Posted on 09/02/2008 12:13:14 PM PDT by pabianice
July 30, 2008 - The Massachusetts Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill on third reading (and engrossment). Immediately beforehand, a crippling amendment was defeated by a vote of 27 to 9. Under Massachusetts legislative procedures, an additional vote is required in both the House and Senate to transmit the bill to the Governor. Although this vote was on the agenda on the session's last day (July 31), no action was taken.
On July 9, 2008, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed the National Popular Vote bill.
National Popular Vote bill passes Massachusetts House 116-37
Massachusetts House of Representatives
On October 5, 2007, the Joint Committee on Election Laws voted favorably on the National Popular Vote bill in Massachusetts.
The National Popular Vote bill was filed on January 26, 2007 in the Massachusetts State Senate (S445, Status of S445) (S452) by Senator Joan Menard and Senator Robert Havern and in the House of Representatives (H678) (H710) by Representatives Martin J. Walsh and Charles A. Murphy.
Joining them in cosponsoring the bill are a bi-partisan group of 24 additional lawmakers, including Senators Jarrett T. Barrios, Patricia D. Jehlen, Michael W. Morrissey, and Robert O-Leary and Representatives Cory Atkins, Antonio F. D. Cabral, Steven D'Amico, James B. Eldridge, Lewis G. Evangelidis, Michael E. Festa, Mary E. Grant, Jay R. Kaufman, Stephen Kulik, Barbara A. L'Italien, J. James Marzilli, Jr., Matthew C. Patrick, Douglas W. Petersen, Denise Provost, Kathi-Anne Reinstein, John W. Scibak, Carl M. Sciortino, Jr., Frank Israel Smizik, Todd M. Smola, and Brian P. Wallace.
Under the current system of electing the President, a candidate may win a majority of the Electoral College without having a majority of the nationwide popular vote. The National Popular Vote bill would reform the Electoral College by guaranteeing the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The bill would enact the proposed interstate compact entitled the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote." The compact would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the membership of the Electoral College (that is 270 of 538 electoral votes). Under the compact, all of the members of the Electoral College from all states belonging to the compact would be from the same political party as the winner of nationwide popular vote. Thus, the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) will be guaranteed a majority of the Electoral College, and hence the Presidency. Because the compact guarantees a majority of the Electoral College to the winner of most popular votes nationwide, the compact has the additional benefit of eliminating the possibility that a presidential election might be thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote).
With THIS Supreme Court?
Maybe.
In another five years or so, YES.
Not going to happen. Small states have no incentive to pass a bill and enter their state into a neutering agreement.
Not enough states will pass this BS for it to ever take effect.
And even if they did, it is unconstitutional and would not stand up to judicial review. Non-issue.
Exactly what the Founding Fathers did not want: Mob Rule.
This will last until the people realize their state voted overwhelmingly democrat, and their EC votes will now go Republican. These initiatives are stupid and idiotic, and completely undermine their own constituents.
Does anyone else remember in 2000 it was widely thought there was a good chance Bush would get the popular vote and Gore the electoral in the weeks before the election and nobody in the media had a problem with it?
Hopefully, as you stated, enough states will reject this. However, as more liberal human waste infests the sane states, this could be a problem that sadly the Supreme Court will have to deal with. One one hand, the Constitution says explicitly that states can choose Electors in any way they see fit. Furthermore, interstate compacts are allowed. On what grounds does this proposal become unconstitutional?
Please note I am not trying to say this is a good idea. I think I might be missing something in the Constitution that disallows this.
If passed by an electoral majority of states, this would stimulate voter fraud on a hitherto unimaginable scale. The dead would be resurrected to vote Democrat in droves. The pressure to block military absentee votes would be huge. In any close election, the leverage to vote fraud would be unimaginably large with this rule.
Note how this does not require MA to go with the popular vote.
Will they still do this if McCain wins the popular vote nationally but doesn’t win MA as would most likely be the case?
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.
XIVth Amendment, I would assume. Equal protection clause. Your vote as a citizen of, say Idaho, would be overridden by votes from, say Massachussets.
We learned from Florida that Federal rules have to be preserved in a Federal Election.
Remember - Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states, and they will try anything - Remember Hugh Hewitt’s book - If it’s not close - They can’t cheat.
I might be in favor of a district system, but a national pop vote defeats federalism.
Doesn't that mean this has died in for the legislative season? Isn't this really a non-story for now, other than the Senate seems willing to pass it?
Will they hand me a ballot with a check in the box next to Barack Obama’s name at my Polling Place?
See post #13
I thought Barrios was out?!!! WTF? He took a Lobbyist job after trying to get Fluffer-Nutters banned.
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.