Posted on 07/21/2010 11:57:50 AM PDT by jessduntno
The Massachusetts Senate has passed a bill that would give the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.
The bill approved by the Senate 28-10 last week is part of a nationwide effort to secure the agreement of enough states so the winner of the national popular vote would be guaranteed to win the presidency.
The bill will not go into effect until states possessing a majority of Electoral College votes pass similar legislation. Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington state have approved the measure.
The House passed its version of the legislation in June.
The bill will now be sent to Gov. Deval Patrick.
(Excerpt) Read more at baystatebanner.com ...
I can’t wait until MA votes go to a Republican, the weenies that live in this state will be squealing like pigs.
They'll call a special session of the legislature to repeal their own law.
AFAIK, there is no such thing as the “national popular vote”. How is it calculated? Who certifies it?
Obama will fast track the case to get it ruled “Unconstitutional”. He’s already doing that with the Arizona illegal immigration law.
Once the very blue, very populous states like New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey etc. pass all of these then smaller states will be completely ignored in Presidential races. Someone, somewhere will file suit when their state voted for candidate X but Y won the popular vote.
The Massachusetts State Senate is a haven for scoundrels.
These meatheads would steal hot soup if they had rubber pockets.
You ever wonder about this?? In Maryland a Democrat always wins the presidential election so this has no effect anyway(Kerry and Obama won) . Why would a lower population Red state surrender their current voting power to a high population state? Certainly MA wont matter either. In fact these are all liberal states.
How can this be even remotely constitutional? Doesn’t it potentially deprive many, in some cases most, MA voters of a vote? Won’t it be challenged? Would the SC actually uphold it?
Whew; glad I moved back south. Just when you think MA can’t get any worse....
>> Pardon me, but doesn’t that substantially dilute the value of the votes of the very Massachussetts voters who are supposed to be represented by the Electors?
Would it not be cool if in the next presidential election the people of the Great State of Taxachussetts see their votes go to Popular Vote Winner Sarah Palin? In spite of the fact that Hugo Chavez carries the state?
I’d pay money to watch it happen!
Ah, this reminds me of the 1972 Electoral Map.
>> AFAIK, there is no such thing as the “national popular vote”. How is it calculated?
They handle that at the NPR newsdesk on election night. Like the constipated mathematician, they “work it out with a pencil”.
>> Who certifies it?
CNN. So you KNOW it’s done right.
It’s easier to stuff ballots in a few corrupt states than to have to gin up victories in a majority of states.
I’m not betting with you. I can’t afford to lose! :) Yes, I doubt it will be covered. And you know, I bet if you asked people on the street, most of them dont’ really know what the Electoral College does anyway, so they wouldn’t understand what this was about if they WERE told.
But its unconstitutional and will not stand....no matter what they say.
This would make the electoral college and presidential results within the state of Massachusetts a function of events that occur outside the state of Massachusetts. It totally violates the concept of one person, one vote. It disenfranchises the voters of Massachusetts and improperly over-franchises voters of other states. Also, what happens if there is no majority in other states or that majority is contested in any of the other states? Is it appropriate for the electoral college results of Massachusetts to be a function of the results of an election fraud court case in another state or states? (I cannot conceive that it would be.)
In the end run this proposal seems like a continuation of other laws that have been passed that give control of the country not to the voters or citizens, but to large and powerful national and transnational organizations that are capable of swaying if not controlling the national mass media.
which national popular vote?
the one with registered voters only, or
the one where dead people and felons and illegals vote multiple times?
| Mass. Vote | National Vote | Current Mass. EV | New Mass. EV | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D | D | D | D | no change |
| D | R | D | R | extra EV for the Republican |
| R | D | R | D | Republican wins Mass. but loses nation? That won't happen. |
| R | R | R | R | No change, must be a landslide R win |
Net result: There is a chance that Massachusetts EVs might go for a Republican instead of a Democrat. The reverse won't happen unless the poles of the earth flip.
No kidding! I’d even buy popcorn. :)
Seems like this is a direct disenfranchisement of MA voters. How can this stand judicial review?
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.