Posted on 07/27/2010 10:38:41 PM PDT by chatter4
In 2004, MA voted 62% for John Kerry. MA is saying that rather than give our EV's to J F'n K, we prefer to have had our electors go for George Bush, with 51% of the US popular vote.
The illogic of this position goes as follows, how will you EVER decide a close election? When you consider an election as close as Bush_Gore in 2000, how long will you wait for ballot challenges, absentee votes and the like? Remember, Massachusetts and these other states want to commit to the National Popular winner. My guess is that if this had been in effect in 2000, we would have seated a President in 2003 or so after the country threw out all of the challenges and a hissy fit or three!
Our government has turned full circle in 200 years. It has gone from vesting freedom in every individual to owning every citizen with the chains of debt and perpetual servitude. Rebellion is in the nature of man bound by chains. Its coming, just as sure as the sun will rise.
Obamas Health care bill and all his other crap are about to be de-funded. When that happens we can expect warfare. A slave owner never accepts disobedience from people it holds in contempt. Brace for it. Communist leaders kill their own. Its their nature.
This will resolve itself when a large majority of state voters choose one candidate, but the electors go to the loser.
It sounds like this to me...
Currently, the electors cast their votes
for whoever wins the popular vote within the state.
Under the new plan, the electors would cast their votes
for whoever wins the popular vote within the U.S.
You are correct.
This would guarantee presidential power into the hands of the populous states at the expense of others. Why run in Montana when you need to amass a ton of votes in the big cities?
Rev 2 getting closer.
“This would guarantee presidential power into the hands of the populous states at the expense of others.....”
BINGO!!!New York and California are broke....they need to suck more cash their way...
The Electoral College is required by statute to meet and have an election by a specific date.
TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT
Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies
§ 7. The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.
§ 5. If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
One could infer from § 5 that its plausible that a State may not dispatch electors to the Electoral College based on some assinine recounts-holding-up-the-popular-vote-tally-to-determine-electors legislation compliance crap. That would fly only so long as nobody filed a lawsuit.
Twenty-Fourth Amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
I’m pretty sure that nobody’d file a lawsuit and they’d just let it slide though. At least not unless the hold-up is due to racism then the ACLU would be ALL over that like stink on a fly.
My vote is LESS likely to be nullified under their great system. NJ hasn't voted for a Republican since Reagan. So all NJ's electoral votes have gone to the Dim. This means that the only likely switch would be TO a Republican who won the majority of the national popular vote, but lost in NJ. Of course, all these attempts to nullify the Electoral College were passed by Dim legislatures in Dim States. The lawsuits that would ensue when a Dim State followed this law and threw an election to a Republican, or didn't, would make the whole 2000 hanging chad thing seem like it was about a parking meter violation.
ML/NJ
OK, thanks. Sounds like it might work out for them maybe 50% of the time.
Rev 3, more accurately.
First war for independence (c 1776): win
Second war for independence (c 1860): loss
Third war for independence (201x): tie breaker to be determined
If enough states put in a law that said it’s electoral votes go to the person who had the most popular votes nationwide, wouldn’t it at some point just make it an all-or nothing vote?
The ‘opposition’ party would end up getting 0 electoral votes.
I remember Mondale getting almost skunked (525-13, but amazingly isn’t the lowest ever). In this instance, these states wouldn’t give their electoral votes ‘out’ until the polls closed and whoever had the most popular votes ‘won’ all these states.
Jeez, way to take power AWAY from the states, right? You’re basically saying “Massachusetts” will give its electoral votes to whoever the people of NY, CA and FL like the best, not whoever the people of our state voted for. Just complete lunacy.
It’s just a result of our man-hating society.. Hell, even the young boys of today are taught in school to hate themselves for being boys. And good luck being a real man and surviving in the workplace without getting fired or sued. Emasculated societies end up with Presidents like Barack Obama.
Next step: Thugocracy mob rule.
They call it a one man one vote idea. However, is Mass. going to really give all their electorial votes to a conservative republican if the people of that state voted for the liberal democrate. I think not. They are being hypocrits.
The electorial system is a good thing because, when used properly, it actually gives the smaller states a greater voice. Like someone said, the winner take all in each state is what screwed up the electorial system. What needs to be enacted is that the electorial vote for a particular congressional district will go to the person who got the most votes in that district. The two senatorial votes could go to the overall winner in the state. That would pretty much make all states equal. California wouldn’t ALL go for the Democrat each time...there are many districts in CA that are conservative.
Doing a little more research on this, I find the 14th Amendment states, “ Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
So, in this new system, the States are basically taking away the right of citizens to vote for electors in their own State, because their votes no longer determine how those electoral votes may be cast. So according to the 14th Amendment, if your State is not casting their electoral votes, in accordance with the election results of your own State, they could and should lose all their seats in the House of Representatives.
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.