Skip to comments.Bay State seeks to thwart voters
Posted on 08/21/2010 4:07:56 PM PDT by Graybeard58
In 1972, only 45 percent of Massachusetts voters supported Richard Nixon for president. The Bay State, in fact, was the only state that went for Democrat George McGovern. But Tricky Dick would have been the unanimous choice of the Electoral College if the National Popular Vote law, recently enacted in Massachusetts, had been in effect. Indeed, the law would have overruled Connecticut voters in three of the last 10 presidential elections.
The brainchild of Stanford University professor John Koza, the law requires electors to cast their ballots for the national winner of the popular vote no matter how their states voted. Massachusetts is the sixth state to sign onto this subterfuge, which would go into effect if states with a total of 270 or more electors sign on. A cabal of as few as 11 states could force this upon the rest of America through a de facto constitutional amendment, which ordinarily requires 38 states to ratify.
Mr. Koza and his movement, supported almost exclusively by left-wing ideologues, seeks to "make every vote count," force candidates to campaign in every state rather than in just 20-odd "battleground states" and ensure the winner of the popular vote is elected. He was inspired by the 2000 election in which his candidate, Al Gore, got the most votes but lost in the Electoral College. But Mr. Koza's goals run counter to those of the founders and the Constitution.
The product of deliberative negotiations and judicious compromises, the Electoral College ensures that presidents have national stature and widespread popular support to prevent more populous states from imposing their wills on the smaller ones. In 1888, for example, Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by less than 1 percent, but Benjamin Harrison won an Electoral College landslide, 233 to 168, that reflected his more broad-based support.
The college preserves the separation of powers, encourages development of coalitions among states and regions, and prevents the ascension of despots through the manipulation of public opinion and the electoral process.
Its winner-takes-all format in every state but Maine and Nebraska gives minorities inordinate political clout in many of the most populous states.
By encouraging a system with two major political parties, the college tends to deradicalize politics by forcing fringe movements to align themselves with major parties. This assimilation shaves off the hardest edges of political causes and benefits the major parties by widening their bases.
A national popular vote would upset all this. Instead of campaigning in all 50 states, candidates would concentrate on the most populous ones. Except for cameos in Boston, they could all but ignore New England because California, Texas and Florida each has more voting-age people than New England has residents, and Los Angeles County has almost 1 million more voters than Connecticut has people.
As attractive as the national presidential vote may seem given voters' disenchantment with the two major parties, it would lead inexorably to the fractionalization of politics and elections in which presidents are elected not by popular votes but by dirty backroom deals forged by power brokers from the most populous states. In that environment, it would be possible in a 10-way race to elect a president who gets just 20 percent of the vote. And since election laws vary widely by state, Massachusetts' electoral votes one day could be cast for someone whose name didn't even appear on the state's ballot.
This is how to "make every vote count"?
The electoral college is as good a system as exists anywhere in the world.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
If the state wants to it can. But it can not be forced to by the Feds.
Thanks for the ping Graybeard. Just came back online, and was the first thing I saw. Good Post, and true what your comment stated.
It’s fine by me. Let MA, and the other liberal states vote GOP in 2012. It will be the biggest landslide in US history.
17th Amendment populism. This is an admission the dems know where direct democracy leads and it’s their end game.. tyranny.
Amazing...what this means is that it doesn’t matter who you or the entire state that you live in votes for, the electors will pick the candidate who the majority of the rest of the states votes for.
Will someone please explain to me how this is not a violation of the constitution?
Some left wing pin-heads dreamed this one up and are hoping that they can eek this into the next presidential election before anyone notices...
It’s time to flush the toilet.
First, the citizens NEVER had opportunity to vote.
(as it was with RomneyCARE and gay marriage).
Second, it is illegal, per the Constitution.
Third, neither of the above concerns the criminals who
passed this latest conspiracy against the US,
and probably Massachusetts, Constitution.
Are you saying you don’t support the Electoral College?
If so, you don’t understand the USC and the purpose of the EC.
If not, then I don’t understand your post.
The district system is much better in my opinion.
Whoever wins the majority of votes in the district, receives that districts electorial vote. If there is no candidate that receives a majority of votes, the top two receipients of votes then have run off election 30 days later.
The two remaining state electorial votes would go to the candidate that received a majority of votes in the state. If no candidate receives a majority, then one vote is given to the candidate that receives the most votes, and one vote is given to the candidate that received the second most votes.
Wow, and I thought it was embarrassing to live in Kalifornia.
From 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:
The state legislature can pick any method they want including picking the winner by lots. Many of the early elections had some state legislatures picked their electors and the people in those states had no direct vote. The last state to do that was South Carolina in 1832.
