Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, October 26, 2017

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez made a false claim about the Electoral College during a lecture this week.

Speaking at the Indiana University law school Tuesday night, Perez had this to say about the Electoral College, which is detailed in Article II of the Constitution:

"The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn't have to be there."

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Perez went on to describe a national movement that would change the way Americans vote for president every four years.

"There's a national popular vote compact in which a number of states have passed a bill that says, we will allocate our votes, our electoral votes, to the person who wins the national popular vote once other states totaling 270 electoral votes do the same," Perez said. "I'm frankly proud to tell you that the first state to pass such a law was Maryland."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Those pesky facts:

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America:

"The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the vice president, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

"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: but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."

Nice to know that the Chair of the DNC flunked Civics.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-26 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I guess the chair of the dnc can't read.

"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: but no Senator or
Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United
States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two
persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State
with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and
of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and
transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to
the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence
of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the
Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
shall be the President,"

#4 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-10-26 05:29 PM | Reply

What Perez probably meant was that the Constitution does not tell states how they must allocate their electors. States cangive them to the national popular vote winner and get around the moronic idea that a Wyoming voter should have a vote four times as powerful as a California voter because of cow proximity.

#5 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-26 06:50 PM | Reply

#5

To be fair, that is what I was thinking he was trying to say as well.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-26 06:51 PM | Reply

- the Constitution does not tell states how they must allocate their electors.

Is there a precedent? I have no idea if it's been done before.

#7 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-10-26 06:54 PM | Reply

States can choose their electors any way they like as long as they follow their own Constitutions.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-26 07:00 PM | Reply

The tragedy is that typical Dems listen to this fool and are not smart enough to know that he is full of crap.

#9 | Posted by sawdust at 2017-10-26 07:29 PM | Reply

What may not be constitutional is telling an elector who to vote for.

The Constitution states the electors will file ballots.
If your remove the elector's choice of who to vote for, you don't need electors.
If the law would determine who gets the votes, then it would run contrary to the electors need to file a ballot.

The problem with the popular vote over the electoral vote goes back to the origination. Why campaign in small states?

#10 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-10-27 08:29 AM | Reply

Why is this even a conversation?

Oh yea, Hillary lost!! ***snicker*****

#11 | Posted by boaz at 2017-10-27 12:34 PM | Reply

What Perez probably meant was that the Constitution does not tell states how they must allocate their electors.

#5 | Posted by rcade

He did NOT say that.

#12 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-10-27 01:45 PM | Reply

Rcade, the problem is political opponents don't take that into consideration. Rational people do. I didn't think Obama was stupid because of his 57 states comments. I didn't think Quail was dumb because of potato...

Trump didn't mean, "your son signed up to be killed"...but that's how it was spun by the left and their media allies.

#13 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2017-10-27 04:49 PM | Reply

How do you know what Trump meant?

#14 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-10-28 09:52 AM | Reply

And you do dok?

#15 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-10-28 12:38 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort