Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mass Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College
Boston.Com ^ | 27 July 2010 | Martin Finucane

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 ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: elections; electoral; electoralcollege; ma; mass; voting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-131 last
To: Lmo56
There is also no reason to cater to the smaller states. There would be no need. Just crank up the big city machines and dominate the popular vote. In some places it is not necessary for those voters to be alive or even exist.

The smaller states should be screaming bloody murder and filing lawsuits.

101 posted on 07/27/2010 5:51:10 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

The smaller states should be screaming bloody murder and filing lawsuits.

And they would be dismissed for lack of “standing”.

102 posted on 07/27/2010 5:54:28 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: SES1066

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.)

103 posted on 07/27/2010 6:03:26 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (I lived in VT for four years. That was enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ThE_RiPpEr.
I am totally convinced the Dems really are trying to destroy our Constitutional Republic. May GOD help us all.

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.

104 posted on 07/27/2010 6:09:35 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

This WILL end up in Federal Court.

105 posted on 07/27/2010 6:13:56 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182
This WILL end up in Federal Court.

If you vote for A...and A wins the 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.

106 posted on 07/27/2010 6:24:40 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: jerry557
The States have a right to do this. It is perfectly constitutional.

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)?

107 posted on 07/27/2010 6:31:02 PM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Obama suffers from decision-deficit disorder." Oliver North 6/25/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SES1066
start calling James Madison "Spinning James" as he winds up past 100k r.p.m.s!

LOL! Oh! (now crying)

108 posted on 07/27/2010 6:36:09 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Spellcheck is for wimps and liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: okie01

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.

109 posted on 07/27/2010 6:41:12 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

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.

110 posted on 07/27/2010 6:53:32 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: winner3000
If the only thing that counts is the popular votes, candidates would never go to the smaller or less populous states.

You make that sound as if it's a bad thing.

111 posted on 07/27/2010 6:54:25 PM PDT by Publius6961 ("In 1964 the War on Poverty Began --- Poverty won.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: jerry557
This isnt unconstitutional at all.

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.

112 posted on 07/27/2010 7:01:04 PM PDT by Rome2000 (OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST CRYPTO-MUSLIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
I realized that I could never again have a Democrat for a friend

A lot of green jobs to be had in building a gallows huge enough to hang all of these red SOB's.

113 posted on 07/27/2010 7:03:41 PM PDT by Rome2000 (OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST CRYPTO-MUSLIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb
But what about states that are mainly republican? If those legislatures pass a similar bill...

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.

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.

114 posted on 07/27/2010 7:23:37 PM PDT by Nick Danger (Pin the fail on the donkey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
What a stupid Idea.
The motive is to get all the states to adopt this to
do an end run around the constitution.
By doing so:

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

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.


The Federalist No. 39
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
Independent Journal
Wednesday, January 16, 1788

James Madison

115 posted on 07/27/2010 8:25:59 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Can’t we bypass Taxachusetts right out of the Union? Commie bastards.

116 posted on 07/27/2010 8:27:37 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer (There is no "common good" which minimizes or sacrifices the individual. --Walter Scott Hudson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182; All
There is also no reason to cater to the smaller states. There would be no need. Just crank up the big city machines and dominate the popular vote. In some places it is not necessary for those voters to be alive or even exist.

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.

117 posted on 07/27/2010 8:40:55 PM PDT by Lmo56 (</i><p>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb

“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?

118 posted on 07/27/2010 9:43:02 PM PDT by Grumplestiltskin (I may look new, but it's only deja vu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

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.

119 posted on 07/27/2010 9:53:15 PM PDT by nailspitter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
The assault on our constitution continues.....

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.

