newsobserver.com projects - National Popular Vote - Comments

Re: Meek backs popular vote bill

MattM — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:55:16 -0400

The purpose of the electors was to stop a popular vote from taking place. The general population wasn't smart enough to choose the President then, and in 2008 I don't think anything has changed... Barack Obama was chosen as the Democrat nominee, do we need any further evidence?

Re: Meek backs popular vote bill

mvymvy — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:05:10 -0400

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that needs to be changed in order to have a national popular vote for President. The winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes inside the state) is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is strictly a matter of state law. The winner-take-all rule was not the choice of the Founding Fathers, as indicated by the fact that the winner-take-all rule was used by only 3 states in the nation's first presidential election in 1789. The fact that Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district is another reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. All the U.S. Constitution says is "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." A federal constitutional amendment is not needed to change state laws.

Re: Meek backs popular vote bill

MattM — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:50:42 -0400

The raping of our Constitution continues... can we send these guys to Cuba?

Re: Meek backs popular vote bill

mvymvy — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:21:17 -0400

To be involved in the National Popular Vote bill effort . . .

Make Your Vote for President in North Carolina Count as Much as a Vote in Ohio or Florida. Add Your Voice. Sign the Petition at http://NationalPopularVoteNC.com/

Join today's live blog conversation at 3:00 p.m. with Dr. John Koza, the founder of the National Popular Vote organization and Matt Gross, who paved the way for bloggers in politics in the work he did for Howard Dean, Erskine Bowles and John Edwards and their campaigns.
http://bluenc.com/live-blog-on-national-popular-vote-with-matt-gross-and-dr.-john-koza-today

Help get the word out and show your support.

Tell a friend- http://www.NationalPopularVote.com/pages/tellafriend.php

Distribute literature at political, civic, or other meeting, convention, or conference.
Post on discussion groups.
Write letters to editors, OpEds, and/or blog.
Please include a link to the National Popular Vote web site by including something like "See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com"

Up-to-date information and materials are at http://www.NationalPopularVote.com/pages/explanation.php

Re: Meek backs popular vote bill

kimkim — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:02:40 -0400

I was just pointing out the problem with this position within the Dem primary. This is a terrible and deeply flawed way to go...

Re: Meek backs popular vote bill

dahedgehog — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:45:32 -0400

kimkim, you'd also have to ignore the voters in the caucus states for that to hold true.

Re: Meek backs popular vote bill

kimkim — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:31:19 -0400

Terrible idea for many reasons.

I guess Meek wants Hillary to be the Dem nominee for President since she did win the popular vote in the Dem primary. (If you count Michigan and Florida)

Re: Meek backs popular vote bill

FFC1304 — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:15:48 -0400

its the NC 'democrat' PARTY - NOTHING 'democratic' about your peeps, Jerry!

Re: Meek backs popular vote bill

captsfufp — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:05:04 -0400

This bill completely disregards the intent of North Carolina voters in the presidential election. I'm not saying that NC's popular vote could NEVER affect the final vote (2000, 2004), but, usually, the "winner" would remain the same if you took us out of the mix. So, essentially, this bill seems to cast our electoral votes to the rest of the country instead of casting those votes based on NC votes.

I'm a Democrat, and I think this is a terrible, no good, horrible, bad idea. If people are looking for Electoral College reform, I would suggest a bill that would proportionally allot our state's electoral votes...one votes per district and two votes reflecting the state-wide vote. This better reflects the intent of NC voters...

Re: Skipping past the Electoral College?

ryanteaguebeckwith — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:14:08 -0400

I believe it needs the governor's signature. It has in other states.

— RTB

Re: Skipping past the Electoral College?

Prospero — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:47:51 -0400

Such an Interstate pact will be void unless it is approved by Congress.
(U.S. Constitution.)

Beyond this, a Supreme Court decision would be inevitably sought, and the Equal Protection Clause would need to be harmonized, not to mention that pesky Voting Rights Act and countless precedents and Court decisions related to all these matters of law.

You can be sure this will not be on the agenda of the General Assembly this summer, though only one discharge from a committee and a Third Reading is necessary (and, if I'm not mistaken, without the need for a gubernatorial signature, since the U.S. Constitution places each state's apportionment of it's Electors specifically with the legislatures) for apportionment by Congressional Districts - with two at large - to become law (which makes a lot more sense for the Democrat Nomenklatura this year anyway.)

They might try this dumb idea after that, however.