BREAKING NEWS: The Plan to Steal Your Vote
If Democrats in the North Carolina state legislature get their way tomorrow, next year North Carolina voters could go to the polls and overwhelmingly elect Fred Thompson President. But more than half of the state's electoral votes could go to his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, even if Clinton got pummeled at the ballot box here. That's right. Clinton could receive more than half of North Carolina's electoral votes even if she doesn't win the state, regardless of the will of the voters.
House Bill 353 passed on second reading today. If it passes on the third reading tomorrow, all it will take is the stroke of Governor Mike Easley's pen for it to become law because an identical version of the bill also passed in the state Senate.
Currently, all 15 of the state's electoral votes go to whichever presidential candidate wins statewide. Because Republicans have won statewide here for decades, under the current system, they'd go to the Republican.
Instead, the bill awards just two of the state's 15 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes statewide. The other 13 would be awarded according to who wins in each of the state's congressional districts. So if Clinton gets the most votes in Rep. Mel Watt's congressional district, she would receive that district's electoral vote.
Since seven of the 13 Congressional districts in the state are held by Democrats, the Democrats' theory is that at least seven electoral votes out of the 15 would go in the Democrat column.
Make your opinion known on this issue ASAP.
To find out who represents you specifically in NC:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/GIS/Representation/Who_Represents_Me/Who_Represents_Me.html
July 26, 2007
Governor Easly
(Contact Web Site)
http://www.governor.state.nc.us/email.asp?to=1
General Assembly Mecklenburg Representation
House Members
Martha B. Alexander (District 106) D
Marthaa@ncleg.net
Becky Carney (District 102) D
Beckyc@ncleg.net
Tricia Ann Cotham (District 100) D
Triciac@ncleg.net
W. Pete Cunningham (District 107) D
Petec@ncleg.net
Beverly M. Earle (District 101) D
Beverlye@ncleg.net
Jim Gulley (District 103) R
Jimg@ncleg.net
Ric Killian (District 105) R
Rick@ncleg.net
Ruth Samuelson (District 104) R
Ruths@ncleg.net
Drew Saunders (District 99) D
Drews@ncleg.net
Thom Tillis (District 98) R
Thomt@ncleg.net
Just emails--copy and paste in your address window:
Marthaa@ncleg.net
Beckyc@ncleg.net
Triciac@ncleg.net
Petec@ncleg.net
Beverlye@ncleg.net
Jimg@ncleg.net
Rick@ncleg.net
Ruths@ncleg.net
Drews@ncleg.net
Thomt@ncleg.net
Reply to this
It's actually designated as S353...even though it's in the House now. People can track the progress by clicking">http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=S353">clicking here
Reply to this
This legislation just makes me livid. Talk about "real" voter disenfranchisement! It is dishonest and crooked. Democrats abhor the will of the people, capitalism and the Constitution. They are the ones that don't want the voters to know the party affiliations of our school board members and judges (look on the ballot the next time you vote). The reason why is that people know Democrats are soft on crime and put teacher rights over student education. Also it is assumed by thinking people that only idiots and fools vote for politicians that have a jackass as its party symbol. Ironic ain't it.
Tara, love the show,
Mark
Reply to this
i have always felt that the electoral college should be changed in the constitution so that each congressional district is its own race. Then the winner of each state in the popular vote would get two votes for the Senators. i feel that this way there is a good chance your vote could mean something in many states. this could only work if the electoral College was changed so that all States would do it this way.
Reply to this
This bill was killed in NC to stop a similar plan by Republicans in California.
Either way, many states historically pursued this method, since every state has the constitutional right to elect their presidential electors any way they see fit. Maine and Nebraska do it this way. Again, this is not unconstitutional, not illegal, and has a good bit of historical precedent behind it.
But is it right? Well, how do Republicans feel if the matchup is John Edwards vs. Rudy, when some polls have the Senator beating the Mayor in NC? Instead of John Edwards getting 15 electoral votes, he'd only get 8 or 9. But the electoral votes would reflect the combined will of North Carolina ... especially if someone like Bloomberg jumps in. Under the current system, in a race with three serious candidates, one candidate can get all of the electoral votes with 34% of the vote. Is that fair?
Also, if you look at historical trends, Hillary would probably get 5 electoral votes to Fred's 10. There is no way Hillary could get most of the electoral votes from the state and not be the overall winner ... she would have to win in 8 congressional districts to do that, and that's not going to happen.
Furthermore, I would think Republicans would love this plan, since the national GOP would be spending money in Congressional Districts like 11, 7, and 8, helping out Republicans running for the General Assembly.
This is a much more complicated issue than it looks like on the surface.
Reply to this
I don't see this as bad. I think every state should split up their electorial votes and move away from "winner take all." How many Republican voters in CA or NY don't show up because they figure the state will all go blue anyway? And likewise how many Dems in a red state do the same? Citizens in each district will still need to make the effort to vote in order to have a say in the election and not just base their actions on if they think the whole state will agree or disagree with them. The real issue to keep an eye on is how many "legal citizens" vote.
Reply to this