Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mass Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College
Boston.Com ^ | 27 July 2010 | Martin Finucane

Posted on 07/27/2010 2:40:29 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi

The Massachusetts Legislature has approved 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.

"What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America," Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.

Under the new bill, he said, "Every vote will be of the same weight across the country."

But Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was "tried and true" since the founding of the country.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: elections; electoral; electoralcollege; ma; mass; voting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 next last
To: Erik Latranyi
I have a good friend who is a lefty. His company transferred him to Boston. After 4 months he told his company to transfer him somewhere that didn't suck or he was quitting.

Anytime I want to see him go through the roof I just mention Massachusetts.

81 posted on 07/27/2010 4:28:15 PM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (Hail To The Fail-In-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

So what will the State of Mass. do if the Republican has the narrow popular vote lead and the Mass. electoral votes would end up determining the winner?

Will they pull an Al Gore and have another Dem state do a selective recount to find the needed Dem votes to all of a sudden give the Dem. candidate the lead? This would be Florida 2000 on steroids.

I am totally convinced the Dems really are trying to destroy our Constitutional Republic. May GOD help us all.


82 posted on 07/27/2010 4:28:37 PM PDT by ThE_RiPpEr.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winner3000
"The electoral college was set up to give small states a chance to be relevant during an election. If the only thing that counts is the popular votes, candidates would never go to the smaller or less populous states."

I don't know if that would necessarily be the case.

If this passes in enough states, then the candidates will no longer care about state vote totals, but instead about three things:

1. National vote totals
2. Areas of the country where the vote is in flux
3. Cost of electioneering in particular areas of the country.

Smaller states will most likely have cheaper electioneering costs (e.g. TV ads, etc.) Smaller states are also more likely to contain more swing voters. So more votes could potentially be shifted with less money if candidates spent time/money in those areas.

One good thing about this would be that no one would have a reason to not vote until the last votes had been counted in Hawaii. Because the overall total is what's important, any vote in any state could still matter.

The worst thing about this is that all of the states use different voting methods and procedures. The main problem with what happened in Florida in 2000 is that there was a great diversity in how votes were tallied across the state. If this were to be workable then every state would have to have the same, or very similar, voting/tallying procedures.

Imagine how the libs would feel if it was determined that we needed one consistent voting system across the nation and Diebold won the contract!

83 posted on 07/27/2010 4:34:23 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

I don’t see anything in the 12th Amendment that discusses direction of for whom an elector can vote. It doesn’t explicitly say the state can do this. Since our constitution is one of definition and limits, rather than abstract absolutes, I would assume that it can’t be done unless it explicitly says so.

If state legislators really wanted to protect the will of the people, they would be passing a constitution amendment that provides the right of recall for senators and the president, as well as term limits for both House and Senate. Just those alone would go a long way in correcting many of the abuses and financial problems of the Feds.


84 posted on 07/27/2010 4:36:24 PM PDT by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

‘It will never get 67 votes in the Senate.’

This plan bypasses Congress completely. Simply a matter for the states.


85 posted on 07/27/2010 4:43:40 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Good night. I expect more respect tomorrow - Danny H (RIP))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 10mm

It’s a bad idea because when 50 percent of the electoral college votes according to the majority, then representation for Republicans is nil.


86 posted on 07/27/2010 4:48:33 PM PDT by BenKenobi (We cannot do everything at once, but we can do something at once. -Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Now that it looks like the Dems may not have to fear the elections in Nov. 2010 after all.
They are now doing what they can to ensure that they will be in power forever. I knew that the Mid Terms this November was already too late. I hope that I am so wrong.


87 posted on 07/27/2010 4:55:41 PM PDT by yield 2 the right (RUSH: Anything that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd get a standing Ovation on is not good for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

In its own way, this will be as bad, or worse, than the 17th Amendment, which stripped the States of their influence over the federal government.

To explain, the balance of power between the president, congress, and the supreme court, most people are familiar with.

However, there are other balances in the constitution. The States with a lot of people have more representation in the House, and the smaller States are protected by the Senate, which has two senators per State.

And importantly, there is a balance that most people are unfamiliar with, which is between the federal government, the State governments, and the people. But this was an important part of our constitution.

The House of Representatives is supposed to be “The People’s House”, the most democratic part of the government. It is the people’s direct voice in the government, refreshed every two years. So theoretically, the people could choose that in a single election, every congressman could be from just one party. Their choice.

The Senate, however, was supposed to represent the States in congress, so that the federal government wouldn’t trespass on their power. This system was thrown out of balance with the 17th Amendment, the Direct Election of Senators. Now, all a senator has to do is an election tap-dance every six years, then he can totally ignore the State he is supposed to represent. And many do.

While on the surface the 17th Amendment *seemed* to be more democratic, the truth is that it took away the power of the States to *protect* their citizens from an intrusive and overbearing federal government. Like the one we face today. In combination with the 16th Amendment, the Income Tax, it gave the federal government direct access to our personal lives.

