Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mass. may join effort to bypass Electoral College
Boston Globe ^ | July 19, 2010 | Martin Finucane

Posted on 07/19/2010 2:13:49 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum

The state Legislature is poised to give final approval this week to a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

Both the House and Senate have approved the National Popular Vote bill. Final enactment votes are needed in both chambers, however, before the bill goes to the governor's desk, the Globe reported last week.ss.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: dictatorship; dnccorruption; massgeneralcourt; novote4u; obama; patrick; romney; southafrica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-134 next last
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
1 posted on 07/19/2010 2:13:52 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Looks to be unconstitutional, to me.


2 posted on 07/19/2010 2:14:47 PM PDT by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Mass. the birth palce of America, shamefull!


3 posted on 07/19/2010 2:15:01 PM PDT by ronnie raygun (I'D RATHER BE TRIED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

This is pure Bull $hit and we had better do something fast to get this crap corrected.


4 posted on 07/19/2010 2:17:16 PM PDT by elephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Yes, let’s short circuit the last vestiges of our Republic.

Reminds me of Franklin’s words when asked what kind of government he and the Framers had established.

“A republic, if you can keep it.”


5 posted on 07/19/2010 2:18:08 PM PDT by Westbrook (Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

This is grandstanding and will have absoutely no effect.


6 posted on 07/19/2010 2:18:11 PM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
“A republic, if you can keep it.”


7 posted on 07/19/2010 2:20:00 PM PDT by BenLurkin (Will must be the harder, courage the bolder, spirit must be the more, as our might lessens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

When this comes to pass, it will be open season on 18 wheelers bound to cities.

The cities will be starved to save America


8 posted on 07/19/2010 2:20:27 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... The winds of war are freshening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Is it constitutional?


9 posted on 07/19/2010 2:21:13 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (RIP Bahbah. About time you plugged the damn hole daddy! Palin/Cheney 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

No, it’s not. Congress protects the rights of the smaller states against the larger ones.


10 posted on 07/19/2010 2:22:25 PM PDT by BenKenobi (We cannot do everything at once, but we can do something at once. -Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

These doofuses are going to be kicking themselves when their efforts amount to giving Sarah Palin a 41 state landslide electoral victory in 2012........LOL


11 posted on 07/19/2010 2:22:56 PM PDT by TitansAFC ("At that point in time (2000 race), McCain was as conservative if not more so than GWB." --- pissant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elephant

As I understand it, each state elects slates of electors in the presidential election. So, if you voted for McCain, you were voting for Republican electors who supported him. Ditto if you voted for Democratic electors who would support Obama.

Mass. is virtually certain to select Democrat electors in the next election. If a Republican wins the 2012 popular vote, are they really going to compel their Democrat electors to vote for the Republican candidate so that the popular vote winner wins their states’ electoral vote?

Can a state really force electors to vote a certain way? I thought that electors were free to vote for anyone, but that since all are party loyalists, they almost always support their party candidate.

And is such a law even constitutional?


12 posted on 07/19/2010 2:22:55 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I got a call from these people on Saturday, asking for my support. I told them that it was a terrible idea and that I would do everything in my power (admittedly not much) to oppose their agenda.


13 posted on 07/19/2010 2:23:35 PM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Is it constitutional?

Completely.

14 posted on 07/19/2010 2:23:41 PM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
MA... constantly changing the rules when it comes to voting... didn't they try to do some tricky stuff in anticipation of John Kerry possibly winning the presidency? The state house was going to make it to where the MA governor (a Republican if memory serves) could not appoint Kerry's replacement... then they reversed it after Teddy K. died... to where the current Democratic governor could appoint Kennedy's replacement?

Scatter shooting while wondering if this Electoral College representative trick passes ... if the civil rights division of the U.S. Dept. of Justice would lift a finger to protect the voting rights of the minority (aka the Republicans)... ?

Doubt it.

15 posted on 07/19/2010 2:24:03 PM PDT by Trajan88 (www.bullittclub.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Really?


16 posted on 07/19/2010 2:24:17 PM PDT by elephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Really?


17 posted on 07/19/2010 2:24:23 PM PDT by elephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Parmy

So? /sarc


18 posted on 07/19/2010 2:26:32 PM PDT by FrdmLvr ( VIVA la SB 1070!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
This is pure political hubris by Massachusetts leftists still angry over the G.W. Bush win in 2000.

