[pabianice]

MA joined rabidly anti-gun states MD, IL, HI, and DE in this vote, an attempt to end the rights of smaller states to elect the President by ending the Electoral College. (Q: Can this be done without amending the Constitution?)

[WayneS]

With THIS Supreme Court?

Maybe.

In another five years or so, YES.

[Valpal1]

Not going to happen. Small states have no incentive to pass a bill and enter their state into a neutering agreement.

[Night Conservative]

Not enough states will pass this BS for it to ever take effect.

And even if they did, it is unconstitutional and would not stand up to judicial review. Non-issue.

[avacado]

Exactly what the Founding Fathers did not want: Mob Rule.

[Phlyer]

Q: Can this be done without amending the Constitution?

A: Yes. The Constitution 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. (Emphasis added)

So if the various legislatures agree to this, then they can choose their electors based on the vote in other States. I think it's dumb, and if they tried to do it in my State I'd certainly be contacting my State representatives and senators.

[HamiltonJay]

This will last until the people realize their state voted overwhelmingly democrat, and their EC votes will now go Republican. These initiatives are stupid and idiotic, and completely undermine their own constituents.

[Pearls Before Swine]

If passed by an electoral majority of states, this would stimulate voter fraud on a hitherto unimaginable scale. The dead would be resurrected to vote Democrat in droves. The pressure to block military absentee votes would be huge. In any close election, the leverage to vote fraud would be unimaginably large with this rule.

[chaos_5]

How exactly does a state presume to have the authority to change federal law? The arrogance is alarming.

[Sacajaweau]

We learned from Florida that Federal rules have to be preserved in a Federal Election.

[NonValueAdded]

Hold on now: Under Massachusetts legislative procedures, an additional vote is required in both the House and Senate to transmit the bill to the Governor. Although this vote was on the agenda on the session's last day (July 31), no action was taken. [emphasis added]

Doesn't that mean this has died in for the legislative season? Isn't this really a non-story for now, other than the Senate seems willing to pass it?

[JoeSixPack1]

The entire State of Massachusetts needs a TIME OUT until they can conquer their Kennedy/Kerry addiction.

[NonValueAdded]

Futhermore, isn't this an Article I, Section 10 violation of the US Constitution? Even if the counter argument was made that states can choose any system they want for choosing electors under Article II, Section 1, a state could subsequently choose not to honor the agreement citing the Article I conflict.

Let's say this was in effect for the 2008 election, Obama wins the electoral vote by a narrow margin but McCain wins the total popular vote. Do you not think states like Massachusetts will cry foul and desperately try to find reasons not to cast their votes for McCain?

[Redbob]

Good damn thing we don’t let the Mass. legislature decide ANY national issues.

We’d be sending military aid to Hugo Chavez if we did...

[BlueNgold]

They are trying to bypass the constitutional amendment process. Period.

[rfp1234]

Damn, can someone introduce a Constitutional Amendment to throw MassAssChewSucks OUT of the Union?

[supercat]

Simple remedy: a state that opposes such nonsense should provide that the exact division of votes between the top two candidates will only be certified at the request of the apparent #2 candidate. In situations where an apparent third-place candidate would have standing to demand a recount, the votes for the apparent first- and second-place candidates would be aggregated unless the third-place candidate's tally was at least half that of the combined total for the first- and second-place candidates (if the "third-place" candidate's tally is below that, the candidate can't possibly be in first place, no matter what the subdivision between #1 and #2; if the tally is above that, the candidate must be first or second).

If Bob knows that he has lost a particular state to Jim, quite possibly by 2,000,000 votes, and if he knows that he won popular vote outside of Fredonia by 2,000,000 votes, he could decline to have Fredonia's vote counts certified. Jim would be awarded Fredonia's electoral votes, but he would not receive any credit in the national popular vote tally.

I'm sure that in such a situation Jim would want to sue to demand the publication of the popular vote tally, but I can't see how he'd have any standing to do so. Jim, after all, would be receiving all the electoral votes from Fredonia, and he's not entitled to anything else.