Massachusetts legislators sent a bill to their governor’s desk that is a direct and unconstitutional attempt to bypass the Constitution. At present, the complex, but constitutionally established Electoral College decides the result of this country’s presidential election. With the Mass. governor’s signature, the state’s EC delegates would be required to vote for the presidential candidate that won the most votes nationwide. Not the candidate who won the most votes in Massachusetts.
There are similar legislative attempts afoot too in several other states, but the proper and legal method to end the Electoral College process is through an amendment to the United States Constitution, an idea that has never been popular, and for very good reason—the popular vote method means that a very few of the most populous states will decide every future presidential election and the votes from North Dakota, Alaska and the other low population states are rendered meaningless.
As originally constituted, the Electoral College was designed so that the delegates represented a region of the state and were to cast their vote to reflect the wishes of the regions’ populace who cast ballots. In effect, the EC’s votes were representative of the popular vote, but gave weight to the votes of rural America against the urban votes. Over the years, states have played with the rules and created an amalgamation of electoral college rules. Depending on the state where you live, your EC delegates might be required to follow the popular vote by political district ballot which can mean one candidate might not win all of that state’s EC votes. Some states have a winner-takes-all rule and in a few the delegates can decide which candidate to vote for regardless of the popular vote in the state and the nation.
The lack of uniform state rules adds to the complexity of the EC process, but does not strip away the weight of the rural vote and that is exactly the intent of the Massachusetts legislation. Under the new bill, said Mass. State Sen. James B. Eldridge, (D-Acton), “Every vote will be of the same weight across the country.” Eldridge’s comment falls heavily on the dishonest side of the scale of truth. If all 50 states, or even a majority of them were to pass similar legislation, the weight of millions of voters would be only the same weight as those of the dozen most populous states.
The Founding Fathers recognized this flaw in national elections by popular vote and created the Electoral College as a remedy. Even with the EC, presidential campaigns concentrate on the states with highest populations, but the smaller states cannot be completely ignored and have been the determinant factor in many elections, including the four where the Electoral College selected the candidate who won the most popular votes nationwide.
Massachusetts liberals, in collusion with their cohorts in other states have made a sneaky and underhanded attempt to subvert the Constitution to their advantage. Should Massachusetts Democratic Governor Deval Patrick sign this law there must be an immediate lawsuit filed requesting an injunction to stop implementation of a clearly unconstitutional conspiracy.
This disingenuous move is evidence that the liberal forces supporting this subversion are more interested in staying in power because they have been seduced by wielding power and are no longer interested in winning re-election by way of promoting social and governmental regulation that is in the best interests of the nation.
The Other McCain called Massachusetts legislature “purveyor of fine bollocks,” and noticed that other bloggers are paying attention to this political subversion.