120 posted on 07/27/2010 10:12:42 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy; Erik Latranyi; cripplecreek; Ben Mugged; SES1066; bigdaddy45; hershey; ...
Under the Constitution, the people are empowered to choose, through direct popular election, the men and women who represent them in their state legislatures and in the United Sates Congress. Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the power to elect the president and vice president to the states through the Electoral College system. Under the Constitution, the highest-ranking U.S. officials elected by direct popular vote of the people are the governors of the states. Should you ever forget the fact that it is possible for a presidential candidate to lose the nationwide popular vote, yet be elected president by winning only in eleven key states, critics of the Electoral College will be sure to remind you of it every four years.

To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers did not give the American public of their day much credit for political awareness:

A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787

The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

There is no doubt that things have not improved in any substantive sense; the most recent presidential election being an exquisite example. I talked to anybody who might listen about the enigma of Barak Obama and his radical associates.

But it was nothing more than water off of a ducks back; my words falling on deaf ears. Despite having cast a vote twice for Dr. Alan Keyes my admonishments proved nothing more than my racism; nothing more than a 'mouthpiece' for that "hate-mongering radical Republican web-site I'm always spouting off about". Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow have proven beyond any reasonable doubt the irrationality of me, my ilk and the likes of Bush, McCain and Sarah Palin (good for nothing but spreading her legs and making babies). Harumpf. "She can see Russia from her house - what a hoot!" Obama will make a great president. They all have hope for change and "Yes they can!". But I digress.

The perennial contemporary argument is that the Electoral College system flies in the face of democracy. America is, after all, a democracy. This argument having its origins in misty prehistoric times is predicated on proof by assertion which is typically employed as a rhetorical device. This argument is usually predicated on the fallacy of shifting the burdon of proof. That error, above nearly all others, is indicative of a woefull lack familiarity concerning the tenets of logic. Those who commit it require serious remedial learning.

Of the several recognized forms of democracy, two are germane to the issue at hand:

As elucidated in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government..." Based on the Founder's direct knowledge of history showing that unlimited power tends to become tyrannical power, created the United States as a republic -- not a pure democracy; the sentiment was unanimous in the Founder's desire that no single entity, be it the people or an agent of the government be given unlimited power. Achieving a "separation of powers" ultimately became their highest priority.

Under a system of a strictly popular vote, a candidate would only have to campaign and demagogue to heavily-populated areas such as southern California, Texas, New York, and Florida. Candidates would never need to campaign in states like Delaware, Wyoming, and South Dakota. Thus, in effect, the country would be run by mob rule, by the citizens of the few, densely-populated areas with similar demographics; it would likely be a system of minority rule despite the intents of those who favor this system. Almost as though they could see into the future, or perhaps the Founders sensing amongst themselves an innate human nature, considered it dangerous that like minded people tended to coalesce in associations and form "factions". Madison, in his opening to Federalist #10 argued that the Union would be a fundamental safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection. By "faction" he intimated "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

...The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations...

...The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government... - Madison #10

There were two notworthy factions of Founders themselves: one wanting direct elections of the president and another that desired the House of Representatives select him. The principle architects were the Federalists, lead by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and John Adams who, as large landowners, bankers and businessmen, favored a strong central government. Nevertheless, both factions shared three main concerns for the Republic: tyranny, small states and geography.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities…proper to govern their choice. - Hamiliton #68, 12 Mar 1788
That the Founders were elitists is beyond reproach. Their society consisted of one where intelligence, wealth and status were closely associated. “Of course, they knew they were superior to other individuals. They were unabashed elitists, and they weren't embarrassed about it;” reported Alex Kingsbury of US News and World Report on 6/4/06. In his book Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Gordon Wood says, “This elite fraternity destroyed any chance of others duplicating their achievements.”

The consensus arrived at by both factions was that despite all men, although created equal, must have “…respect for the natural aristae [aristocrats*;]” as Jefferson said in his letters to Madison on Rights, March 15th 1789. Hamiltonians believed only natural aristocrats contained sufficient intelligence so as not to be persuaded by manipulation, coercion and favorite son status as stated in the Federalist Paper.

