The Constitution gives every state the power to determine for itself how it will choose its voters in the electoral college. Article II Sec.1 says:
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.
It is an illogical decision from the point of view of preserving state sovereignty and it undermines the best interests of the citizens of Massachusetts...whose voice would effectively mean nothing in under such a system. This law would effectively mean that the legislature has chosen to elect whichever candidate everyone else wants, regardless of whether that person is good for Massachusetts. This plan circumvents the intent of instituting the electoral college, it undermines federalism, and runs counter to the spirit of the Constitution, but it is a perfectly legal and constitutional way of doing it. Massachusetts will likely quickly abandon the system as soon as it backfires on them. (Especially, if no other states adopt the system)
Four other states, I believe, have already adopted this legislation -- New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland and Washington (all blue). This particular movement is clear evidence of how unhinged the liberals were (and are) over the 2000 election.
As you note, it could just as easily come back to bite them on the behind. At which time, they will be shrieking for a do-over...
“Massachusetts will likely quickly abandon the system as soon as it backfires on them.”
So, in 1972, MA’s electoral vote would have gone to Nixon?
And in 1984, it would have gone to Reagan?
You people in MA are really, really dumb (I cite Rep. Barney, Senators Kennedy and Kerry as proof of dumbness).
In 2012, your electors will all vote for President Palin! Hah!