Posted on 07/08/2008 1:36:34 PM PDT by pabianice
Massachusetts Presidential Voting System Could Be Changed!!!!
The Massachusetts House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a bill Wednesday, July 9, 2008 that would change the way Presidents are elected. If passed, H.678 "An Act Relative To The Agreement Among States To Elect The President By National Popular Vote" would place Massachusetts into a group of states that would elect the President and Vice President via a popular vote system. While this is not an obvious Second Amendment bill, it could have a serious impact as it could change who will be appointing future Supreme Court Justices.
Currently the Presidential elections are determined by the individual states through the Electoral College system. This new proposal would change the system to have a mix of state votes and popular votes. We are told that the key to this bill is that it will only take affect when enough states have passed the legislation to control the majority of the Electoral votes. We are told that there is a scenario where 13 key states could effectively pass this bill and then take over the entire Presidential election system. This would leave 37 states out of the election process.
As we understand the bill, if Massachusetts votes to become one of the popular vote member states, our Electoral College members will be instructed to vote for the Presidential candidate that has received the greatest combined popular votes.
For example (as we understand the legislation): Let's say that of the New England states, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut were to become part of this new popular vote group. Once the presidential election takes place these three states would combine the votes from all three states to determine who they would all vote for. The remaining New England states, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont would cast their Electoral votes separately as they do now.
What would be changed and where is the danger? Let's say that using the example above, the three member states of MA, RI, and CT belonged to this new popular vote group. (Using easy numbers) MA had 100,000 votes for a candidate "A" 50,000 votes for candidate "B", RI had 20,000 for "A" and 30,000 for "B" and CT had 40,000 for "A" and 50,000 for "B".
Under the new proposed rules, all three states would be forced to give their votes to candidate "A" even though candidate "B" won the popular vote in two out of three states. Let us also use for this example that three non-group states of ME, NH and VT all separately supported candidate "B" under the current Electoral rules.
Under the current Electoral rules Candidate "A" would receive 12 Electoral votes and candidate "B" would receive 22 Electoral votes. Under the proposed changes using our scenario, candidate "A" would receive 23 Electoral votes and Candidate "B" would receive 11 Electoral votes. Thus the proposed system would drastically change the outcome of the elections.
While GOAL respects that we may have members that support a popular vote system, this proposal would create a mongrel election system, meaning some states would use the current Electoral system and others would be using the new group popular vote system. The nation is already deeply divided politically and this new proposal would divide our nation even further by changing and confusing the way we elect out President. If we thought there were court battles over the Bush/Gore election, imagine what would take place in the courts if different states are using the the Electoral system differently. It could be a legal nightmare.
GOAL urges our members to contact their legislators and urge them to slow down this drastic change until all of the facts are clearly presented to the people at large. This proposal represents an enormously complicated and far reaching change to our national political system that must be approached cautiously and with the full consent of the people.
Electoral Votes per state (New England).
MA 12 RI 4 CT 7 VT 3 NH 4 ME 4
“While this is not an obvious Second Amendment bill, it could have a serious impact as it could change who will be appointing future Supreme Court Justices.
Huh?”
It’s from a MA gun-rights group.
This obviously disenfranchises all of the voters of any State that adopts it, because it assigns that state’s electoral votes according to the votes of persons not eligible to vote in the state.
I don’t see how it could survive a legal challenge - at least with an honest judiciary.
I’m from MA, the home of the original gay state with unelected judges making laws, a legislature more interested in being the governor, and a governor who spends more time out of state to know where he lives. Then they have the gall to increase taxes and fares to pay for union workers (MBTA) health care (presently either no copay, or about to become 10%). MA, the birth of the Revolution, and and the death of Government by and of, for the people. (Our petition to vote on same sex marriage was shut down by the cowards in the legislature.)
Now, they want to give up their power of having a say in how the president is elected. I’m not surprised by this action since the Liberal/fascist mind is power by appointment and not the voters. I’m sure it will be challenged and hopefully be struck down as being unconstitutional (Federal).
You think Polosi & Reed would oppose this? The Great Lakes states have just entered into a compact that will be approved by the Congress to restrict the use of Great lakes water.
Understand, but don’t you think the first counter action would be to sue them in Federal Court and demand an immediate injunction until the case could be decided (ultimately by the Supreme Court)?
Thanks. I didn’t know about that. So a filibuster-proof 60 Democratic votes in the Senate gives these States consent?
Sure that's the way every thing is done these days.
Sounds like a good lawsuit challenge. I would argue that allowing people from other states to determine how the electoral college votes of my state are placed abridges my privileges and violates my 14th Amendment rights of equal treatment and protection under the law.
The states independence was destroyed by the War of Northern Aggression.
Idiots.
Not entirely idiots. From the article:
Once the presidential election takes place these three states would combine the votes from all three states to determine who they would all vote for.
So it's not the national popular vote, it's the vote within the three states that joined the pact. How does this affect the outcome? Well, if you're from Rhode Island it means your vote matters little, since MA has a much larger population. IOW, Boston controls your vote.
If this passes, GOP candidates who regularly write off MA as a lost cause can write off RI and CT as well.
I don’t care if 13 liberal states want to elect their president that way. As long as these voters remove themselves, along with their president, from the geographical boundaries of the United States, they are free to do as they wish.
North Korea might be a nice setting for their new utopian settlement.
Leftists love this bacause they know they have the populations fooled in the cities. The rural folks won’t even matter pretty soon. No one will even have to talk to them, or me.
maybe it will start in Greensboro, NC
Yes, thank you. You are correct.
All politics is local. The compact is not valid until Congress approves it and Reid, being from Nevada, would probably not vote for a “protect the Great Lakes” compact.
No, this is just smoke and mirrors for those too stupid to understand how our system works and why it has provided stability to the U.S. through most of our history.
Years ago, I jokingly stated that someday this would happen, thanks to the left. I’m not joking anymore...and neither is slapshot. I wouldn’t start one...but if they do......
You called it. Here's the ping for the Civil War II list.
As for this doesn't the Constitution prohibit 'compacts between the states', making this scheme illegal?
PING
Getting this overturned as an illegal compact may be difficult, as the state legislatures have the power to determine how to allocate the state’s POTUS delegates.
The legislatures doing this will have a much harder time explaining to their constituents why the state delegated electors for candidate X when the state’s majority vote went to candidate Y because voters in _another_ state preferred Y.
CWII indeed.
Of course, you know... this means WAR!
“Is there any part of the Constitution that the Rabid Left DOESN’T want to toss out? “
They like protection for anti-American speech.
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.