|| Write Us | Help | Sponsors | Classifieds | Employment | Forums | MarketPlace | Calendar | Headlines | Announcements | Weather | More... ||
|11-11-2011, 08:02 AM||#1|
Left Tries an End-Run Around the Electoral College
|[ Reply w/Quote ]|
|11-12-2011, 09:38 AM||#2|
Member Since: Nov 2008
No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
ALABAMA - Party Pledge / State Law - § 17-19-2
ALASKA - Party Pledge / State Law - § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA - State Law - § 6906
COLORADO - State Law - § 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT - State Law § 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - DC Pledge / DC Law - § 1-1312(g)
FLORIDA - Party Pledge / State Law - § 103.021(1)
HAWAII - State Law - §§ 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE - State Law - § 805
MARYLAND - State Law - § 20-4
MASSACHUSETTS - Party Pledge / State Law - Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN - State Law - §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and elector is replaced).
MISSISSIPPI - Party Pledge / State Law - §23-15-785(3)
MONTANA - State Law - §13-25-104
NEBRASKA - State Law - § 32-714
NEVADA - State Law - § 298.050
NEW MEXICO - State Law - § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA - State Law - § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO - State Law - § 3505.40
OKLAHOMA - State Pledge / State Law - 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON - State Pledge / State Law - § 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA - State Pledge / State Law - § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT - State Law - title 17, § 2732
VIRGINIA - State Law - § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory - "Shall be expected" to vote for nominees.)
WASHINGTON - Party Pledge / State Law - §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN - State Law - § 7.75
WYOMING - State Law - §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108
Since many states already direct how their electors should vote, I don't think its a problem (legally speaking) to say they have the electors to vote based on the National Popular vote, although it cedes a lot of any state's importance and the wishes of its residents.
I know Maryland has a law that would award the state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. As long as others agree to do the same as the law will not go into effect until enough states adding up to 270 also enact similar laws. I would guess this was driven by the 2000 election when Gore won the national popular vote. The thing is that Gore won Maryland's votes, so this law, had it been in effect at the time, wouldn't have changed Maryland's votes. But, can you imagine how many heads would have exploded when they realized they would have had to cast their votes FOR George Bush in 2004 (not to mention that this law would have been quickly been repealed )?
I would rather have the states electors vote based on the popular vote of each district with the leading vote getter of the entire state getting 2. I feel this represents the [any] state population better.
Go back and search before you rock back that Pez dispenser of Stupid called a mouth. ~ Pete
Last edited by Rommey; 11-12-2011 at 09:40 AM.
|[ Reply w/Quote ]|