Skipping past the Electoral College?

Submitted by ryanteaguebeckwith on April 17, 2008 - 9:46am.
Tags: | | | | |

Barry Fadem says North Carolinians shouldn't flatter themselves.

The state may be getting a lot of attention from Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton right now, but that will be over when the May 6 primary ends. 

The reason? North Carolina is not a "battleground state," so its votes won't matter.

"Even in California, everyday we read about the candidates coming into North Carolina to campaign in your primary," he told Dome. "The day after your primary? See ya."

The California attorney was in Raleigh today meeting with legislators about a state bill that he says would change that by switching to a national popular vote. The bill, which passed the Senate and will be in the House in the upcoming short session, is being championed by the National Popular Vote.

Unlike previous unsuccessful efforts to abolish the Electoral College, the bill would not attempt to amend the constitution. Instead, it would have North Carolina sign an interstate compact to award its electors to the winner of the national popular vote.

The compact would only take effect once enough states signed to award the presidency.

So far, Maryland, New Jersey and Illinois have signed, bringing the group to 46 out of 270 electoral votes needed, or one-sixth of the way towards its goal. North Carolina would give it another 15, or more than one-fifth of the way.

You must be logged in to post a comment on this blog. If you already have an N&O online user account, click here to log in. Otherwise, click here to register (it's free!).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: Skipping past the Electoral College?

Submitted by ryanteaguebeckwith on April 18, 2008 - 7:14am.

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

— RTB 

» login to post comments

Re: Skipping past the Electoral College?

Submitted by Prospero on April 18, 2008 - 12:47am.

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.

» login to post comments