Posted on 07/28/2010 1:59:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Alternate headline: “Massachusetts disenfranchises self.”
Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was “tried and true” since the founding of the country.
“We’ve had a lot of bad ideas come through this chamber over the years, but this is going to be one of the worst ideas that has surfaced and actually garnered some support,” said Tisei, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor.
The bill, which passed on a 28-to-9 vote, now heads to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick’s desk. The governor has said in the past that he supports the bill, said his spokeswoman Kim Haberlin.
Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.
Note well: The law only goes into effect if/when states accounting for 270 combined electoral votes pass this same bill, thereby ensuring that the winner of the national popular vote will have the EVs he needs to be elected president under the Constitution. Only five states accounting for a combined 61 votes have passed it thus far, so if Obama wins Massachusetts in 2012 but his Republican opponent wins the popular vote overall, Mass stays blue. Nothing to worry about then? Well, not quite: New York, which has 31 EVs, is on the brink of passing it and California, with 55 EVs, has twice pushed it through the legislature only to have it die on Schwarznegger’s desk. Assume those two states finally get the job done and suddenly we’re at 147 combined electoral votes pledged to the winner of the popular vote — more than halfway to the goal.
Even so, I’m not that worried. For one thing, I remember reading during the 2008 campaign (can’t find the cite, alas) that the odds of a presidential candidate winning the popular vote but not the electoral college are extremely small. It’s possible, of course — ask Al Gore — but it’s really hard to do, so this gambit will end up deciding the election only in extremely unusual circumstances. Beyond that, while the number of states that are looking at this idea is growing, it’s probably only the reliably blue ones that will go for it. Why would Florida or Ohio, say, forfeit their electoral votes by signing on when their swing-state status ensures plenty of extra attention from the candidates every four years? The more blue states sign up for this, the cooler red states and purple states will be to it, to the point where I wonder how big realistically this bloc can get. 200 EVs, maybe, until other states start walking away? Three cheers for self-interest!
Not likely.
True. What if there is a clear winner in each state, but the popular vote comes out 50.01% vs. 49.99%? Recounts will be demanded everywhere, and we'll have more "hanging chad" fiascos than we can count. Does MA want to pay for all of the recounts?
It might be legal, but I can see future elections stretching out for months of recounts while the "Popular Vote" states decide where they're going.
Great post, and completely realistic. I’m not sure what the Dems in MA are thinking with this change of election law. I can’t see any way that it benefits the people a that state.
The Massachusetts legislature is 90% RAT (and I mean *filthy* RAT) and our Governor...who’s on his way to winning reelection with 38% of the vote (he’s got a straw man in the race)...is the filthiest RAT you can imagine (a good pal of Hussein’s).Just as they did with our system of filling vacant Senate seats I’m sure their attitude is “hey,we’ll see how things are going as an election approaches and legislate accordingly”.
Oh, I’m not suggesting what MA has done makes the least particle of sense. It is a bald and petty attempt to seem ‘democratic’ and to put all this ‘the US is a republic’ nonsense to bed permanently. All I was saying was that however foolhardy any particular state wants to be in this matter appears to be fully constitutional. The resulting train-wreck, when the proposal is both wrong-headed and foolish, would be most instructive. Here’s hoping the test is graded quickly. Sometimes progressives point to things done and recommend them elsewhere before the consequences have a chance to play out.
The states are the arbiters of how electoral votes are allocated. Maine does so by allotting 2 votes to the statewide winner and then the rest by one vote per congressional district victor. Nebraska as well does the same. This method is certainly constitutional.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, but that’s because their EV’s will be decided by their state’s popular vote, not the national popular vote.
This new process stinks. Why should my State EV vote be determined by other states!!!!! That disenfranchising my vote.
They should just pass a Constitutional Amendment.
contra-constitutional isnt it?
“SCOTUS will slap this down.”
SCOTUS can’t slap this down as the State can cast its electors anyway it wants to cast them. No my friend we will have to kill this in a State by state campaign highlighting how our state could vote against our own interest.
The big issue with this is not only the issue politicians being able to focus on just the largest city’s ignoring everyone else.
But a National popular election would enable crooked states to pass election laws that effectually allow people to vote multi-able times, simply by making it not legally preventable.
That illegal voting will permit such states and their populations to sway the new National popular election in their favor by having the illusion of disproportionately high turn out.
2012 Results in MA:
Barack Obama—1,000,000
Sarah Palin—5
National winner, popular vote: Sarah Palin.
Palin wins all MA electoral votes...
You can argue almost any state law on equal protection grounds.
It is somewhat dissappointing that Florida’s legislature didn’t pick the electors themselves when the vote became as spoiled as it did (yes, the punch cards were spoiled: with all the handling, pregnant chads had become hanging chads).
I don’t know what would happen now if a state legislature did decide to choose the electors at the last minute, and its electors were critical. Which version of the count would count, if any, with regard to the other states?
It’s a rare chance here that the provisions of this law will ever be invoked but it seems to me there’s going to be greater strife with this law than without.
Should have passed this in 1971. ;’) Thanks SeekAndFind.
Unfortunately, this is constitutional [unwise, but constitional nonetheless] - and NOT what the Founders wanted. But, the Constitution leaves it up to the States as to how their electors are chosen.
I am also not a fan of the current winner-take-all system [except ME and NE]. It causes candidates to focus on the most populous areas within a State.
For example, I live in MD. If a candidate wins Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Montgomery County, and Prince Georges County - they win the State. The rest of the counties be damned.
A fairer system is as follows:
1. The Constitution provides that “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 ...”
2. Therefore, two of the electors in each state represent its two Senators and the rest of the electors for the state represent its Representatives.
3. So, it would be fairer for the voters in each of a State’s districts to vote for one elector [representing their district]. Just like they vote for their district’s Representative. The two remaining electors would be awarded to the winner of the State’s popular vote [just like they vote for their Senators].
If this system had been in place in 2008, Obama would have one 7-3, instead of 10-0. This is more representative of the political view of the State of MD.
Understand. But calling it a “train-wreck” is putting it mildly.
One additional advantage of the electoral system is that it gives an advantage to candidates who can summon moderate majorities in a large number of states, over candidates that summon huge majorities in a smaller number of states. The President needs to be President of the whole US, not just a few major cities.
And this differs from his usual behavior.... how?
Understood, some would prefer to ramp up the diction. I prefer to stay calm and speak firmly. Whatever else Teddy Roosevelt accomplished, not all of it good, he made a good point: we have a very big stick (if we will remember it’s in our hands), we don’t need to speak loudly. Our words, spoken calmly, will chill the opposition if they are clear and direct.
Suppose the majority of the voters of Massachusetts voted for the candidate that did not get the national popular vote. By giving their states electoral votes to the other candidate would disenfranchised all those voters. The voice of the voters should be heard regardless of whether they voted for the candidate who won the national popular vote or not.
To get the national popular vote Massachusetts votes would have to be included in the count.
‘this combined with ammmnesty for illegals is the dems plan to remain in control, if they just add millions of new undocumented democrats in states that are already democrat”
The Socialist Academes we now have in charge have bee gaming this for close to FOUR DECADES now. And this is as close as they have ever been to fullfilling Marx’s dream
BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING...
JONATHAN SOROS:It’s Time to Junk the Electoral College We don’t need an amendment to do it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122930124441705413.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
AND
(note the “We The People” copycat Header)
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=MA
Check out party affiliations of these Sens. & Reps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.