The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Ballygrl on July 27, 2010, 05:50:11 PM
-
Not sure if this paper is on the sticky list of websites we can't copy and paste from and post here, so I'll just add the link.
I know several states have approved this but any idea why these laws haven't been challenged as bypassing the Constitution and what the Founders intended? If every State enacted this law then basically we would live in a Democracy where the majority votes in the President, so the smaller States would be ignored.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/mass_legislatur.html?p1=News_links
-
This will be repealed in 2012 when a Republican wins the popular vote.
-
Are they allowed to repeal a state's vote?
-
Are they allowed to repeal a state's vote?
A state's vote?
-
This will be repealed in 2012 when a Republican wins the popular vote.
How can a President repeal a State law?
-
How can a President repeal a State law?
He can't, but this is the same state that gave the governor the right to appoint replacement Senators until a Republican (Romney) was in office and he was potentially going to have to make an appointment if Kerry had become President. The state legislature changed it to an election to prevent that. Then they changed it back to allowing appointments so the Dem governor could appoint a replacement for Fat Teddy until the special election.
If it bites them in the ass, they'll change it back.
-
He can't, but this is the same state that gave the governor the right to appoint replacement Senators until a Republican (Romney) was in office and he was potentially going to have to make an appointment if Kerry had become President. The state legislature changed it to an election to prevent that. Then they changed it back to allowing appointments so the Dem governor could appoint a replacement for Fat Teddy until the special election.
If it bites them in the ass, they'll change it back.
Massachusetts isn't the only State though, they join Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington in passing this law.
-
This is a waste of time legislation that would or will be struck down in a heartbeat.
-
How can a President repeal a State law?
??
MA state legislature will repeal it.
-
Massachusetts isn't the only State though, they join Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington in passing this law.
Gee -- all traditionally 'blue' states... how surprising (not)
and the crap about getting the campaign into small states is just that -- crap.
As a rule, most heavily populated states vote for Dems, whereas the less populated midwestern & southern ones vote for conservatives. This initiative is purely to eliminate any power the small states have in the electoral process -which is the purpose of the EC- to make sure the smaller populated states have an impact.
In other words, the candidate who gets the big states wins - and most of the big states vote Dem.
-
Memo to blue states--good luck getting 38 states to bend over and spread their ass cheeks for your wants.
-
??
MA state legislature will repeal it.
I can't imagine the Massachusetts Legislature ever coming under Republican control.
-
Memo to blue states--good luck getting 38 states to bend over and spread their ass cheeks for your wants.
Refresh my memory please, it would take 38 States to enact this for this law to actually come into effect, right?
-
Refresh my memory please, it would take 38 States to enact this for this law to actually come into effect, right?
No, but a Constitutional amendment to do away with the EC would take 38 states to ratify it, assuming that they could even get the 2/3 majority in both houses to even send it to the states.
-
I can`t imagine even the Warren court being willing to walk down this road where a state can enact any law that would say essentially if the state legislature disagreed with the electoral vote it could act on its own accord to usurp it.
Such a thing "could" have led to liberal states not recognizing Reagan/Bush 41 landslides or even the Clinton victories.
It is useless nonsense.
-
No, but a Constitutional amendment to do away with the EC would take 38 states to ratify it, assuming that they could even get the 2/3 majority in both houses to even send it to the states.
So can I assume this law is just for show and can't possibly circumvent the Constitution and award Electoral votes to the person with most votes? or am I wrong about that?
-
I can`t imagine even the Warren court being willing to walk down this road where a state can enact any law that would say essentially if the state legislature disagreed with the electoral vote it could act on its own accord to usurp it.
Such a thing "could" have led to liberal states not recognizing Reagan/Bush 41 landslides or even the Clinton victories.
It is useless nonsense.
Exactly, so why hasn't it even been challenged in other States it passed in?
-
Exactly, so why hasn't it even been challenged in other States it passed in?
My guess is that it has yet to be applied or attempted so not worth the expense.
-
My guess is that it has yet to be applied or attempted so not worth the expense.
OK, that sounds right then.
-
Here's more info on this:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/27/massachusetts-passes-bill-awarding-electoral-votes-to-winner-of-national-popular-vote/
Note well: The law only goes into effect if/when states accounting for 270 combined electoral votes pass this same bill, thereby ensuring that the winner of the national popular vote will have the EVs he needs to be elected president under the Constitution. Only five states accounting for a combined 61 votes have passed it thus far, so if Obama wins Massachusetts in 2012 but his Republican opponent wins the popular vote overall, Mass stays blue. Nothing to worry about then? Well, not quite: New York, which has 31 EVs, is on the brink of passing it and California, with 55 EVs, has twice pushed it through the legislature only to have it die on Schwarznegger’s desk. Assume those two states finally get the job done and suddenly we’re at 147 combined electoral votes pledged to the winner of the popular vote — more than halfway to the goal.
-
I can't imagine the Massachusetts Legislature ever coming under Republican control.
Ok, I don't know what you are talking about. We have had several Republican governors.
That said, my comments were should a Republican win the popular vote for the presidency in 2012, then the MA legislature will repeal this law.
-
Exactly, so why hasn't it even been challenged in other States it passed in?
Check to look at when it was passed, who won the popular vote, and did that candidate win that state anyway.
-
Why would Florida or Ohio, say, forfeit their electoral votes by signing on when their swing-state status ensures plenty of extra attention from the candidates every four years? The more blue states sign up for this, the cooler red states and purple states will be to it, to the point where I wonder how big realistically this bloc can get. 200 EVs, maybe, until other states start walking away? Three cheers for self-interest!
Never going to happen.
-
The way I understand these laws in the various states, they require that the delegates to the EC vote for the winner of the popular vote. Therefore they are not bypassing the EC, but they are subjugating the independence of the delegates.
IIRC, some states split their EC delegates according to the votes from that state, but some states go all or nothing for the popular winner in that state.
-
Aren't they, potentially, disenfranchising their own voters?
-
Aren't they, potentially, disenfranchising their own voters?
People don't vote for the presidents. States do. This is just stupid people pandering to other stupid people.
It would NEVER survive even the most basic Constitutional challenge.
-
Aren't they, potentially, disenfranchising their own voters?
Yes, and that prospect is mentioned in the article...it describes a situation where MA voters go in a majority for one side, but the other side wins the national vote (A very possible outcome in 2012, with MA staying pure moonbat while an actual non-Communist wins the national vote). This law would essentially substitute the vote of non-MA voters for actual MA voters and be subject to attack for that reason.
On top of that, as many mentioned above, this is never going to get to the 270-electoral-vote buy-in level necessary to trigger it.
-
The Constitution is clear about an electoral college as it is spelled out in it.
-
No, but a Constitutional amendment to do away with the EC would take 38 states to ratify it, assuming that they could even get the 2/3 majority in both houses to even send it to the states.
If that is going to even happen.