Posted on 07/19/2010 2:13:49 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The state Legislature is poised to give final approval this week to 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.
Both the House and Senate have approved the National Popular Vote bill. Final enactment votes are needed in both chambers, however, before the bill goes to the governor's desk, the Globe reported last week.ss.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
You mean like ignoring the exclusive right of the states to appoint electors as stated in the Constitution?
This makes as much sense as deciding who has what seats in Congress based on putting together a national popular vote, then apportioning the members according to the result. Presidential elections are individual state elections...many don’t realize that.
If this the law being passed that is a pact between different states, then it isn’t unconstitutional. If it is just a law stating that Massachusetts’ electors will be selected based on the winner of the national popular vote, then it is constiutional. Pretty strange they would want their electors to possibly vote against the wishes of their own citizens, though.
This mythical "national popular vote" thing. Where does that count come from? Who certifies it?
Were I from a small state, and up for mischief after some idiot blue states tried to change the Constitution through illegal collusion, I might have an idea or two about how to muck with their pretention that there is such a thing as a "national popular vote."
If such a count existed it would have to use a state's official results as reported.
I might be tempted to write my state laws so that we reported inflated numbers for the winner of our state's presidential election.
Then what do they do? My electors are won, no matter if candidate A wins by one vote or one billion. So reporting an extra few hundred million votes to the "national popular vote" is no skin off of my teeth.
Think about it.
That's the position of the proponents. How does an explicit and exclusive right of the states violate Congressional supremacy concerns? However, they will seek Congressional approval anyway to avoid potential litigation.
The compiling of a “national popular vote” is inherently a multi-state agreement.
Colluding? The proposal is neither illegal nor secret.
I think that's just what I was saying. It is constitutional to require the pledge, but probably not constitutional to punish those who violate the pledge.
Way to nitpick one word out of an argument. Care to discuss the meat of the argument and not the semantics?
Or am I missing something here?
If enough states join that add up to 270 electoral votes, then they have the majority.
(Assuming that Congress approves this compact and that the entire nonsense of a “national popular vote” doesn’t collapse of its own stupidity.)
And, I should add, if that is the case then the “red states” are screwed because the “national popular vote” means that when Chicago and Philly invent votes they don’t just spoil one state’s election, they ruin the entire country.
Okay, I’ll admit my eyes are not as good as they used to be, but I could not find anything in that link stating that they believed that Congressional approval was required before the law could take effect...
"[T]he Supreme Court has determined that the clause is activated only by those agreements that would alter the balance of political power between the states and the federal government or intrude on a power reserved by Congress (Virginia v, Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893)."
The Intersection of Compacts & State Law
1893. That's 117 years ago.
Intending to seek Congressional approval and actually having a chance in hell of getting it are two different things. And just the fact that they’re intending to seek it says that they recognize that they need it. I’d say my point is pretty strong.
That doesn't affect the balance of power for the states left out?
"However, because there is the possibility of litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent..."
And, you once again completely missed my point. If all of these compact states are to select electors based on a “national popular vote” then they have to agree how that is to be determined. That’s a multi-state agreement.
Your argument was premised entirely on the use of that one inapplicable word.
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.