Posted on 07/27/2010 2:40:29 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi
The Massachusetts Legislature has approved 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.
"What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America," Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.
Under the new bill, he said, "Every vote will be of the same weight across the country."
But Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was "tried and true" since the founding of the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The smaller states should be screaming bloody murder and filing lawsuits.
The smaller states should be screaming bloody murder and filing lawsuits.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And they would be dismissed for lack of “standing”.
There is never any campaigning in MA. It is assumed to be in the Dem column from the outset. That said, this is about the only way that the state could ever go Republican.
However, this is one of the reasons that I am usually ashamed of my state (at least politically. The Red Sox, Pats, Celtics, and Bruins are usually good for a laugh.)
I agree. I came to that conclusion during the Florida 2000 recount. These evil people would do **anything** to attain and keep power. They would kill us if they could. They just can't get away with it...(yet).
November 2000 was at the turning point when I realized that I could never again have a Democrat for a friend. They were either too stupid or too evil.
This WILL end up in Federal Court.
If you vote for A...and A wins the state...how can you possibly "receive equal protection under the law" if the state casts its votes for B?
This is the kind of thing that liberals do. They want tp do it, ergo it should be legal.
As long as other clauses of the Constitution are not violated in the process. Would this be an illegal dilution of the vote of a Mass. citizen (Equal Protection argument)? If there is a trigger clause as some states consider to say the law only goes into effect of a certain percentage of other states adopt similar laws is this a violation of the No Compact clause (Article I Section 10)?
LOL! Oh! (now crying)
That is just it, the electoral college was set up to give small states with low population more power per vote than those in larger population states.
I thought Obama’s eligibility would be straight forward but no one has “standing”. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see our judicial system do its now well practiced tap dance to avoid a difficult issue.
You make that sound as if it's a bad thing.
Yes, and so would a state law decreeing that a states electors must be cast for the Democrat, or Republican, or Communist party, no matter what the results of the actual vote in that state are.
Save a lot of money on campaigning, and election day polling costs.
What the States dont have a right to do is "bypass" the electoral college, that is, if they want their states votes to be counted towards who gets to be POTUS.
The Massachusetts electors can go over to Barney Franks homosexual whore house and cast their votes there, but it wouldn't mean much.
A lot of green jobs to be had in building a gallows huge enough to hang all of these red SOB's.
| But what about states that are mainly republican? If those legislatures pass a similar bill...
This idea is ultimately about giving large-city voters the ability to control presidential elections... something that the Electoral College currently prevents because the voting influence of a Chicago or a New York City stops at the state border. We'd like to think that Republican politicians could see this for what it is, and run — not walk — in the other direction. |
1. the population of smaller states would
be completely disenfranchised by states with large
metropolis populations.
It is important politically, constitutionally and
electorally to balance the federal and national aspects of
the of the Federal Government.
As a federation, the U.S. system is a mixture of political
equals of the states. It is necessary that the smaller states are not
disenfranchised by the larger ones like New York and
California
2. Democrats control more populous states, which have tended historically to vote Democrat.
3. On all three occasions that the electoral vote winner and
popular vote winner has been different, the Republican
party won the election.
This is not because the Electoral College favors the Republican
party but the smaller states tend to vote more conservatively.
4. By abolishing the Electoral College the smaller states
would not only lose representation but would be taxed and controlled more heavily
and the benefits would be returned to the Larger populated ones to retain
their votes.
5. It's a Republic, If you can keep it.
By abolishing the Electoral College the Federal Government
would be further transformed from a Republic to a Democratic mob rule.
“The balance between small and large states, slavery, and
the perceived dangers of direct democracy.”
Alexander Hamilton, argued that while it might not be
perfect, it was “at least excellent.”
The Mode of Electing the President
From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 14, 1788.
HAMILTON
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
The Federalist No. 39
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
Independent Journal
Wednesday, January 16, 1788
James Madison
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa39.htm
Can’t we bypass Taxachusetts right out of the Union? Commie bastards.
The smaller states should be screaming bloody murder and filing lawsuits.
Unfortunately, this is constitutional [unwise, but constitional nonetheless] - and NOT what the Founders wanted. But, the Constitution leaves it up to the States as to how their electors are chosen.
I am also not a fan of the current [in most cases, except ME and NE] winner-take-all system. It causes candidates to focus on the most populous areas within a State.
For example, I live in MD. If a candidate wins Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Montgomery County, and Prince Georges County - they win the State. The rest of the counties be damned.
A fairer system is as follows:
1. The Constitution provides that "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 ..."
2. Therefore, two of the electors in each state represent its two Senators and the rest represent its Representatives.
3. So, it would be fairer for the voters in each of a State's districts to vote for one elector [representing their district]. Just like they vote for their district's Representative. The two remaining electors would be awarded to the winner of the State's popular vote [just like they vote for their Senators].
If this system had been in place in 2008, Obama would have one 7-3, instead of 10-0. This is more representative of the political view of the State.
“Wouldn’t this be unconstitutional? Someone will bring it before the courts. The artical mentions that several other states have already passed such a law. It’s interesting to note that these are all blue states (Democrat) and are mostly on the 2 left coasts. They don’t want to live by the law because they see it as a stumbling block to getting their way.”
Of course it’s going to “go to the courts”, and certainly all the way to The Supreme Court.
I predict that the Court will eventually rule “National Popular Vote” to be unconstitutional (based on the Constitution’s prohibition of states making agreements amongst themselves that contravene the Constitution itself), and further, that NPV violates the Civil Rights Act by disenfranchising voters and tampering with their votes.
I believe the Court’s opinion will decree that, yes, individual states DO have the right granted by the Constitution as to how they will select electors to represent their interests in The Electoral College.
HOWEVER — If any state chooses to hold a statewide election by which the state’s voters choose the electors, that they must abide by the decision reached by the voters who actually cast the votes (within that state’s borders).
In other words, a state cannot hold an election within its own borders for electors, and then reverse the results of that election for any reason, including the reason that the winner within the state did not also win “the national popular vote”.
Of course, any state legislature could simply decide to abolish presidential elections (within that state), and have the _legislature_ choose electors based on who won the popular vote elsewhere. Now which state is going to become the first one to step up and do that?
States have a right to decide how to allocate their electoral votes, but they may not enter into compacts or agreements with other states. Here’s the pertinent part of the Constitution:
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States...
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.
If passing a bill that will not go into effect until the same provision is passed by other states is not a compact or agreement with those other states, what is?
I believe that this is completely unconstitutional.
It certainly is an assault on lesser populated states. California here we come? Its influence in the outcome of the election will be huge with a popular vote system.
The change I would like to see is that the winner must get 50+ perecent of the vote or there is a run off between the top two vote getters. That is the reform that is needed.
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.
In theory it should be impossible for even a Republican politician to be that stupid. Granted, we have seen such stupidity loose in the wild, but hopefully there won't be enough of it to swing entire legislatures in favor of this idea.