I applaud Massachusetts doing this (just so long as conservative states don't follow their lead). There are four possible results:
|Mass. Vote||National Vote||Current Mass. EV||New Mass. EV||Comment|
|D||R||D||R||extra EV for the Republican|
|R||D||R||D||Republican wins Mass. but loses nation? That won't happen.|
|R||R||R||R||No change, must be a landslide R win|
Net result: There is a chance that Massachusetts EVs might go for a Republican instead of a Democrat. The reverse won't happen unless the poles of the earth flip.
However, what will happen if the Republican candidate wins the popular vote forcing Massachusetts and other states doing this to have their electors vote for the Republican, but the Democrat would have won based on each state's individual popular votes? Imagine the opposite of 2000, but conservative states having to vote for Gore. Massachusetts and other states would immediately sue themselves to overturn their laws.
A second problem is that truckloads of crooked ballots in safe Democratic states can effect the whole nation rather than just their own states. Imagine Mayor Daley working late into the night stuffing Chicago ballot boxes trying to push the nationwide popular vote over the edge. I would rather have district by district elector voting like Nebraska and Maine so that a crooked city could only affect the state's two at large electors and the one from that district.
Just wait until the Massholes vote for a democRAT and their electors are forced to vote for the Republican because he has won the popular vote.
This law will be rescinded faster than you can say Chappaquiddick.
Yes for the EC! It forces a slight bit of honesty in the elections, state by state a candidate must convince the voters. This popular vote idea is crazy, as few as about 17 cities or 12 states can decide the outcome, total madness.
This popular vote scam is a kill the small states.
you can win enough and NOT take Calif.
The left hates that.
this passes and only big cities will votes will ever count.
Under the popular vote scenario, in the election of 2000, Gore could have won 49 states by 50,000 each and Bush could have won Texas by 3,000,000 votes - Gore still loses.
a) It is Unconstitutional: 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
If it was constitutional, then any group of states with an electoral college majority could agree to give their votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in only their states. This would completely disregard all votes cast in any other state.
b) The easiest way for one state to obstruct this is to not have a popular vote. The Legislature of Alaska, for example could decide that the legislature would directly choose the electors and forego a popular vote. There would be no national popular vote.
Compacts among states are strictly forbidden without the consent of Congress.
Maybe you can explain the constitutionality of government seizing car companies, forced unionization, and taxpayer bailouts of unions.
If I could, then I could explain why Republican Senators put an individual on the USSC who argued before that court that the government has the authority to ban books; and someone who in her testimony before the Judiciary committee repudiates the 9th amendment. It is no longer a constitutional question, but the will of the stronger.
After the gay marriage decision in California, it is clear the federal courts no longer care about the law or Constitution.
I would prefer a method where one candidate must get a 50%+1 majority of the popular vote. If no person gets taht , then the runoff would be between the top two vote recipients.
I can just see some big blue state casting the winning Electoral College vote against their Democrat favorite son candidate. They would renege on the Compact in a second.
This issue will eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
I predict that — unless the current 5-4 conservative majority is changed through future appointments — that NPV will be declared unconstitutional.
In that court case, the proponents of NPV will argue that under the Constitution, that the states [via their legislatures] have the choice of assigning presidential electors, and therefore the states are within Constitutional bounds by assigning electors based on a “national majority vote total.”
The Supreme Court will disagree — or more correctly, they will restrict and clarify how electors may be assigned per the Constituion.
Their opinion will state that yes — states DO have a right to assign presidential electors.
HOWEVER, when a state chooses to hold a statewide election in which voters vote for their choice of of electors, that that state must be bound by the decision of its voters, and to disregard and overrule the outcome of such election for ANY reason amounts to an unconstitutional disenfrancishement of those voters.
To clarify: if a state indeed wanted to choose electors based on “popular vote” in _other states_, yes, it has the Constitution right to do so — SO LONG AS it DOES NOT have an in-state election by the voters of that state.
The choice will be up to each state:
1. Have an in-state election for electors, and be bound by the decision of the states “internal” vote, or
2. Abolish the in-state election and permit the state legislature to assign electors based on some tally of “the national popular vote” (such tally which must come from a vote elsewhere).
Simply stated — if you’re going to have an in-state election by the state’s [resident] voters, you will be bound by the results.
Of course, states like Massachusetts will then be free to abide by NPV if they wish — so long as they forbid _Massachusetts voters_ to participate IN the presidential election.
How many states are going to be willing to abolish in-state presidential elections?
(A Grumplestiltskin FR “you read it here first” post!)
The reason for this is so that massive vote fraud in major cities (Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston) can overturn honest elections in flyover country.
If passed, this will cause the whole country to be run Chicago-style - forever, or until we use the fourth box (the one after soap, jury, and ballot have been shut down).
Or a Stanford or Berkeley professor.
Sure sounds good to us.
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.