Talents for low intrigue…may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other…merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. -
Jefferson said in his 1823 letter to George Hay; “I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election [electoral college] the most dangerous blot in our Constitution and one which [will]…give us a pope….” That notwithstanding, 35 years ealier the Jeffersonians were suspicious of the power of larger states or centralized power.
...a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions... - Hamilton #10
Moreover, since the nation was spread over a large geographical area and national campaigning was impractical if not impossible during the times of the Founders, conventional wisdom embraced the notion that “the office should seek the man; the man should not seek the office".

Ultimately, however distasteful, Jefferson’s wing accepted the compromise primarly on the basis of the contemporary geographical difficulties. Furthermore, since the Electoral College would enfranchise smaller states with effectively more power, the Jeffersonians issue concerning a central government was circumvented; each state would have the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress.

There are good, solid reasons why 700+ attempts to abolish or "modernize" the Electoral College over the years have all failed; that notwithstanding that over the entire period in which the Electoral College has operated, exactly twice a presidential candidate lost the nationwide popular vote, but was elected in the Electoral College:

In order for the States to abrograte their rights in the presidential election process a Constitutional ammendment must be enacted. For this to occur, at least three things must occur:
  1. the loser/winner must turn out to be a particularly unsuccessful and unpopular president, lest the impetus to blame the nation's woes on the Electoral College system will never materialize.
  2. the constitutional amendment must get a two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress and be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
  3. To be ratified and become effective, a Constitutional amendment must be approved by the legislatures of 39 out of the 50 states.
By design, the Electoral College system grants the states the power to elect the president of the United States. It does not, however, prevent the States from individually abrogating said right (as long as there is neither conspiracy nor collusion among the several States). Its quite implausible that that 39 states are going to vote to relinquish that power to the specious sophistries of some demogogue.

Furthermore, 12 states control 53 percent of the votes in the Electoral College, that leaves only 38 states that might even consider ratification. And even more doubtfull would be those 'swing States' of the 38 relegating themselves to irrelevence.

Only twice in its history have the electors stumbled and been unable to choose a president, thus throwing the decision into the House of Representatives. Who did the House decide on in those two cases? Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.

The zeal for attempts to amend, prior to the establishment of the Constitution, must abate in every man who is ready to accede to the truth of the following observations of a writer equally solid and ingenious: "To balance a large state or society Usays hee, whether monarchical or republican, on general laws, is a work of so great difficulty, that no human genius, however comprehensive, is able, by the mere dint of reason and reflection, to effect it. The judgments of many must unite in the work; experience must guide their labor; time must bring it to perfection, and the feeling of inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they INEVITABLY fall into in their first trials and experiments."*** These judicious reflections contain a lesson of moderation to all the sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue, in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain, but from time and experience [emphasis mine]. - Hamilton #85
Massachusetts state House Speaker Robert DeLeo issued a statement on the bill prior to its passage, “The National Popular Vote measure will ensure that our presidential elections reflect the true will of the people.” What would exquisite would be the schadenfreude for the citizens of Massachusetts, Colorado, Vermont, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and California - all considering NPV leislation - and Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, and Hawaii - already having passed NPV legislation - when their popular votes don't count for the candidate they voted for because their legislators disenfranchised them.

*** op. cit. Hume's "Essays," vol. i., page 128: The Rise of Arts and Sciences.

121 posted on 07/28/2010 3:38:59 AM PDT by raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

“then fine”

Not so fine when the state winner garners 65% of the state vote, yet the loser makes off with the electors.

122 posted on 07/28/2010 3:47:34 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
"Mass Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College"

Somehow it continues to amaze me that the Democrats still have nightmares about the 2000 election. They also don't seem to realize that the issue cuts both ways, and that in 2012 or 2016 the GOP candidate might gain office wherein he otherwise might have lost.

This has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with electing Democrats. If this legislation ended up putting a Republican in the office, you can bet they would change the law immediately, before the electoral college convened if they could.

