Mass. Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Blatantly Unconstitutional.

It's not unconstitutional. The states have the right to divvy out their electoral votes in any manner they see fit. They don't even have to let us vote in the presidential election. Technically, the state legislature could hand them over to whoever they want without a vote.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gunny, you are crossing your own wires (it's democratic, it's not democratic), so your engine refuses to start.

Make up your mind, old son.

 

[mvymvy]

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

In addition, in almost all states, state statutes already impose independent (typically earlier) deadlines for finalizing the count for the presidential election. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that state election officials and the state judiciary must conduct counts and recounts in presidential elections within the confines of existing state election laws.

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site at
U. S. Electoral College 2008 Election

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gunny, you are crossing your own wires (it's democratic, it's not democratic), so your engine refuses to start.

Make up your mind, old son.

The Electoral College is a Democratic process. I was pretty clear on that. You do not think so? Prove it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Massachusetts (the 13th largest population state, with 12 electoral college votes) and 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

If we went strictly to a popular vote then they'd be concentrating all of their time on the big cities and ignore the rest of the country so either way you have a section of the electorate getting ignored.

What is advantageous about the electoral college is that it gives the smallest states who would get ignored in just about any system a bit more of a voice by guaranteeing them at least three electoral votes, even if they only have the population for one.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Electoral College should be done away with, but by the Congress, not the states.

And what authority does Congress have to get do away with it?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I just don't see the logic in Massachusetts making this change. The Democratic candidate almost always wins Massachusetts so if Obama wins the popular vote in 2012, nothing changes. He gets their electoral votes, but if Massachusetts votes for Obama and (insert Republican here) gets the popular vote then all of Massachusetts electoral votes go to the Republican who didn't win their state, so I see this only as an advantage for the Republican Party and a disadvantage for the Democratic Party.

People have been fussing about this since the 2000 election, but even if Massachusetts already had this system in place, Bush still would have won. It wouldn't have mattered.

 

[Avatar4321]

If we went strictly to a popular vote then they'd be concentrating all of their time on the big cities and ignore the rest of the country so either way you have a section of the electorate getting ignored.

What is advantageous about the electoral college is that it gives the smallest states who would get ignored in just about any system a bit more of a voice by guaranteeing them at least three electoral votes, even if they only have the population for one.

Well said. But I don't think we've educated the people as to why we do this.

 

[Greenbeard]

The electoral college is not undemocratic you dumb ass. It provides an equal footing for the Individual States.

Electoral votes are apportioned to states by population (i.e. number of representatives + 2). Granted, this distorts things a bit for small states but it hardly provides an "equal footing" between states.

We get a vote for President.

No, you don't. That's the point. The concept is inherently undemocratic because the Presidency is not a democratically elected office in the United States. Individual states have decided to award electoral votes according to popular vote totals in the state (some, like Nebraska, even going so far as to do it by individual Congressional district) but that's not an idea inherent to the original concept. In fact, it's somewhat of a perversion of the original system in that it's a weak attempt to democratize an inherently undemocratic system.

Now we have one State that has invalidated its entire State's vote. It has told all politicians running for President, do not bother running here, worry about the other States. Waste no money on us, we are irrelevant. Our input is meaningless, our desires pointless, our vote worthless.

In the current system, that would be most states. Surely you've heard of "battleground" states in American presidential elections. State popular vote margins (and, by extension, national margins) mean nothing in our system (outside of Nebraska and Maine)--since states are winner-take-all, any lead that seems insurmountable given the candidate's resources is effectively irrelevant that electoral cycle. Thus candidates don't bother running in many states and they do decide to worry about other states.

In fact what the law says is that the State need not even hold an election, which IS unconstitutional, by the way.

For the Presidency? No, that's not unconstitutional. Popular elections don't determine who becomes President under the Constitution. Unless a state decides to base its electoral vote decision on the state's popular vote. The fact that they all do that today doesn't mean it's a feature built into the Constitution. It certainly is not. All a state is Constitutionally bound to do is appoint electors who then cast their votes for a candidate.

And I would suggest that Constitutional Scholars should check that out. By invalidating the election process they DENY their citizens a Republican form of Government. And that IS in the Constitution.

Are you under the impression that the U.S. President is a state official? Otherwise I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

You have made the claim that the electoral process is not Democratic, prove it.

To reiterate a somewhat key point: the Presidency is not a democratically elected position in our government. The Electoral College is the instrument of this. Ergo...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The electoral college is not undemocratic you dumb ass. It provides an equal footing for the Individual States.

Electoral votes are apportioned to states by population (i.e. number of representatives + 2). Granted, this distorts things a bit for small states but it hardly provides an "equal footing" betwen states.

We get a vote for President.

No, you don't. That's the point. The concept is inherently undemocratic because the Presidency is not a democratically elected office in the United States. Individual states have decided to award electoral votes according to popular vote totals in the state (some, like Nebraska, even going so far as to do it by individual Congressional district) but that's not an idea inherent to the original concept. In fact, it's somewhat of a perversion of the original system in that it's a weak attempt to democratize an inherently undemocratic system.



