Movement to Bypass the Constitution in Presidential Elections

There is a movement afoot, to bypass the Constitution, in all future Presidential elections.

The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system, set forth in the Constitution. The system set up in the Constitution, requires that each state's electors, cast votes for the President and Vice President and present those votes to the President of the Senate for a final tally. What fouled this system up was that 48 States passed "winner-take-all " rules, meaning that if candidate X got 51% of the vote in the state, he is awarded all of that states electoral votes. This is why Al Gore lost the election to Bush in 2000. Only 2 states, Maine and Nebraska, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule, dividing the votes, between the candidates, as required by the Constitution. It was not the electoral system that was at fault, it was the winner-take-all rules. Now, state by state, the Liberals are passing a national winner-take-all scheme.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have approved this new system, which could nullify your vote. In Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Vermont and Rhode Island, the measure has already passed both Houses. Under this new system, the national popular vote will determine how your states electoral votes are cast. You could see all of your states electoral votes cast for a candidate, that didn't win the majority of votes in your state. It is even possible to see all of your states electoral votes cast for a candidate that wasn't even on the ballot in your state. This is unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. If this passes in enough states, our next President could be chosen by the voters in the 11 most populated states, and the smaller or less populated states will have no voice in the election. This movement must be stopped.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/mass_legislatur.html?p...

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#mystate

The text of the Massachusetts law can be seen here:

http://www.votesmart.org/billtext/30643.pdf

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht04/ht04156.htm

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• obama
• democrats
• liberals
• constitution
• electoral
• college
• votes
• states
• rights
• corruption
• news
• congress

[eyescreamcake]

I really hope they succeed. The electoral college and winner-takes-all system is extremely broken. We need a real election to eliminate government corruption.

[Bigone5555J]

@eyescreamcake, The Constitution requires that ALL votes be counted and reported. There are only two States that have been doing this. What they are now suggesting is a winner take all system, that will totally ignore millions of votes.

[eyescreamcake]

@Bigone5555J What the hell are you talking about? The electoral college votes are counted and reported by all states. How else would the election work? The presidential election will ALWAYS be winner-takes-all, because there can only be one winner. Duh. Currently it's a system that ignores hundreds of millions of votes. We're trying to make it a system where every vote counts.

[Bigone5555J]

@eyescreamcake, Read the information posted under the video.

[williamwagener]

The blonde bimbo misses the point, if the Top states go with the national Popular vote, then those smaller states DO STILL have a voice, Amazed the mike Reagan bought her bimbo line. Guess h e need the Air time. And any way, we already have by-passed the Constitution on gold and silver money, on ACT of WAR being Declared by CONGRESS , not the President, and many other issues.

[Bigone5555J]

@williamwagener, If all conservatives actually did that, in an very short period of time, all the liberal states would probably look like war zones.

[AlembicVapor]

It time for States to begin seceding from the Union.

[Bigone5555J]

@bythefault, It is not the electoral system that is at fault, it is the winner-take-all rules. Now 48 states will cast all their votes for candidate X if he gets 51% of the vote, and candidates Y and Z receive none. The Constitution requires that the votes for all candidates be reported and tallied by the President of the Senate. The winner-take-all rule, discards votes that should be counted. Under the new plan entire state's votes will be meaningless.

[Bigone5555J]

@williamwagener, Now, a candidate could win many small states and when those votes are tallied with the votes from all the other States they may not have carried, they could still win the election. Under this new agreement, those votes from States they didn't carry will be gone-being used as if they were originally cast for the other candidate. The only way around this new system would be that all Conservatives would have to actually move to Conservative majority states.

[Bigone5555J]

@williamwagener, I think you missed the point too. The Electorial system in the Constitution requires the votes to be counted and proportionally reported. In this new agreement being passed by the Democrats, many votes are going to be treated as if they were never cast. Under their system, a candidate receiving 51% of a States vote would receive all of the Electoral votes for that State- 49% of the votes would be applied to the wrong candidate.

[Bigone5555J]

@209northsidexiv, How is discarding the votes given to a candidate fair? You claim that you want the candidate that receives the majority of the votes to win, but, then you back a system that does not do that. Are you going to blame Bush for every little thing that comes down the pike? " his whole presidency was clouded in shadiness and shame", the same can be said about Obama-he claimed he would be the most honest, open and transparent president in history-Where's his Birth Certificate?

[209northsidexiv]

@Bigone5555J Exactly the Dems are trying to change the rules to MAKE it fair, a simple up and down vote. why isn't that fair? How is it that the minority vote would actually choose the way the majority of the country feels? Especially after that Bush fiasco. votes were lost and they didn't want a recount. why didn't they want a recount? Why did they approve the recount, then that judge denied the recount? how is that democracy? his whole presidency was clouded in shadiness and shame.