The notion of popular election of a President has long been a topic of discussion, since the founding of the nation. Today, popular election would not change the general problem that is cited; e.g., attention focuses only on battleground states. Popular election would mean that battleground states are merely the most populous; e.g., California, New York, Texas, and Florida. Smaller states would be virtually ignored.

Popular election would also worsen fraud. It's well known that in 2000 there were many black precincts in St Louis, Miami, Houston, Chicago where turnout was greater than 100% and 99& of the votes went for Gore; similar issues in 2004. With popular election, the Dems will steal every vote possible and stuff every ballot box because winning 61-39 in California instead of 58-42 will not just a bigger majority but will have a national impact.

Honestly, everything the Dems do looks like they are trying to turn the USA into a 3rd world nation like Brazil or, worse, Nigeria.

123 posted on 07/28/2010 7:54:59 AM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyJo
Dems are busy.

OMFG! Beck is right. These are just pieces of a framework being put in place to dominate our elections.

124 posted on 07/28/2010 12:38:46 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: raygun
Thanks for the essay. The part of the Constitution that deals directly with the electoral college seems to imply that what Massachusetts is doing is perfectly legal, if disingenuous.

However, other parts of the Constitution are as clear in denigrating the type of collusion that is necessary for the anti-electoral college efforts to succeed.

There is hope that even if enough states sign-on that their efforts will be voided.

125 posted on 07/28/2010 1:44:59 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: raygun
In case anyone is confused about the ultimate goals of the CPUSA, they have been kind enough to post online their “Program Of The Communist Party USA.”

Maybe we should offer a $1,000,000 prize to anyone who can find one scintilla of difference between the CPUSA and the Democrats platform.

The "Congressional Progressive Caucus" must be targeted and destroyed as well their allies in the press and academia.

No holds barred, take no prisoners, name names and make these red bastards pay dearly for the consequences of nearly one hundred years of insidious and unrelenting attacks on capitalism and judeo-christian morality.

CPUSA And Obama Platforms Are Identical

Forget for the moment about Bill Ayers and Obama’s other Communist friends and mentors of the distant past.

From the current ‘Election 2008′ brochure from the Communist Party Of The United States (a pdf file):

A new day is dawning. Our country is at a turning point. This is a time of great possibility.

Issued as a public service by the Communist Party USA

The choice is clear. Stay with the Bush-McCain race to the bottom or raise up the whole country with a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right on November 4.

A new day is dawning. Our country is at a turning point. This is a time of great possibility. Across the land, people are coming together to reshape our nation’s priorities to make government “of, by and for the people” a reality.

From the Midwest to the South, from coast to coast, in big cities and rural communities voters have turned out in record numbers for change.

A landslide vote on November 4 can open the way to recovery from the very deep wounds of the Bush administration and decades of corporate right-wing control.

There is a crisis in every critical area of national life. Profits at the top are record high, but families can’t make ends meet. Trillions are squandered in Iraq, but 45 million are without health care. Billions are spent on tax breaks to the super rich, but working families are losing their homes and young people can’t afford higher education.

Working people want bold new policies to end war restore democratic traditions and create green living wage jobs, affordable housing, healthcare and quality education for everyone.

Republican John McCain, the candidate of the military industrial complex, will continue the Bush agenda. “100 years” in Iraq, Social Security privatization, and tax cuts for the rich. His Republican partners in Congress have blocked, stalled or gutted every bill that benefits working people since they lost majority control in 2006.

Although the ultra-right is weakened and divided, they continue to push fear, division, racism and anti-immigrant bigotry in this year’s elections, aided and abetted by the corporate media. These multi-pronged poisonous tactics can only be overcome with unbreakable unity.

The choice is clear. Stay with the Bush-McCain race to the bottom or raise up the whole country with a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right on November 4.

Voters are demanding a new kind of politics to rebuild our country for the common good. A democratic spirit of unity and hope is inspiring millions to get involved.

During the Great Depression of the 1930’s, unemployed workers and their allies marched and organized until public works jobs, Social Security and New Deal programs were won. In the 1960’s the great civil rights movement won the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

In 2008, union members, African Americans, Latinos, youth and women, seniors, environmental and peace voters are forging a powerful new all encompassing movement that makes great changes possible.

Help make history. Talk with co-workers, neighbors, friends and family. Volunteer to knock on doors, make calls, get online to turnout a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right on November 4, and keep the movement going.


We offer these proposals as a contribution toward the bold policy changes necessary to meet the immediate needs of working people, eliminate poverty and move our country forward with a new President and Congress. Funding to come from monies now being spent on the Iraq war, military budget and tax breaks to the super rich.

1. Immediate Relief

A moratorium on foreclosures and evictions. Reset mortgages so payments are affordable. No bail outs for banks.

Extend unemployment compensation, increase payments and eligibility. Increase food stamps, WIC, children’s health insurance, and low income energy assistance.

Assist deficit-ridden state and local governments so they can preserve services and jobs. Fund “ready-to-go” infrastructure projects.

2. A Peacetime, Green Jobs Economy for All

Enact massive public works job creation to make existing buildings energy efficient, construct new schools, hospitals, affordable housing, mass transit and bridges. Priority to areas hurt by loss of manufacturing, loss of family farms and highest unemployment areas including the Katrina-devastated Gulf Coast.

Major clean, affordable energy development project for solar, wind and biomass electricity generation. Immediate program to cut greenhouse gas emissions and for environmental cleanup. Restore Federal energy regulation and encourage public ownership of utilities.

Enact the Employee Free Choice Act to enable workers to form unions without intimidation and win higher wages and benefits, dignity and respect.

Enact HR 676 the US National Health Insurance Act to provide universal health insurance with single-payer financing. Fully fund public education from pre-school through higher education and technical training. No privatization of Social Security or Medicare. Expand and improve benefits.

3. Restore Civil Rights, the Bill of Rights and Separation of Powers

Restore Civil Rights Act enforcement, affirmative action in employment, education, and housing. End the “school to prison” pipeline. Outlaw hate crimes. Preserve Roe v. Wade.

Pass immigration reform with legalization, a path to citizenship, due process, no militarization of the borders, and no exploitative guest worker programs. No human being is illegal.

Repeal Patriot Act. Restore Habeas Corpus rights. No more torture. Investigate and prosecute Bush administration violations of the Constitution.

Expand voting rights. Enact publicly financed elections, same day registration, voting rights for ex-felons, verifiable voting equipment, and instant runoff voting. Restore Fairness Doctrine in media.

4. Strength through Peace

Withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq with no bases or U.S. corporations left behind. Full care for returning veterans. No war on Iran or expansion of troops in Afghanistan. Assistance to Iraqi people to rebuild their country.

Adopt a new foreign policy of diplomacy and respect for all nations, instead of preemptive war for corporate interests. Renew commitment to UN peace role.

End trade policies that enrich corporations while destroying jobs. Ratify Kyoto Treaty and other climate change agreements.

Enforce nuclear non-proliferation, work to abolish nuclear weapons. Cut Pentagon spending in half, close down US bases around the world.

Vote November 4 as if your life, and your future, depend on it!

Defeating the right wing is the first step in the struggle to end exploitation, poverty, racism and war inherent in capitalism.

The Communist Party USA and Young Communist League participate in today’s movements confident that they set the stage for more fundamental change tomorrow.

Throughout our 88-year history we have defended the interests of the working class, fighting for unity and democratic rights. Today we are guided by our motto, “People and Nature Before Profits.”

Our vision is a socialist USA, that opens the way for equality, world peace, real democracy, a society in which people control their own destinies in a sustainable world.

