Posted on 07/27/2010 2:40:29 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi
Anytime I want to see him go through the roof I just mention Massachusetts.
So what will the State of Mass. do if the Republican has the narrow popular vote lead and the Mass. electoral votes would end up determining the winner?
Will they pull an Al Gore and have another Dem state do a selective recount to find the needed Dem votes to all of a sudden give the Dem. candidate the lead? This would be Florida 2000 on steroids.
I am totally convinced the Dems really are trying to destroy our Constitutional Republic. May GOD help us all.
I don't know if that would necessarily be the case.
If this passes in enough states, then the candidates will no longer care about state vote totals, but instead about three things:
1. National vote totals
2. Areas of the country where the vote is in flux
3. Cost of electioneering in particular areas of the country.
Smaller states will most likely have cheaper electioneering costs (e.g. TV ads, etc.) Smaller states are also more likely to contain more swing voters. So more votes could potentially be shifted with less money if candidates spent time/money in those areas.
One good thing about this would be that no one would have a reason to not vote until the last votes had been counted in Hawaii. Because the overall total is what's important, any vote in any state could still matter.
The worst thing about this is that all of the states use different voting methods and procedures. The main problem with what happened in Florida in 2000 is that there was a great diversity in how votes were tallied across the state. If this were to be workable then every state would have to have the same, or very similar, voting/tallying procedures.
Imagine how the libs would feel if it was determined that we needed one consistent voting system across the nation and Diebold won the contract!
I don’t see anything in the 12th Amendment that discusses direction of for whom an elector can vote. It doesn’t explicitly say the state can do this. Since our constitution is one of definition and limits, rather than abstract absolutes, I would assume that it can’t be done unless it explicitly says so.
If state legislators really wanted to protect the will of the people, they would be passing a constitution amendment that provides the right of recall for senators and the president, as well as term limits for both House and Senate. Just those alone would go a long way in correcting many of the abuses and financial problems of the Feds.
‘It will never get 67 votes in the Senate.’
This plan bypasses Congress completely. Simply a matter for the states.
It’s a bad idea because when 50 percent of the electoral college votes according to the majority, then representation for Republicans is nil.
Now that it looks like the Dems may not have to fear the elections in Nov. 2010 after all.
They are now doing what they can to ensure that they will be in power forever. I knew that the Mid Terms this November was already too late. I hope that I am so wrong.
In its own way, this will be as bad, or worse, than the 17th Amendment, which stripped the States of their influence over the federal government.
To explain, the balance of power between the president, congress, and the supreme court, most people are familiar with.
However, there are other balances in the constitution. The States with a lot of people have more representation in the House, and the smaller States are protected by the Senate, which has two senators per State.
And importantly, there is a balance that most people are unfamiliar with, which is between the federal government, the State governments, and the people. But this was an important part of our constitution.
The House of Representatives is supposed to be “The People’s House”, the most democratic part of the government. It is the people’s direct voice in the government, refreshed every two years. So theoretically, the people could choose that in a single election, every congressman could be from just one party. Their choice.
The Senate, however, was supposed to represent the States in congress, so that the federal government wouldn’t trespass on their power. This system was thrown out of balance with the 17th Amendment, the Direct Election of Senators. Now, all a senator has to do is an election tap-dance every six years, then he can totally ignore the State he is supposed to represent. And many do.
While on the surface the 17th Amendment *seemed* to be more democratic, the truth is that it took away the power of the States to *protect* their citizens from an intrusive and overbearing federal government. Like the one we face today. In combination with the 16th Amendment, the Income Tax, it gave the federal government direct access to our personal lives.
And the federal government now runs roughshod over the people as often as it can. It is no longer our servant, but our self-styled master.
But what about the Electoral College electing the president? How could we be harmed if the president is popularly elected, instead of proportionally elected?
Just to start with, the more populous States, which tend towards Democrat, would dominate the process. For instance, California, with 55 electoral votes, has more control over the process than a dozen of the less represented States.
However, when you add up the electoral votes of the 9 largest States, it only equals 241 votes. 270 are needed to win the presidency. That is, 29 votes from the smaller States are needed as well.
Yet if you look at the populations of the 9 largest States, they are over *half* the population of the United States. So if the election is decided by popular vote, the small States do not matter as much to the process.
This means that the most populous States, with many big cities, will elect Democrat presidents, not Republican presidents.
If you live in a smaller State, your vote would be worth even less, than those cranked out by the big city machines.
That's how it is now. Electoral votes are proportional.
Which means they may not know who won their delegates until a number of states count all their votes.
Exactly. I predict that the day after a Republican wins the popular vote and all of the liberals who voted demonrat find their electoral votes going to a Republican (possibly being decisive), there will be screams of “Free our electoral college votes! Unfaaaaiir! Racism!”
In truth, knowing this state, a move to backtrack this will be underway as soon as polling suggests such a Republican winning the popular vote. They did something like that when John “I owe taxes?” Kerry was running for President...they undid the law that gave the governor the power to appoint a replacement, because the governor was a Republican at the time (at least he was in name only).
“A further attempt to change our Republic into a Democracy.”
Of course most don’t realize there is a difference.
Slowly each state is pushing to get rid of the electoral college or making it so they go by the popular vote. If they accomplish this then we will always have a president decided by NY,CA, etc. The states that have the most population.
This might turn into an interesting supreme court battle or worse.
I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how.
-Joseph Stalin
It doesnt matter. Constitution says it is up to the states to decide how their electors are decided.
If Massachusettes wants to disenfranchise themselves, that’s their problem.
There is no way in hell a majority of states would pass this law. Maybe a few far left states will, but the swing states never will because they love the attention they get.
A Republican has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning MA in a presidential election anyway. If the Republican in 2012 gets a majority of the popular vote, we get MA’s 12 electors. Sounds good enough to me. And then no left-wing state will ever pass a law like this anywhere.
...or trigger a civil war, if states with the biggest cities end up determining who gets elected.
Thanks
No, the electoral votes should go to the candidate who wins Massachusetts. 71% (576 votes) .
Yes, the candidate who wins the popular vote should win the election. 29% (231 votes) .
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.