Pardon me, but doesn't that substantially dilute the value of the votes of the very Massachussetts voters who are supposed to be represented by the Electors?
I mean, if you're a Massachussetts citizen, why even vote? The state's electoral votes are going to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote, no matter which way Massachussetts votes as a state.
>> Pardon me, but doesn’t that substantially dilute the value of the votes of the very Massachussetts voters who are supposed to be represented by the Electors?
Would it not be cool if in the next presidential election the people of the Great State of Taxachussetts see their votes go to Popular Vote Winner Sarah Palin? In spite of the fact that Hugo Chavez carries the state?
I’d pay money to watch it happen!
“Pardon me, but doesn’t that substantially dilute the value of the votes of the very Massachussetts voters who are supposed to be represented by the Electors?
I mean, if you’re a Massachussetts citizen, why even vote? The state’s electoral votes are going to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote, no matter which way Massachussetts votes as a state.”
Eventually, this attempt to end-run around the U.S. Constitution will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
One cannot predict the final outcome, but I sense that your argument will be the foundation for the final opinion.
This strikes at the core of “civil rights” and voter disenfranchisement. Suppose Pennsylvania (largely white) passed a law stating that its electors would be determined by who won the election in North Dakota? What would that do to the votes of the blacks in Philadelphia?
That is to say, “National Popular Vote” seeks to accomplish its goal through the abolishment of the core value of “one man, one vote”. Yes, the states have a right to determine how their electors are to be chosen, but I predict that if states expect to hold elections in which voters actually cast votes for electors (in presidential elections), that they will be HELD to the outcome of those votes cast within their own state borders.