Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: Illinois law would bypass Electoral College

  1. #1
    Elite Member Just Kill Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    sucking on a blow pop and playing with electrodes
    Posts
    15,550

    Default Illinois law would bypass Electoral College

    Ill. law would bypass Electoral College
    By NGUYEN HUY VU, Associated Press WriterMon Apr 7, 8:22 PM ET


    Illinois will award its presidential electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote — but only if several other states follow suit.
    A bill signed into law Monday by Gov. Rod Blagojevich made Illinois the third state, after Maryland and New Jersey, ready to bypass the Electoral College in November. The three states, with a combined 46 electoral votes, won't act unless states totaling 270 electoral votes — enough to elect a president — sign on.
    "By signing this law, we in Illinois are making it clear that we believe every voter has an equal voice in electing our nation's leaders," Blagojevich said in a statement. As a congressman in 2000, the governor co-sponsored a proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
    The new law is part of a national push by the California-based advocacy group National Popular Vote Inc. It's aimed at preventing a repeat of the 2000 election, when Al Gore got the most votes nationwide but George W. Bush put together enough victories in key states to win a majority in the Electoral College and capture the White House.
    The Electoral College is set up by the Constitution to make the final decision on who becomes president. States get one electoral vote for each member of their congressional delegation. Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes by congressional district, but other states award them on a winner-take-all basis.
    Under the National Popular Vote plan, states agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. If most of the electoral votes were awarded that way, the popular vote winner would be guaranteed to win the election.
    In the case of a tie in the popular vote, the current system would be used.
    Critics of the proposal say it could reduce the influence of smaller states, and that a close presidential election would require a nationwide recount.

    Copyright 2008 The Associated Press


    Awesome.

  2. #2
    Elite Member tkdgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,469

    Default

    The Supreme Court will shoot this down.

  3. #3
    Elite Member Just Kill Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    sucking on a blow pop and playing with electrodes
    Posts
    15,550

    Default

    Because they suck.

  4. #4
    Elite Member tkdgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,469

    Default

    Because they uphold the law. If people want to change the Constitution, it must happen the way laid out in the Constitution itself.

  5. #5
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    It's aimed at preventing a repeat of the 2000 election, when Al Gore got the most votes nationwide but George W. Bush put together enough victories in key states to win a majority in the Electoral College and capture the White House.
    This is a strong enough argument for getting rid of the electoral college.

    And people have been pushing to do away with the electoral college for years. This is nothing new. It is outdated.

  6. #6
    Elite Member Just Kill Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    sucking on a blow pop and playing with electrodes
    Posts
    15,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkdgirl View Post
    Because they uphold the law. If people want to change the Constitution, it must happen the way laid out in the Constitution itself.
    Yeah, we'll have votes on it! Just like with gay marriage bans and what not. The supreme court upholds the law and they also overturn them. This gets into a whole state's rights issue; do the states not have the right to decide for themselves how their votes within national system should be used? It would interesting to see the fallout. I'm sure it would be nothing like the civil war.

  7. #7
    Elite Member tkdgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,469

    Default

    I suggest those who want to get rid of the electoral college re-read American Government 101.

  8. #8
    Elite Member Just Kill Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    sucking on a blow pop and playing with electrodes
    Posts
    15,550

    Default

    Our government and judicial system is a constantly evolving thing; why is absurd to think that the electoral college will eventually be recognized for the outdated and unnecessary farce that it is.

  9. #9
    Elite Member tkdgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Kill Me View Post
    Our government and judicial system is a constantly evolving thing; why is absurd to think that the electoral college will eventually be recognized for the outdated and unnecessary farce that it is.
    Yeah, its evolving out of control to the point where activist judges re-write law that the people have voted in. Start with judicial reform first, and make sure judges abide by laws on the books- not create new ones because they don't like the ones in place.

    Our political system is all checks and balances. Judicial, executive and legislative. When one has too much power, this country is no longer the representative republic as founded by the fathers of our country.

  10. #10
    Elite Member louiswinthorpe111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Middle America
    Posts
    11,918

    Default

    The point of the electoral college, back in the day, was to keep the stupid people out. Really. People 200+ years ago were not real educated. so the founding fathers came up with the electoral college to impede stupid people from making the ultimate decisions, and leaving it in the hands of elected officals.

    With that said, I do think it's an antiquated system. The constitution should be amended to revise this into a more practical system.
    RELIGION: Treat it like it's your genitalia. Don't show it off in public, and don't shove it down your children's throats.

  11. #11
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by louiswinthorpe111 View Post
    The point of the electoral college, back in the day, was to keep the stupid people out. Really. People 200+ years ago were not real educated.

    Not to sound too cynical, but I don't see that it's changed much. People still seem quite stupid to me.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  12. #12
    Elite Member Just Kill Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    sucking on a blow pop and playing with electrodes
    Posts
    15,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkdgirl View Post
    Yeah, its evolving out of control to the point where activist judges re-write law that the people have voted in. Start with judicial reform first, and make sure judges abide by laws on the books- not create new ones because they don't like the ones in place.

    Our political system is all checks and balances. Judicial, executive and legislative. When one has too much power, this country is no longer the representative republic as founded by the fathers of our country.
    An example would be Bush and his glorious signing statements. Our system is horribly out of balance.

  13. #13
    Elite Member tkdgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Kill Me View Post
    An example would be Bush and his glorious signing statements. Our system is horribly out of balance.
    He is granted veto powers by the Constitution. And if you compare records, Bush has vetoed some of the fewest bills ever by a President.

  14. #14
    Elite Member sluce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Top Secret Spy for Leann Rimes
    Posts
    37,330

    Default

    ^^ It's not the quantity that counts but the quality of his vetos and the reasons behind them.

  15. #15
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    556

    Default

    well isn't that convenient

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 18th, 2008, 02:12 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 5th, 2007, 07:42 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 11th, 2006, 02:31 PM
  4. DJ AM Pre-Gastric Bypass
    By ReinaBikipatra in forum Weight
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 26th, 2005, 07:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •