Massachusetts Senate passes bill to circumvent the electoral college
By a vote of 28-9, the Massachusetts senate passed a bill that would circumvent the electoral college and allot all of Massachusetts electoral votes to the candidate that won the popular vote, even if that person did not win the popular vote in the state of Massachusetts. The bill is now headed to Deval Patrick’s desk for his signature and it appears likely that he will sign the bill, as he has already stated his support for it.
As I stated in this article when I first wrote about the possibility of the Massachusetts senate passing this bill, I don’t really have a problem with Massachusetts changing the manner in which it assigns its electoral votes because the Constitution in Article 2 Section 1 states that “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 to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector,” but is says nothing about HOW each state is supposed to appoint their electors. Massachusetts has the state right to determine how their electors are chosen, if they decide to chose their electors by the results of the national popular vote, that is their right.
But where I do have a problem with this movement is in the fact that it appears to be a nationally organized movement to circumvent the electoral college that the Constitution calls for by organizing this movement is several states at the same time in an attempt to nullify this clause in the constitution. This is not simply one state decided that it was time to change their method of chosing electors.
Supporters of this movement have already organized on a national level and with Massachusetts about to join the movement, have six states that have agreed to use the national popular vote to determine how their electors vote. The other five states being Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington. Once enough states have adopted this language the Constitution will be changed and we will have not even gone through the amendment process to change it.
If this was simply states acting on their own behalf I would not have a problem with this at all, but the fact is that this is an effort that is being undertaken on a national level with the end result being a circumvention of the Constitution.
Massachusetts House Minority Leader Richard Tisei summed it up best:
The thing about this that bothers me the most is it’s so sneaky. This is the way that liberals do things a lot of times, very sneaky,” he said. “This is sort of an end run around the Constitution.
As a national movement, the National Popular Vote campaign should be using the proper constitutional amendment procedure as stated in Article 5 of the Constitution: ‘The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” But that is not what they are doing here, they are using a national movement to gather support in enough states to circumvent the Constitution instead of trying to gain enough support to amend the Constitution.
Richard Tisei is right, this is sneaky. And they are on the verge of pulling it off. As we have been told time and time again America is a land of laws, but if we cannot trust liberal groups to use the laws as laid out in the Constitution to amend the Constitution, how can we trust them to obey any laws?
There is a widespread belief among the American people– I don’t know how popular it is, but it seems to be growing– that the presidential election should be decided by the popular vote, and while I do not believe that the popular vote is the way to go I could accept the result it if is was achieved by using the Constitutionally mandated procedure. What I cannot accept is the way this organization is going about changing the Constitution without amending it.
America's Watchtower 
“Circumvent?” This law – also passed by a few other states, by the way – simply takes the tools provided by the Constitution and uses them in an out-of-the-box manner to accomplish a result favored by the majority.
There’s not even a requirement that there be elections to select the electors – it’s all up to the states.
Massachusetts is exercising its rights under the Constitution.
Hope all’s well. Take good care and may God bless us all!
LikeLike
Here we go again! 🙂 I agree that the states have the right to chose their electors as they see fit, the constitution does not dictate how those electors are to be chosen. And I wouldn’t have a problem with this if these states were acting independently, but there is a national effort under way to change the system, this goes beyond individual states. ANd if a national organization is going to coordinate a move to alter the overall way that the presdident is chosen they should be touting an amendment, not using and “out of the box manner” to achieve what they want.
LikeLike
Steve, the amendment processin this case would be used if the Constitution as written prevented the objective – but it doesn’t.
As to the “national effort” coordinating the campaign, that’s the way thingshappen in this nation. No state would independently have taken this step ulness it wwere certain other states would follow suit, and if I’m not mistaken, NONE of the legislation enacted by the many states will actually take effect until a majority of the electoral college is involved – that is, Massachusetts’ law is triggered only when states representing 270+ EC votes have enacted similar legislation.
I don’t see a danger of mob rule – the candidates still will be nominated in the same manner, and so the choices available to the American people won’t be substantially different.
And trust me, the legislatures are acting autonomously. You make it sound as if there’s this organized movement rolling over statehouses like some juggernaut – nothing could be farther from the truth. Politicians are exceptionally jealous of their prerogatives, and to tell the truth, I was very surprised to learn that New Jersey had passed this legislation, knowing personally how hidebound an institution it is.
I think this will actually be good, because it’ll raise the campaigns above the handful of swing states. Candidates from both parties will actively visit California and New York, and conservatives in Michigan wouldn’t ever have to read in the news that the GOP candidate had written off their state as “unwinnable.”
I think this will be good for the country, even if it does force a change in the way many of us think about Presidential politics.
LikeLike
First let me say that I had not heard that none of this legislation would be enacted until a majority of EC votes were gained by enough states joining in, but if that it true it seems to make my point that this is a national effort and not just a few states acting individually.
If the NPV was adopted using a constitutional amendment I would accept it, but I don’t see where it is necessary as there have been only four times in our history that the winner of the EC lost the NPV.
LikeLike
This is a nightmare. If we lose the Electoral College, the states will never have the power to stand against the machine that is the federal government.
LikeLike
Eh? Exactly how does the EC offer that kind of protection?
LikeLike
If anyone is actually curious about a serious Republican perspective in favor of NPV, check this out:
http://www.thatssaulfolks.com/2010/04/01/national-popular-vote-why-i-support-it/
Saul Anuzis was Chairman of the Republican Party in Michigan for 5 years and was a candidate to head the Republican National Election Committee last year, so he knows what he is talking about. He fully supports NPV both as the fairest way to make “one man, one vote” a reality and because he believes it will benefit CONSERVATIVES AND REPUBLICANS in elections up and down the ticket.
This has nothing to do with the power of states and everything to do with making sure that every citizen’s vote actually is counted.
LikeLike
Honestly, I fail to see why a national popular vote is such a terrible thing when in most states, the entirely of the EC delegation is selected by the popular vote within the state.
And if this move is a circumvention of the EC or, as some are screeching, the Constitution itself, why is it that Nebraska and Maine select their electors in a manner different from the other 48 states? Answer: they worked within the limits of the Constitution to come up with their approach.
Massachusetts, New Jersey and the other states who’ve enacted this legislation did the exact same thing.
Thanks for the great link, by the way – it’s proof that leadership of the GOP still includes thoughtful, practical people.
LikeLike
There’s a couple swears, but it’s worth it.
LikeLike
A little rough around the edges with the language, but the point of the video is correct. Was that Avenged Sevenfold?
LikeLike
Yes, I think it’s “Critical Acclaim” by Avenged Sevenfold.
LikeLike
It is needed because 4 times is still too many (it came within a hair of happening in 2004 as well) and because the swing state problem has severely worsened over time. In 2008, four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) received 57% of all campaign visits and 55% percent of spending (98% of both spending and visits were in 15 states total). That clearly skews our national elections towards the swing states, especially those big four, and that means Presidential elections are decided on issues from only those select areas while the other 35 states worth of voters have essentially no say in who will shape the policy of the country they live in.
And a Constitutional Amendment has almost succeeded many times in the past, but it can be shot down by people representing less than 3% of the population of the U.S., so despite national support over 70% it never quite makes it through the legislative labyrinth that is the Amendment process. Since it is fully within the constitutional rights of states to do this anyway, with no Amendment necessary at all, it makes sense to enact it on a state by state level and then move to a Constitutional amendment at a later date. This was the process used for giving women the vote, electing U.S. Senators by popular vote, etc.
LikeLike