The Electoral College is part of our constitution and cannot legally be ignored by individual states. They have to win a constitutional amendment to change the EC law. That has been tried many times but has always failed. This 'end run' won't succeed, either. It's a feel-good measure for Massachusetts uber liberals and demonstrates how the left is attempting to flush the constitution down the metaphorical toilet in the Age of Obama. Don't allow them to do so. They know they are on the wrong side of the American people and are hoping to make elections irrelevant and eventually mandate a totalitarian government, with, guess who at the top. Not in my America.

19 posted on 07/19/2010 2:26:47 PM PDT by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Constitution says you must have electors, I don’t see how they get around that.

Some states are more equal than others in Libtard Logic.


20 posted on 07/19/2010 2:27:52 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (RIP Bahbah. About time you plugged the damn hole daddy! Palin/Cheney 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Self-serving piggies in the Massachusetts General Court
would NEVER let the citizens vote (what is that?)
about RomneyCARE, gay marriage, or this BS.
Team Romney would not even allow a GOP primary this year.

They do whatever the New York Times
and their carpetbagging pimp order them to do.

21 posted on 07/19/2010 2:28:21 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Article IV - Section 4 - The United States shall protect each of them against Invasion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

Good for you Maceman!!!!!


22 posted on 07/19/2010 2:29:13 PM PDT by diamond6 (Pray the Rosary to defeat communism and Obamacare!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Without the electoral college, large cities will control and elect our Presidents.
Without the electoral college, a candidate will only have to campaign in cities like New York, LA, Philly, Pittsburgh and others. Rural and small town America will be at the mercy of a few large cities across the nation, as that is where the majority of the population resides.


23 posted on 07/19/2010 2:29:19 PM PDT by freemike (John Adams-Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Go ahead small state, flush any reason for a candidate to listen to even visit massachsetts.


24 posted on 07/19/2010 2:29:24 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

The end of our country is here.


25 posted on 07/19/2010 2:29:39 PM PDT by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
This is great. They will always vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter what.

So these dopes will never ever be forced to switch to the Democratic candidate if the national vote goes that way.

This can only make them switch to Republican, instantly disenfranchising all the dopey liberals in their state.

Why vote at all Massachussetts? You dumbasses.

26 posted on 07/19/2010 2:30:44 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parmy

Looks stupid to me. As a state that has been losing its population for over a decade they are just handing what little power it has away.

They might as well elimanate representation in the US Senate too.


27 posted on 07/19/2010 2:31:14 PM PDT by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
No, it’s not. Congress protects the rights of the smaller states against the larger ones.

Congress? How so?

28 posted on 07/19/2010 2:31:38 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

Jefferson was afraid of big-cities vs. the rural. He knew what happend in Europe..


29 posted on 07/19/2010 2:31:52 PM PDT by Mmogamer (<This space for lease>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Any GOP votes likely to come out of this?


30 posted on 07/19/2010 2:32:24 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

It’s really way too late.


31 posted on 07/19/2010 2:33:37 PM PDT by stockpirate ("I am a Muslim first, an American second." Barack Obama Dreams of My Father)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elephant
Really?

Really. The Constitution does not require a state to divide its electors among multiple candidates based on the popular vote within the state.

32 posted on 07/19/2010 2:33:37 PM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

The EC was put in place so that the more populace states don’t control the presidency .... we don’t want three or four heavily populated states to determine the presidency ....


33 posted on 07/19/2010 2:35:30 PM PDT by SkyDancer ("I Am Molly Norris")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
And is such a law even constitutional?

The Constitution does not prevent any state from voluntarily deciding to silence the voice of it's own people in a presidential election.

I guess it never occurred to them that some state would be stupid enough to do so. They never met a modern liberal.

34 posted on 07/19/2010 2:36:17 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Mass. may join effort to bypass Electoral College

One can only hope that enough elected legislators have both sufficient IQ and the firm grasp of our country's history to understand why this is a fatal blow to our republic, and the reasons why the electoral college was deliberately and thoughtfully created within the Constitution.

To insure that the U.S. system would not degenerate to the mob rule that destroyed every other attempt at direct democracy.

Most within months, the remainder within five years.

For those in Rio Linda or Washington DC, just Google "France+Reign of Terror"

35 posted on 07/19/2010 2:36:49 PM PDT by Publius6961 ("We don't want to hear words; we want action and results.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

You are correct. The selection process is constitutional. Article 2 Section 1 reads “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors”. If the states want to throw away their power and give the electors to the majority vote (fraud) winner, then they can.

