Popular Vote Campaign courts Massachusetts

Metrowest Daily ^ | 9/20/07 | Parietti

[pabianice]

BOSTON, MA - Leaders of a national campaign to elect the president by popular vote are hoping to gain ground in Massachusetts, a state proponents say has largely been ignored by presidential candidates who spend most of their time and money in states that don't have a strong party allegiance.

Although leaders of the National Popular Vote Campaign say the issue is resonating with voters across the country, local lawmakers are less than enthusiastic about the proposed legislation.

If Massachusetts joins Maryland, the first state to sign the inter-state compact into law, it would have to cast its 12 Electoral College votes for the nationwide popular vote winner, as opposed to the candidate who wins the state majority.

"If you're born a Republican in Massachusetts you could die without your one vote ever meaning anything," said Maryland Democratic state Sen. Jamin Raskin. "Every democracy in the world elects its president by popular vote."

[pabianice]

Wouldn't this require a Constitutional amendment?

[CDHart]

Probably. It's a very stupid idea, IMO. The country would be run by New York and California.

Carolyn

[Moose4]

I don’t think so. I’m fairly sure that the Constitution says nothing about *how* each state apportions its electors for President—that’s the states’ business. It’s incredibly un-federalist and a horrible idea, but I’m not sure that it’s technically un-Constitutional.

}:-)4

[pabianice]

Another attempt to disenfranchise “Red” America. This is the stuff of a civil war.

[Vigilanteman]

"Every democracy in the world elects its president by popular vote."

What a dumb-assed ignorant statement. Most world democracies use the parlimentary system whereby the head of state is elected by the legislature.

Since we have a representative Republic and not a parlimentary democracy, the closest we could come is for every state to choose electors based on the system used by two states, Nebraska and Maine, whereby two electoral votes are awarded to the winner of each state and one to the winner of each congressional district.

I don't really think the Democrats would like such a system considering it would minimize the impact of voter fraud and machines in urban areas like Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Fransicko and other dens of corruption.

[Timocrat]

Wouldn't this require a Constitutional amendment?

Article II Section 1 deals with the appointment of Electors for the Presidency which are limited to the number of Senators and Reps. In order for the President to be elected by popular vote this would have to be abolished.

It's a terrible idea. If this were to ever happen there would be no reason to limit the number of Senators to two from each state, indeed it would strike at the very heart of our republican form of government.

[JerseyDvl]

All I have to say is: If this happens anywhere, it better be in California first!

[adorno]

The country would be run by New York and California.

At that point, the almost half of the country that didn't vote "democrat" would in reality be disenfranchised and would be powerless, which, and I'm sorry to say, would make it time for the country to split. Government without representation would be the rule if democrats have their way and many states would feel the need to go their own way or create a new country.

In reality, if the country did split, an alliance could still be formed between the new "social republics" and the new "conservative republics" for defense and other mutual needs. But, in the long run, the liberal side would be the loser since it wouldn't be able to sustain itself under socialism and weak defense and international policies, and the conservative side would end up being the big winner under capitalism and strong defense policies..

[speedy]

If this idea had been in effect in 2004, then MD and MA electoral votes would have gone to Bush. Since these two states always vote for the Rat anyway, this idea can only hurt the GOP if it spreads to typically Republican states, which are far less likely to adopt such a measure.

[Bob Buchholz]

Is there any reason that a state couldn’t allow each citizen (or illegal as the case may be) to cast 2 votes each? Of course the next state will allow them to cast 5 votes each..... Wouldn’t be too hard to sway the ‘popular’ vote.

[CDHart]

I doubt I would live long enough to see that good outcome.

Carolyn