Posted on 09/02/2008 12:13:14 PM PDT by pabianice
July 30, 2008 - The Massachusetts Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill on third reading (and engrossment). Immediately beforehand, a crippling amendment was defeated by a vote of 27 to 9. Under Massachusetts legislative procedures, an additional vote is required in both the House and Senate to transmit the bill to the Governor. Although this vote was on the agenda on the session's last day (July 31), no action was taken.
On July 9, 2008, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed the National Popular Vote bill.
National Popular Vote bill passes Massachusetts House 116-37
Massachusetts House of Representatives
On October 5, 2007, the Joint Committee on Election Laws voted favorably on the National Popular Vote bill in Massachusetts.
The National Popular Vote bill was filed on January 26, 2007 in the Massachusetts State Senate (S445, Status of S445) (S452) by Senator Joan Menard and Senator Robert Havern and in the House of Representatives (H678) (H710) by Representatives Martin J. Walsh and Charles A. Murphy.
Joining them in cosponsoring the bill are a bi-partisan group of 24 additional lawmakers, including Senators Jarrett T. Barrios, Patricia D. Jehlen, Michael W. Morrissey, and Robert O-Leary and Representatives Cory Atkins, Antonio F. D. Cabral, Steven D'Amico, James B. Eldridge, Lewis G. Evangelidis, Michael E. Festa, Mary E. Grant, Jay R. Kaufman, Stephen Kulik, Barbara A. L'Italien, J. James Marzilli, Jr., Matthew C. Patrick, Douglas W. Petersen, Denise Provost, Kathi-Anne Reinstein, John W. Scibak, Carl M. Sciortino, Jr., Frank Israel Smizik, Todd M. Smola, and Brian P. Wallace.
Under the current system of electing the President, a candidate may win a majority of the Electoral College without having a majority of the nationwide popular vote. The National Popular Vote bill would reform the Electoral College by guaranteeing the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The bill would enact the proposed interstate compact entitled the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote." The compact would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the membership of the Electoral College (that is 270 of 538 electoral votes). Under the compact, all of the members of the Electoral College from all states belonging to the compact would be from the same political party as the winner of nationwide popular vote. Thus, the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) will be guaranteed a majority of the Electoral College, and hence the Presidency. Because the compact guarantees a majority of the Electoral College to the winner of most popular votes nationwide, the compact has the additional benefit of eliminating the possibility that a presidential election might be thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote).
With THIS Supreme Court?
Maybe.
In another five years or so, YES.
Not going to happen. Small states have no incentive to pass a bill and enter their state into a neutering agreement.
Not enough states will pass this BS for it to ever take effect.
And even if they did, it is unconstitutional and would not stand up to judicial review. Non-issue.
Exactly what the Founding Fathers did not want: Mob Rule.
This will last until the people realize their state voted overwhelmingly democrat, and their EC votes will now go Republican. These initiatives are stupid and idiotic, and completely undermine their own constituents.
Does anyone else remember in 2000 it was widely thought there was a good chance Bush would get the popular vote and Gore the electoral in the weeks before the election and nobody in the media had a problem with it?
Hopefully, as you stated, enough states will reject this. However, as more liberal human waste infests the sane states, this could be a problem that sadly the Supreme Court will have to deal with. One one hand, the Constitution says explicitly that states can choose Electors in any way they see fit. Furthermore, interstate compacts are allowed. On what grounds does this proposal become unconstitutional?
Please note I am not trying to say this is a good idea. I think I might be missing something in the Constitution that disallows this.
If passed by an electoral majority of states, this would stimulate voter fraud on a hitherto unimaginable scale. The dead would be resurrected to vote Democrat in droves. The pressure to block military absentee votes would be huge. In any close election, the leverage to vote fraud would be unimaginably large with this rule.
Note how this does not require MA to go with the popular vote.
Will they still do this if McCain wins the popular vote nationally but doesn’t win MA as would most likely be the case?
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.
XIVth Amendment, I would assume. Equal protection clause. Your vote as a citizen of, say Idaho, would be overridden by votes from, say Massachussets.
We learned from Florida that Federal rules have to be preserved in a Federal Election.
Remember - Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states, and they will try anything - Remember Hugh Hewitt’s book - If it’s not close - They can’t cheat.
I might be in favor of a district system, but a national pop vote defeats federalism.
Doesn't that mean this has died in for the legislative season? Isn't this really a non-story for now, other than the Senate seems willing to pass it?
Will they hand me a ballot with a check in the box next to Barack Obama’s name at my Polling Place?
See post #13
I thought Barrios was out?!!! WTF? He took a Lobbyist job after trying to get Fluffer-Nutters banned.
The entire State of Massachusetts needs a TIME OUT until they can conquer their Kennedy/Kerry addiction.