However, I believe forcing the electors to vote for a certain candidate is unconstitutional.


36 posted on 07/19/2010 2:39:21 PM PDT by CondiArmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
It violates the compacts clause. You are correct that within a state, the legislature can decide how to assign the electors. They could decide on their own to just give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of what other states do.

Where this law fails the compacts test is that the law does not take effect unless other states totaling 270 electoral votes also joins the compact. It also doesn't say what happens should a compact state decide to drop out of the compact. Do all the states then revert back to their prior method until another state joins the compact?

-PJ

37 posted on 07/19/2010 2:39:52 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Parmy

sadly, it’s not unconstitutional. Constitution says state legislatures can award electoral votes however they want.


38 posted on 07/19/2010 2:40:51 PM PDT by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Parmy
I don't like the law, but it is clearly Constitutional:

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. (II, 2; U.S. Constitution).

39 posted on 07/19/2010 2:41:06 PM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Precisely. The purpose of this is to enslave the countryside to the big cities.

40 posted on 07/19/2010 2:41:29 PM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Napolean fries the idea powder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

There are some states that have “Faithless Elector” laws.
The constitutionality of these laws has never been tested.


41 posted on 07/19/2010 2:42:38 PM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

I did noticed that so far only blue states have passed this.


42 posted on 07/19/2010 2:42:40 PM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

aka the “Al Gore WAAAAAAAAA It’s not fair It’s not Fair It’s not FAIR I should have been president Act”.


43 posted on 07/19/2010 2:42:57 PM PDT by OrangeHoof (Washington, we Texans want a divorce!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

If the blue states do this only, it’ll be suicide. And it’s entirely legal for the states to sent whatever electors they want. If they want to send 35% Republicans instead of 10% they are now, fine by me.


44 posted on 07/19/2010 2:44:20 PM PDT by Tolsti2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Constution Article II:
Section. 1. 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.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be 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, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President [Modified by Amendment XII].

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

If a state wants to subjugate its citizens' votes to that of the national majority vote, then its legislature can certainly do so within the Constitution.
45 posted on 07/19/2010 2:44:43 PM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bert
The cities will be starved to save America

What a novel idea!

And it will take 100 times the number of troops that the 7000 it would take to protect our Southern border, to try to prevent it.

46 posted on 07/19/2010 2:44:43 PM PDT by Publius6961 ("We don't want to hear words; we want action and results.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
No, it’s not. Congress protects the rights of the smaller states against the larger ones.

Actually, Congress no longer protects squat.

Although, yes, that's precisely why the Senate, and the method of selecting its members was created, as well as the Electoral College.

47 posted on 07/19/2010 2:48:42 PM PDT by Publius6961 ("We don't want to hear words; we want action and results.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: elephant

Constitutional?

Probably so. In the current system the voter selects a slate of electors who are pledged to vote for a particular parties candidates. Some states are winner takes all and a few states apportion the electors according to the popular votes, their choice.

This system will instruct the electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote, either by empaneling the slate that is committed to the popular vote winner or by extracting a pledge from all electoral candidates to cast their vote as the states voters direct. Probably Constitutional, but we won’t know for sure until its tested.

The real problem comes with the behavior of the electors. In the past, a few electors have broken their pledge. Never in a way to sway an election, but as their own private protest. This system will make it tempting for electors to change their votes if it didn’t come out the way they wanted. What will happen then? Not clear, but I think that the Constitution envisioned that the states would select wise and learned men as electors and they in turn would elect the man best suited to be President (women not in the mix in those halcyon days)


48 posted on 07/19/2010 2:50:04 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CondiArmy
However, I believe forcing the electors to vote for a certain candidate is unconstitutional.

Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court has another view.

Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)

In any case, I don't see the proposed law as imposing any more force than the old law. Did I miss something?

49 posted on 07/19/2010 2:50:17 PM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

I think there is a more nefarious purpose. Democrats are happy to commit voter fraud. Think of all the fraudulent votes they can conjure up. Imagine the left coast scurrying around those two extra hours after the South and Central states have finished voting. With this extra motivation democrat states feel they can increase voter turnout and maybe swing elections by padding the vote. Even if these state laws don’t affect the electoral college, democrats and their media can scream and cry about the winning popular vote. They can use this to shape public opinion and move other states to pass such laws. Hell, maybe even a good law suit or two.


50 posted on 07/19/2010 2:54:20 PM PDT by CondiArmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-134 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson