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
Title is wrong. Should read:
“Assachusetts Presidential Voting System Could Be Changed!!!!”
Huh?
So Mass would rather give up the power of it’s electoral votes so that LA, NY and Chicago can decide every election. lol
Idiots.
I’m all for it. Let the liberals do this and watch the rest of America revolt and finally get rid of the commie states. I welcome a new civil war so that cleansing can occur.
In other words, vote away your own state’s independence.
Apparently Chief Judge Margaret Marshall (and the her
New York Times’ husband and Master) have decided to
use the General Court to overturn the US Constitution.. again.
slapshot68 said, “...I welcome a new civil war so that cleansing can occur.”
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......
Is MA alone going to do this? If so, MA would have gone for Bush last election, as he won the popular vote.
In 2000, the difference between the top two candidates was 0.51% of the vote. That would have required waiting another week for all absentee ballots to arrive and then a full county by county national recount.
A state as small as Massachusetts doesn’t deserve 2 senators and Rhode Island shouldn’t have any. < /s >
Hey Massclowns, you can have your congress critters put forward a Constitutional Admendment and hope they can convince 2/3rd of the states to vote for it or you can sit the Presidential elections out, your choice. But I don’t believe you can rewrite Federal Election Laws. Hint...that’s why they call them Federal Laws.
Actually I think it’s a State’s right to award presidential electors however they want. Clearly Massachusetts wants to award them stupidly but what else is new?
A constitutional amendment is required to change the Federal electoral system for President/Vice President. To do that requires 3/4 majorities in both houses of Congress and concurrance by 3/4 of the states. Since the Republicans and the small states don’t like it, getting it out of Congress would be a trick. Ditto for getting it passed in the state legislatures. Not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.
Democrats: the party of endless talk about useless ideas.
But the system isn’t changing. States have the right to assign their electors in any way they choose. If they want to cut deals and make agreements with other states there’s nothing in the Constitution that says they can’t. That’s why the Democrats are doing this. They know that getting rid of electors would never get past a Constitutional amendment.
that cleansing can occur.
Let the purge begin!
LOL! This goes through and McCain wins the popular vote, Massachusetts is going to throw it’s electoral votes to him?
That is an idea. We could divide Texas into three states and use the extra four - all Republicans.
Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3
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.
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.