Let's say this was in effect for the 2008 election, Obama wins the electoral vote by a narrow margin but McCain wins the total popular vote. Do you not think states like Massachusetts will cry foul and desperately try to find reasons not to cast their votes for McCain?
Democracy= Two wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for lunch.
Good damn thing we don’t let the Mass. legislature decide ANY national issues.
We’d be sending military aid to Hugo Chavez if we did...
Given an expanded compact interpretation, it appears to be in conflict with in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct (my favorite example of "Manner" was Colorado in 1876)
No Constitutional scholar here, but the “duty on tonnage” I believe would fall outside the military. Also IIRC, Article 1 Sec. 10 was the reason an Act of Congress was needed for New York and New Jersey to form the NY/NJ Port Authority.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
They are trying to bypass the constitutional amendment process. Period.
> If passed by an electoral majority of states, this would stimulate voter fraud on a hitherto unimaginable scale. The dead would be resurrected to vote Democrat in droves ,
Yes, and states could allow felons and children to vote.
In the unlikely event the Supreme Court found that this restriction applied to non-military agreements, all the States who want this have to do is say, "I don't care what any other State does, but our Electoral College votes are going to the winner of the national popular vote."
The above article seems to use language that would preclude this
The National Popular Vote bill would reform the Electoral College by guaranteeing the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The bill would enact the proposed interstate compact entitled the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote." The compact would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the membership of the Electoral College (that is 270 of 538 electoral votes). Under the compact, all of the members of the Electoral College from all states belonging to the compact would be from the same political party as the winner of nationwide popular vote.
Damn, can someone introduce a Constitutional Amendment to throw MassAssChewSucks OUT of the Union?
If Bob knows that he has lost a particular state to Jim, quite possibly by 2,000,000 votes, and if he knows that he won popular vote outside of Fredonia by 2,000,000 votes, he could decline to have Fredonia's vote counts certified. Jim would be awarded Fredonia's electoral votes, but he would not receive any credit in the national popular vote tally.
I'm sure that in such a situation Jim would want to sue to demand the publication of the popular vote tally, but I can't see how he'd have any standing to do so. Jim, after all, would be receiving all the electoral votes from Fredonia, and he's not entitled to anything else.
Such language demonstrates clearly that the person who wrote it either (1) didn't think things through at all, (2) doesn't want the legislation to do anything, or (3) wants to inject total chaos into the election.
Suppose Bob wins the national popular vote, but Joe wins the majority of votes in Sylvania (which had passed legislation to, conditionally, award its Electoral Votes to the national popular vote winner). If the design purpose of the legislation in such case would be to award Sylvania's Electoral Votes to Bob, why should Sylvania's legislature care what other states do? If Sylvania's EVs can't swing the election, the legislature shouldn't really care how they're cast. If they can swing the election, the legislature shouldn't really care how other states' EVs are cast.
The only way in which the legislation and restriction could both have effects would be in situations where they introduce ambiguity. For example, in the state of Anvilania, the legislation is challenged before an election and struck down in Anvilania's 9th Circus, but the decision is appealed. While the appeal is pending, Yakko wins the popular vote nationally and in Anvilania, but loses the popular vote in a number of states that passed this legislation. If Anvilania is deemed to have this legislation in effect, the majority of states will do so. If the legislation is void in Anvilania, the majority of states will no longer have such legislation.
If Yakko had lost in Anvilania, such that the court's striking of the legislation would cost him Anvilania's Electoral Votes, he would have standing to continue his appeal. If he succeeded in reversing the earlier decision, there would again be a majority of states legislatively pledged to give their EV's to the popular vote winner and Yakko would win. Yakko's popular-vote win in Anvilania, however, would mean that he would no longer have standing to challenge the earlier decision. The appeal would thus be moot. Totally bizarre situation.
There are many problems with this goofy popular-vote legislation, but I don't see I.10 as being a factor. Many states routinely have reciprocity arrangements with other states which are not forbidden under I.10 since such arrangements don't compel any action on the part of those other states.
As a simple example, suppose that Fredonia and Sylvania both offer snipe hunting licenses, and they decide that it would be in both their interests to allow citizens to buy one license and hunt in both states. There would be no problem with Fredonia and Sylvania passing legislation to honor each other's licenses. On the other hand, if Sylvania decided for whatever reason that it no longer wanted to honor Fredonia's licenses, it would be free to stop doing so at any time. Fredonia's only remedy would be to stop honoring Sylvania's licenses.
If there were a formalized and congressionally-approved agreement or compact between the states, Fredonia would be able to compel Sylvania to continue honoring its licenses. Absent such an agreement or compact, however, the most Fredonia can do is hope that Sylvania will have enough of an interest in having Fredonia honor its licenses that it will honor Fredonia's.
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.