, what's to stop us from announcing the results as 12,000,000 to 0 to maximize our state's impact on the national election?  Or to not report any results if the D wins?

How do you win a national popular vote when there is no national popular vote?

[Smokin Joe]

They don't care, as long as the AGENDA moves forward and the Government assumes all care and all control.

Precisely. It is not the votes that count, nor the baker, nor the small house where someone wants to put a parking lot, it is the precedent, which once established will be used to take far greater things.

[INVAR]

Precisely. It is not the votes that count, nor the baker, nor the small house where someone wants to put a parking lot, it is the precedent, which once established will be used to take far greater things.

THAT is the danger of the play being made.

Precedents are now the rule of law, and precedents can be managed any which way to Sunday to achieve the desired result, and then the Left cements it as untouchable.

[truth_seeker]

If I recall from 2000 the Constitution says it up to the individual states' legislatures, how the states' electors are allocated.

Maybe I misremember. Or maybe I remember correctly.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

If I recall from 2000 the Constitution says it up to the individual states' legislatures, how the states' electors are allocated.

Maybe I misremember. Or maybe I remember correctly.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.