the criminals on Wall Street that tanked our economy, causing millions to lose their jobs, savings, homes, etc.?

If you have any questions, there's a very smart Senator named Elizabeth Warren who would be happy to fill you in on the crimes committed.

go after the BUSHCO criminals who lied us into war and tanked what was left of the economy that they hadn't given away to Halliburton et al.... round them up, send them to The Hague for war crimes.

Then you can go back to your nap.

And the "red hot letter of protest" to be sent to the monkey Bush. Get off your ass, Eric, and do something to stop the rigging of the election. Else, go back to being a mouthpiece for criminals.

Wolf

I had high hopes for you Mr Holder from day one. Since then you have been a huge disappointment.

No bill for electoral rigging got to a vote.

I expect that Ohio and other Republican controlled states (with ALEC's help) will quietly continue such plans and then all jump in too late and in too many locations for the Feds to respond.

I hope I'm wrong, but the GOP is getting desperate - and they will do anything to win - except CHANGE.

and so many other crimes committed by corporate America and corrupt politicians who serve them, so you will forgive us if we are not able to generate much enthusiasm for the new improved Justice Department.

Who knew?

eliminate the electoral college. Just go with the popular vote.

Obvious partisan machinations like these should add support for the National Popular Vote movement. If the party in control in each state is tempted every 2, 4, or 10 years (post-census) to consider rewriting election laws and redistrict with an eye to the likely politically beneficial effects for their party in the next presidential election, then the National Popular Vote system, in which all voters across the country are guaranteed to be politically relevant and treated equally, is needed now more than ever.

To elimate the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

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

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

The "49%" figure says it all - I think the remaining 51% is going to be a bit more difficult.

one step at a time.

then Samuel Tilden, rather than former Union general Rutherford B. Hayes, would have been elected President in 1876. I often wonder whether the South would have been less antagonistic, both towards the North and towards freed slaves, if Tilden, a Democrat, had been able to become President.

Then there was the election of 1888, in which Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison. Of course, Cleveland came back 4 years late to defeat Harrison.

And then, there was the election of 2000, in which Al Gore was cheated out of the White House, even though he had won the popular vote by a margin of 530,000. For sure the US would have been better off with Gore in the White House, than with the man who ultimately ended up there.

Many states would be RED instead of BLUE now and not getting Medicaid exchanges and other Obama reforms enacted if this was in place here. It is an ALEC proposal to disenfranchize the MAJORITY of citizens, as they know that they live in urban areas. We pay taxes for the WHOLE, our voices must be heard.

Holder is even more useless than his boss.

The Founding Fathers feared popular opinion, rule by the masses. They
filtered public opinion with the Electoral College, and with the original
system of selecting Senators in each state legislature. Wouldn't we have
a tilted Senate if that system still existed?

At the same time, The Federalist Papers show an abhorrence of "factions"
or parties, sort of a fear of dominant factions. Freedom was more important,
and that included respect for minority opinions.

I don't pretend to know the Founders' intent, we'll leave that to Antonin.

I do know that cherry-picking votes, political strategies, techniques, and
electoral college votes to win elections is at gut level UNFAIR. Since Maine
and Madison Wisconsin already split their electoral college votes, it may be
hard to prevent other states from establishing their own rules, at least
on a Constitutional basis.

"One man one vote" almost seems inconsistent with the Electoral College.

a Constitution that represented them and their ERA. Many of them were slave holders and obviously racists. They were subjects of the English monarchy and needed something to justify their rebellion. Why would their intent matter to someone today?

That original Constitution does not exist today anyway. I think Scalia and people that use these men as the Gospel should be informed about it. I don't think any Constitution is worth anything, unless the people it governs consent to it. People have the right to rebel against tyranny. There has been two rebellions in this country's history. One was successful and the other was not. In each occasion principles were established in the Constitution after a War. It is still an ongoing process to protect everybody's rights in this country from people who want to oppress certain groups. And that oppression always seems to be instigated on the right. When will they get it through their heads that they are not superior to any other Americans. If anybody thinks they have a racial preference or entitlement, then it seems to be men like Scalia.

but I am not holding my breath

We got to suffer through years of redistricts, re-mappping, people are elected by gaming the system, states like AZ. get away with not counting 600,000 votes... and it's still only TALK, about it.

Holder needs to get off the talk and bring MANY Federal charges and lets sort this out in court!

And don't forget the banksters, war crimes and torture crew, all the other criminals you have ignored

Now if they opened a legal marijuana dispensary he might take action. Something as trivial as rigged elections is off the table.

Does he have the legal power to do something?

I'm sure there's a dispensary in Oakland to raid.

thanks for saying it for me

maybe at least they will know the difference.

...This current crop of democrats, except for Warren, have sat through 4 elections and done nothing about republican theft of our votes....none of them seem to have the ability to stand up straight.

What do you mean...&quot You) Will Not Sit By’ While Republicans Rig The Electoral College?"
Of course you will.

Put up or shut up.

Be still, my heart -- hope he means it!


rocktivity

... in today's financial markets.

Holder can do. Bush V. Gore established that state legislatures have absolute power to choose any slate of electors they want. They can even give the electors to a losing candidate, as the Florida GOP legislature theatened to do in 2000.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."
Article II

Any attempt to appoint presidential electors after the people vote in November would be unconstitutional on its face (and subject to summary judgment) because (1) the Constitution gives Congress the power to establish the day for appointing presidential electors, and (2) existing federal law requires that presidential electors be appointed on a single specific day in each four-year election cycle (namely, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November). Therefore, no state may appoint presidential electors after the results of an election become known (under either the current state-by-state winner-take-all system or the National Popular Vote compact).

It can't decide who is chosen or how.

Bush V Gore:

"This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33.....The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 ("[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated&quot (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.)."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-949

"Plenary means characterized by being full and complete in every respect.... Plenary authority refers to the complete power of a governing body."

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/plenary/

you will continue to go after pot growers and dispensaries- easy targets. Fuck you, Holder.

I think Holder and the Obama Administration as Sister Teresa our Religion teacher used to say are: "Wishy washy spineless jellyfish!"

Go to it, Eric! Give 'em a what for!

Easy to do. Your address of choice (Holder or either party in Pennsylvania) is available on the internet. Thanks.

Not that I think he will follow it with actions or anything, but it's a start.

What's changed?

Talking and doing are different things Eric.

What's taking you so long?

Look at how aggressively he tackled marijuan dispensiaries compared to electoral college rigging. This guy is simply trying to save face for a legacy he will be infamous for.