June 26, 2011

Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week

Even though I agree with the sentiment behind James Glenn's letter, he's unfortunately quite incorrect about the specific details:

The Delaware House Representative recently passed House Bill 55 (again). This bill could in some cases make null and void the will of the voters in Delaware. This bill is admittedly an attempt to bypass the Electoral College as provided in the Constitution.

The last sentence in the Delaware Oath of Office states: "In doing so I will always uphold and defend the Constitutions of my country and my state, so help me God."

Members who voted in favor of H.B. 55 have violated their oath, by attempting to bypass rather than amend the Constitution.

Article II Section 1 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress ...

Delaware's HB 55 does not violate the Constitution of the United States. It merely is exercising the clause in bold above. There's ample reason not to back this bill; however, unconstitutionality is not one of them.

Posted by Hube at June 26, 2011 10:07 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

A survey of 800 Delaware voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support was 79% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.

By age, support was 71% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 77% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 81% among women and 69% among men.


The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for in the total number of popular votes of the country and DIRECTLY assist the candidate for whom it was cast.

Most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Posted by: toto at June 26, 2011 12:24 PM

Excuse me oldgulph, but if you're not smart enough to be a smart sockpuppet, please do not comment here anymore. (Sockpuppet = the same person posting under multiple names.)

Posted by: Hube at June 26, 2011 08:14 PM

I'd note that two states, Maine and Nebraska, apportion their electoral votes differently than the norm: the electors who represent the congressional districts are elected to support whichever candidate wins that congressional district, while the two electors representing the senatorial seats are given to the candidate who carried the state as a whole.

Posted by: Dana at June 26, 2011 09:38 PM

Wow, this again? Can't somebody please put a bullet in the head of this rabid dog so we can put it down for good. Good fucking grief!

Posted by: ThePaganTemple at June 28, 2011 01:24 PM

I know, right??

Posted by: Hube at June 28, 2011 01:24 PM