Is Ted Cruz Edging Toward #NeverTrump?
Ted Cruz took nearly five minutes to not answer Chuck Todd’s question about Cruz supporting Trump if he is the nomineeRead More »
On reliable authority (from those much smarter than I) I’m told that this notion of abandoning the traditions of the Electoral College is well within the rights of the “some several States” as afforded them in the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution and that sending Electors from each of these “some several States” with specific instructions to cast their ballot for the person with the majority of the national popular vote is well within the boundaries of what the Constitution envisioned.
I just disagree. I remember how poorly Democrats took the Bush victory on Electoral College votes where his Popular numbers favored his opponent…to me, this is just the means to make sure no Democrat ever has to meet a similar fate as the one poor Al Gore was made to suffer.
Massachusetts has become the most recent State to pass a law requiring that its Electoral College representatives must vote for the President and Vice President according to the one(s) that have already won the popular vote across the country. This is defended at the website “NationalPopularVote” with this snippet:
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia).
The bill has passed 30 legislative chambers in 20 states (AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, NV, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OR, RI, VT, WA).
In the recent 52–7 New York State Senate vote on the bill, Republicans supported the bill by a 22–5 margin (with 3 not voting) and Democrats supported it by a 30–2 margin.
The bill has been enacted by state legislatures representing 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to activate the law (Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington).
The bill has been endorsed by 1,922 state legislators.
Until I hear no more talk of dead people voting, or homeless people voting 3 times…and when I am SURE my Department of Justice no longer tolerates thugs armed with batons and goofy looking militant uniforms standing guard outside polling places making sure people cast their vote as the thugs expect them to, THEN I’ll feel better about removing a check and balance from an already flawed system.
Sorry-I read this as just one more chink in the armor of the Constitution that paves the way for putting a greater imbalance between huge states with monstrous populations (and outrageously underfunded entitlement programs) and smaller states already struggling to have equal say in this mess called American governance. This may help ensure an Obama win in ’12, but it does nothing for making sure everyone’s voice is equally represented in Washington.