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 ...
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.
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)
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?
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.
I don't see it.
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Is the Uniform Commercial Code unconstitutional?
It appears constitutional, but also renders the state less relevant in the national elections. Since they are no longer all or nothing, purple states doing this will begin to get ignored as full electoral states will offer more ROI on the national scene.
That has the potential to pay a price down ticket that they may not be thinking of.
Why would anyone bother to vote in Massachusetts with this kind of stupid law in place, if that state's assignment of its own electoral votes isn't even predicated on the outcome of its own vote?
MA has a way of changing their election laws to suit the moment but how delicious would it be to see MA cast the deciding electoral vote for Sarah Palin.
Each state has the right to determine how their electors are chosen.
Anyone that understands purpose behind the college understands this is a bad idea.
The state is run by fat assess who think we are voting for American Idol, so you cannot expect too much from them.
Mark my words. Within two Presidential cycles, this will come back to bite the MA Legislature in the ass.
These guys are idiots.
Actually the Constitution simply states the number of electors each state legislature shall appoint and is silent on how they shall vote. Massachusetts could just save themselves a lot of of bother by stating that their electors will vote for the (D) slate and be done with it. Since there’s no Constitutional requirement that the electors’ votes be tied to any constituency save that of the State legislature at least this would have the virtue of transparency.
This is an illegal compact among several states unless Congress approves. The people pushing this idea say it will kick in when enough states for a majority of electors agree to the compact. But they can not do that without Congress approving.
It's certainly Constitutional for the states to award their electors however they like. But it is not for the states to enter into an illegal compact.
This smells like a Clintonian move. Hillary won the Democratic primary in MA, not 0zero. They might be vamping up for 2012.
Doesn't look like it.
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.