I don’t get it. All MA can do is affect how their own electors cast their votes; they don’t have anything to do with the rest of the country.
If MA wants to assign their electors according to the popular vote, then fine. How many do they get? Twelve?
Would’ve worked out well for us in 2000 and 2004...
Considering the number of folks voting with their feet and bugging out of MA, more now than they'll have later.
If MA wants to assign their electors according to the popular vote, then fine. How many do they get? Twelve?
This is the way it works in MD [it passed same law]. The law is inoperative until enough states representing 270 electoral votes pass the same law.
If that happens, in the following presidential election, then the electoral votes representing MD [10] are awarded to the winner of the national popular vote - regardless of who won the state.
So, the net effect is to take the states with the smallest populations out of the game. AK, HI, ID, ME, MT, ND, SD, UT, VT, WY, etc. become highly irrelevent.
CA, FL, IL, IN, MA, MI, NJ, NY, PA, TX, etc. become the kingmakers.
Conceivably [if all states passed this law], the winner of the popular vote would receive ALL of the electoral votes [538] - even if he won the popular vote by one vote.
I don't know about you, but I want my vote represented. If I vote in my state, and my candidate wins [but loses the popular vote] - I want my state's electoral votes counted for my guy.
Slowly each state is pushing to get rid of the electoral college or making it so they go by the popular vote. If they accomplish this then we will always have a president decided by NY,CA, etc. The states that have the most population.
“then fine”
Not so fine when the state winner garners 65% of the state vote, yet the loser makes off with the electors.