In the current system, that would be most states. Surely you've heard of "battleground" states in American presidential elections. State popular vote margins (and, by extension, national margins) mean nothing in our system (outside of Nebraska and Maine)--since states are winner-take-all, any lead that seems insurmountable given the candidate's resources is effectively irrelevant that electoral cycle. Thus candidates don't bother running in many states and they do decide to worry about other states.



For the Presidency? No, that's not unconstitutional. Popular elections don't determine who becomes President under the Constitution. Unless a state decides to base its electoral vote decision on the state's popular vote. The fact that they all do that today doesn't mean it's a feature built into the Constitution. It certainly is not. All a state is Constitutionally bound to do is appoint electors who then cast their votes for a candidate.

And I would suggest that Constitutional Scholars should check that out. By invalidating the election process they DENY their citizens a Republican form of Government. And that IS in the Constitution.

Are you under the impression that the U.S. President is a state official? Otherwise I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

You have made the claim that the electoral process is not Democratic, prove it.

To reiterate a somewhat key point: the Presidency is not a democratically elected position in our government. The Electoral College is the instrument of this. Ergo...

Unbelievable. The electoral process is most assuredly a democratic process. It involves the 50 States deciding who will be President by a VOTE. Our individual vote determines what vote our State will cast in that Democratic Election Process.

It has always been democratic. You have utterly failed to even provide a single example of why it is not. TRY AGAIN.

 

[Greenbeard]

You have utterly failed to even provide a single example of why it is not.

Hmm. Here you go:

... determines what vote our State will cast ...

 

[SFC Ollie]

So forget the states, candidates should simply worry about a few dozen major cities and bingo, their in. I don't think so........

 

[Charles_Main]

“A survey of 800 Massachusetts voters conducted on May 23-24, 2010 showed 72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Voters were asked

‘How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?’

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 86% among Democrats, 54% among Republicans, and 68% among others. By gender, support was 85% among women and 60% among men. By age, support was 85% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.

Massachusetts voters were also asked a 3-way question:

‘Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the state’s electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?’

The results of this three-way question were that 68% favored a national popular vote, 16% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district, and 16% favored the existing statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a states electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

The question should have been qualified by saying, even if that means It may not be the Candidate the People of Mass voted for. I mean those people do realize the only time that law would ever really have any effect is in a case where Mass voted for the guy who Lost the National Popular vote right.

 

[hortysir]

72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Exactly why we're not a democracy.

I'm sure that 90% of Americans favor more 3-day weekends.

That's why our Constitutional Republic wasn't formed on the precept of mob rule.

 

[Immanuel]

So forget the states, candidates should simply worry about a few dozen major cities and bingo, their in. I don't think so........

Maybe that is the plan... Boston would be one of those major cities, anything in the bread basket of America i.e. red states would not be.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

hey, look at the bright side
the state of Mass is under huge budget problems
think of the money they could save by just not having the election and let everyone else decide who wins
LOL

 

[theDoctorisIn]

72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Exactly why we're not a democracy.

I'm sure that 90% of Americans favor more 3-day weekends.

That's why our Constitutional Republic wasn't formed on the precept of mob rule.

There's a difference between asking for direct Presidential elections and mob rule.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

“A survey of 800 Massachusetts voters conducted on May 23-24, 2010 showed 72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Voters were asked

‘How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?’

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 86% among Democrats, 54% among Republicans, and 68% among others. By gender, support was 85% among women and 60% among men. By age, support was 85% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.

Massachusetts voters were also asked a 3-way question:

‘Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the state’s electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?’

The results of this three-way question were that 68% favored a national popular vote, 16% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district, and 16% favored the existing statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a states electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

The question should have been qualified by saying, even if that means It may not be the Candidate the People of Mass voted for. I mean those people do realize the only time that law would ever really have any effect is in a case where Mass voted for the guy who Lost the National Popular vote right.

Actually, it would only make a difference when the guy who won the national popular vote managed to do it in such a way that he also lost the electoral vote. The rest of the time it will just have Mass voting for a Republican instead of a Democrat.

 

[zzzz]

By throwing their 12 electorial votes to the majority it franchises all those voters who never had a say in the Presidential election, namely the federal territories like the US Virgin islanders. It would make your vote count. It is time to elect the President with popular vote, not some process that makes my vote count for less than someones vote in Maryland. The way the process is now not all votes are equal. Common sense folks!

 

[DiveCon]

By throwing their 12 electorial votes to the majority it franchises all those voters who never had a say in the Presidential election, namely the federal territories like the US Virgin islanders. It would make your vote count. It is time to elect the President with popular vote, not some process that makes my vote count for less than someones vote in Maryland. The way the process is now not all votes are equal. Common sense folks!

thats because we dont hold a "national" election
we hold STATE elections for national office