And the federal government now runs roughshod over the people as often as it can. It is no longer our servant, but our self-styled master.

But what about the Electoral College electing the president? How could we be harmed if the president is popularly elected, instead of proportionally elected?

Just to start with, the more populous States, which tend towards Democrat, would dominate the process. For instance, California, with 55 electoral votes, has more control over the process than a dozen of the less represented States.

However, when you add up the electoral votes of the 9 largest States, it only equals 241 votes. 270 are needed to win the presidency. That is, 29 votes from the smaller States are needed as well.

Yet if you look at the populations of the 9 largest States, they are over *half* the population of the United States. So if the election is decided by popular vote, the small States do not matter as much to the process.

This means that the most populous States, with many big cities, will elect Democrat presidents, not Republican presidents.

If you live in a smaller State, your vote would be worth even less, than those cranked out by the big city machines.


88 posted on 07/27/2010 5:00:03 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb
This means that the east and west coast will rule because their populations are generally larger than flyover country.

That's how it is now. Electoral votes are proportional.

89 posted on 07/27/2010 5:01:09 PM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the minority? A: They're complaining about the deficit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Which means they may not know who won their delegates until a number of states count all their votes.


90 posted on 07/27/2010 5:01:21 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bigdaddy45

Exactly. I predict that the day after a Republican wins the popular vote and all of the liberals who voted demonrat find their electoral votes going to a Republican (possibly being decisive), there will be screams of “Free our electoral college votes! Unfaaaaiir! Racism!”

In truth, knowing this state, a move to backtrack this will be underway as soon as polling suggests such a Republican winning the popular vote. They did something like that when John “I owe taxes?” Kerry was running for President...they undid the law that gave the governor the power to appoint a replacement, because the governor was a Republican at the time (at least he was in name only).


91 posted on 07/27/2010 5:01:29 PM PDT by LostInBayport (When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

“A further attempt to change our Republic into a Democracy.”

Of course most don’t realize there is a difference.


92 posted on 07/27/2010 5:03:05 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (I aspire to a large carbon footprint; just like Al Gore's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Dems are busy.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/04/soros-eyes-secretaries


93 posted on 07/27/2010 5:04:01 PM PDT by LucyJo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle
"I don’t get it."

Slowly each state is pushing to get rid of the electoral college or making it so they go by the popular vote. If they accomplish this then we will always have a president decided by NY,CA, etc. The states that have the most population.

94 posted on 07/27/2010 5:06:34 PM PDT by Spunky (You are free to make choices, but not free from the consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

This might turn into an interesting supreme court battle or worse.


95 posted on 07/27/2010 5:07:20 PM PDT by dr_who
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oregon Betsy Ross
"This probably not unconstitutional."

I don't see why this would be unconstitutional. The Constitution allows the state legislature wide latitude in how it's electors will vote. .

(Article 2 - US Constitution)
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives

Technically, Mass legislature could pass a law saying that it's electors WILL vote DEMOCRAT and not hold a Presidential election at all.

Even if this passes in Mass. I doubt it will last one election cycle past the first time all of their electoral votes go to a Republican. Which is very likely to be 2012.

One big problem though. Determining total popular vote is VERY difficult, and this is where I suspect the real evil may lie. For example, in 2000 - there were almost a million votes in California that were never counted. That's because Gore already had a 2 million vote lead. So, there was no need to open almost a million absentee and military ballots.

If this passes in more than a few states, the Dem election thieves (think Franken) will scour the country mining found votes in every nook and cranny they can find. In a close vote they may be able to "mine" enough votes from various states - that don't even change the state outcome - but tip the scales of the popular vote.

In short - a terrible idea - but seems perfectly Constitutional. Too bad there is no constitutional provision to protect voters from their own foolishness.
96 posted on 07/27/2010 5:07:20 PM PDT by crescen7 (game on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Voter FRAUD will determine who wins.

I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how.
-Joseph Stalin

97 posted on 07/27/2010 5:07:39 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (Obama is the least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

It doesnt matter. Constitution says it is up to the states to decide how their electors are decided.

If Massachusettes wants to disenfranchise themselves, that’s their problem.

There is no way in hell a majority of states would pass this law. Maybe a few far left states will, but the swing states never will because they love the attention they get.

A Republican has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning MA in a presidential election anyway. If the Republican in 2012 gets a majority of the popular vote, we get MA’s 12 electors. Sounds good enough to me. And then no left-wing state will ever pass a law like this anywhere.


98 posted on 07/27/2010 5:09:12 PM PDT by jerry557
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

...or trigger a civil war, if states with the biggest cities end up determining who gets elected.


99 posted on 07/27/2010 5:12:15 PM PDT by dr_who
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Thanks

No, the electoral votes should go to the candidate who wins Massachusetts. 71% (576 votes) .
Yes, the candidate who wins the popular vote should win the election. 29% (231 votes) .


100 posted on 07/27/2010 5:15:11 PM PDT by ricmc2175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson