Skip to comments.Mass. may join effort to bypass Electoral College
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 ...
Looks to be unconstitutional, to me.
Mass. the birth palce of America, shamefull!
This is pure Bull $hit and we had better do something fast to get this crap corrected.
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.”
This is grandstanding and will have absoutely no effect.
When this comes to pass, it will be open season on 18 wheelers bound to cities.
The cities will be starved to save America
Is it constitutional?
No, it’s not. Congress protects the rights of the smaller states against the larger ones.
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
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?
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.
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)... ?
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.
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.
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.
Good for you Maceman!!!!!
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.
Go ahead small state, flush any reason for a candidate to listen to even visit massachsetts.
The end of our country is here.
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.
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.
Congress? How so?
Jefferson was afraid of big-cities vs. the rural. He knew what happend in Europe..
Any GOP votes likely to come out of this?
It’s really way too late.
Really. The Constitution does not require a state to divide its electors among multiple candidates based on the popular vote within the state.
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 ....
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.
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"
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.
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?
sadly, it’s not unconstitutional. Constitution says state legislatures can award electoral votes however they want.
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).
Precisely. The purpose of this is to enslave the countryside to the big cities.
There are some states that have “Faithless Elector” laws.
The constitutionality of these laws has never been tested.
I did noticed that so far only blue states have passed this.
aka the “Al Gore WAAAAAAAAA It’s not fair It’s not Fair It’s not FAIR I should have been president Act”.
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.
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: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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court has another view.
In any case, I don't see the proposed law as imposing any more force than the old law. Did I miss something?
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.
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.