Posted on 07/31/2010 8:13:03 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
IT IS Election Night, 2012. The polls have closed. State by state, the votes are being counted, and gradually it becomes clear, to the bottomless horror of some voters and the unbridled delight of others, that Sarah Palin, the Republican presidential nominee, has bested President Barack Obama in the popular vote nationwide.
In Massachusetts, where Obama crushed Palin in a 79 percent landslide — the most lopsidedly anti-Palin vote of any state — “bottomless horror’’ doesn’t begin to describe the political reaction. For in 2010, Massachusetts joined the National Popular Vote compact, making a commitment to cast all of its electoral votes for the presidential candidate receiving the most votes nationally, regardless of the results in Massachusetts. The compact took effect in December 2011, when California became the 15th state to join, thereby uniting enough states to control a majority of the Electoral College. Now Massachusetts, the bluest of the blue states, must award its presidential electors to a candidate Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly opposed.
. . .
Well, that’s one scenario. Maybe it won’t be Sarah Palin, maybe it won’t be 2012, but sooner or later a Republican is going to win the largest number of votes in a presidential election, and that Republican probably isn’t going to carry Massachusetts. What will Bay State liberals and Democrats say when the National Popular Vote compact that so many of them endorsed requires Massachusetts electors to line up behind the Republican? Imagine if Massachusetts had been compelled to give its electoral votes in 1972 not to George McGovern, but to Richard Nixon. Or to the first George Bush in 1988, instead of Michael Dukakis. Or to George W. Bush, not John Kerry, in 2004.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
‘Schadenfreude’ is the word you’re looking for.
schudenfreude (botched spelling no doubt, but you get the gist of the word)
Ask a democrat.
Of course the NPV would never be used to elect a GOP candidate. In the scenario above, ballots would just be printed until enough, no matter how many millions or billions, ballots were needed to assure 0bama’s re-election.
Amendment XIV, Section 2:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Massachusetts is renowned for passing laws they later greatly regret.
Also, note that the Legislature of Mass would quickly change the rules... What? Socialists lie? How can anyone say that? After all Obama was all for government funding of elections with restrictions on totals until it was in his favor to do otherwise.
I believe this will be another case of unintended consequences. One of the biggest whining points of the dems is that republicans use of the filibuster has made a 60/40 vote necessary on just about all bills. If I am correct the rules on filibustering were imposed by democrats at the behest of one Robert Byrd.
Does anyone know who the woman is behind Sarah. Talk about two beautiful women!
(If only algore had been able to carry his *home* state...BWAHAHAHA!)
They're also famous for enacting ex post facto laws, like they did with Ted Kennedy's replacement. Of course no one challenges them on that.
He did. He won DC handily.
“It’s hard to figure out how Gay State leftists think this will help any RAT nominee”
I’ve been having a “discussion” about this on a leftist site in Boston, they don’t have a clue. They think the entire electoral college is being elimanated, not just gerry rigged in a few states.
That last ex-post facto change got Death Care passed and the budget limit raised trillions. We should all care.
That is very interesting...
And just imagine if Jacoby's scenario played out. They would cry for years again about the stolen election, if their emergency meeting of the legislature failed to overturn the law in typical Massachusetts fashion, like when Kennedy died and the law had to be changed to undo what was done when they were silly enough to think Kerry could get elected president and their was a Republican governor.
Liberals never seem to take a hard look at the possible outcomes when they sign on to an agenda. Look at the Global Warmies. Do they not understand that there is no way ever for their position to be vindicated, but a perfectly plausible and likely way for it to be disproven. If the world isn't warmer in 20 years they are all fools and idiots. If it is warmer (plausible, since it's been warming since the end of the last ice age), but not ending, they and are still fools and idiots. If it's warmer and in great peril (yea, right), they still can't prove why it's warmer (that ice age thing again). So they are destined to bang their heads against a wall for the rest of their lives on the issue, no matter what happens.
that what happens when you thought the will of the state come 2nd to the will of the majority of Americans. Its the argument that the Left been pushing since 2000 because Bush won the CV votes while Gore won the popular vote
That would be so sweeeet!
However, it cuts both ways.
I don’t fancy messing with the electoral college, anyway.
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.