We invite you to join us. Issued as a public service by the Communist Party USA

For comments or more information call: 212-989-4994 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              212-989-4994      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 212-989-4994 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 212-989-4994 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 212-989-4994 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

For our full program visit

We invite you to join us. Issued as a public service by the Communist Party USA

For comments or more information call: 212-989-4994 or e-mail:

Young Communist League

Peoples Weekly World / Nuestro Mundo

Political Affairs

126 posted on 07/28/2010 2:04:32 PM PDT by Rome2000 (OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST CRYPTO-MUSLIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
First off: there's a lot of grist for the mill in the essay concerning 'democracy' vs rebublican form of U.S.A. government from the perspective of the founders and the purpose the Electoral College serves. One question to ask anybody that advocates NPV legislation: would they feel comfortable with their State's electoral votes being committed to Sarah Palin if she won the majority in a closely contested 3 candidate Presidential election (akin to a plausible segragatinist George McGovern winning the popular election in '68)? The Electoral College prevents a one-issue regional favorite candidate trumping the national majority opinion with respect to candidates having a broad topic / issue over a much larger geographical area.

The Founders opinions concerning the matter are quite edifying to say the least.

That being said, there is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

Which States bind electors to popular vote results?

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.

The question is: if an NPV state pledges its electors to the candidate with the majority of popular votes - despite the home popular vote being for the losing candidate - would Republican elector delegation have the stones to cast their votes for the home-State popular vote winning Democrat candidate? I'd bet everybody's life - and leverage their 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation decendents on margin - that 'Rat elector delegations would NOT cast their votes to reflect the home-State's popular Republican majority (not even if it wouldn't matter - principle only issue).

FWIW: the vote to declare war following the Day That Will Live in Infamy was NOT unanimous (there was one lone dissenting vote). When questioned why: "I believe that somewhere in the nation somebody would be against the war. While that person may not be one of my constituents my vote is reflective of my being a representative for The People and sombody somewhere most likely is against war." That Congressperson was a woman - Democrat - Repressentative from some district in California.

127 posted on 07/28/2010 4:09:01 PM PDT by raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Thanks for the laugh!

“Defeating the right wing is the first step in the struggle to end exploitation, poverty, racism and war inherent in capitalism.”

So there is no racism in Communist countries?
Racism is a function of human nature and has nothing to
do with whether a society is free or comprised communist slaves.

Poverty? Show me a communist country where the citizens do not live
in poverty, squalor, misery, fear and distress.
North Korea, Cuba, China, Burma...Anyone???

War? Communists have killed 262 million of their own
without a war.
*Fact is in the last century the communists
have murdered 4 times as many of their citizens than
have died in all the foreign and domestic wars.

Add another BILLION on for abortion....
(Another Communist sacrament)

If there is one thing the Communist has mastered it is the LIE.

I'll take free markets any day over that carnage any day.
Who do they think they are kidding?

* Source:

128 posted on 07/28/2010 6:47:27 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

And if the popular vote doesn’t go their way, then what???

129 posted on 07/29/2010 11:28:02 AM PDT by pray4liberty (dare I say it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Yes, liberals also EXPLOIT voter ignorance in a “sneaky” way. A law or a Constitution doesn't matter to liberals. They do whatever they want and expect the little people and ignorant people to adhere to their self serving demands.

In the immortal words of Roy Orbison: "You got it!"

130 posted on 07/29/2010 11:30:36 AM PDT by pray4liberty (dare I say it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
“popular vote” = aka “mob rule”

After this, the proposed EO Amnesty for 30+ million Undocumented Democrats, proposed Cap and Tax, suing Americans (AZ) for doing the job Hussein refuses to do and instead sides with the Illegal Aliens over the citizens, refusal to hear the GOP bill that would prohibit a lame duck Congressional session, Disclose Act, yada yada, WHEN DO WE STORM THE DISTRICT OF CORRUPTION? This is NOT sarcasm.
131 posted on 07/30/2010 2:30:34 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-131 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
Topics · Post Article

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