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 ...
They will overturn this vote when the polls show Obama losing in 2012.
Being from Massachusetts,I'm just shocked they even let us vote on anything at all anymore......
Whoring for attention and benefits is my guess. If the national candidate can concentrate on the 270 electoral vote states who've locked in, they can ignore the 269 electoral votes who've cut themselves out. And first come, first served.
And from the standpoint of the Statists: It's divide and conquer by any means necessary -- which has always included "better get on the boat before it leaves the dock my friend." (Hmmm. Who in our ruling class has frequently been known to use the term "my friend" with more than a trait of bitterness in his voice? Arizonan's may have heard it more than most. :) )
Does that answer your question?
No idea.
The electors are pledged to vote for a particular candidate, but they can vote however they like. Generally, they are selected by the party from among party activists and can be relied to to vote as instructed.
The Constitution says that electors will be selected in a manner decided by the legislatures of the several states. They can let the governor appoint them or appoint them themselves.
I worry a little about Massachusetts, or any other state, giving “full faith and credit” to an election total certified by, say, the Republican Secretary of State of Florida. The mechanism for certifying the national popular vote isn’t at all clear to me, but it does seem to nationalize ballot box stuffing. Stuffing ballot boxes in rotten boroughs like Philadelphia or New York City only had a limited impacted. Now those ballots count against everyone’s legimate ballot, nationwide.
the one where dead people and felons and illegals vote multiple times?”
Yeah, that one...”The Chicago Style National Vote”
“CNN. So you KNOW it’s done right.”
CNN. So you know it’s done LEFT.
What happens when different States settle on different “national popular vote” totals?
Maybe every presidential election can be like 2000.
John Foster McKane.
This whole thing is kind of stupid. Its the libs in the lib states pushing this. The only way this will have a net effect in their direction is if their state votes for the Republican and the dem wins the overall vote. As long as none of the conservative states are stupid enough to join in I don’t see how this does anything but help conservatives.
>> What happens when different States settle on different “national popular vote” totals?
I dunno. Steel cage death match rounds pitting their governors against each other?
Nothing.
And it has already happened. See Scott Brown election.
In fact I am shocked that the Democrats haven’t changed the succession law back to governor appoinment for remainder of term.
The Constitution states in Article 2, Section 1: 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:
You don't even have to have a popular vote in the state for the electors. The legislature could (and many states did in the early years of our history) just select the electors itself.
About the only Constitutional question is the agreement between states voting for this an illegal compact without congressional approval?
Exactly...just wait until their votes go to a republican and this whole idea will come to a screeching halt.
Right now they think that they can game the system and keep electing democrats.
I opposed this thing because it is unconstitutional on its face.
“The mechanism for certifying the national popular vote isn’t at all clear to me...”
Because it does not exist. If one did exist, it would exist in the COTUS.
The big risk is in a close popular vote tally, truck loads of ballots could be found in safe Democratic states to push the Democrat to victory. How can you argue with 25 million Illinois voters all voting for Obama's relection. Most years Illinois counting wouldn't affect the national result (1960 being the notable exception), but it would under this new plan.
Oh, and now you have an idea? Greed and cowardice in equal measure is the answer to sickoflibs question.
Oh, for good measure, McCain would LOVE to see such an agreement because he's the single most Statist Republican currently in office.
Ruling Class Country Class McCain Hayworth
And this is also an invitation to nationwide fraud. Why do people assume everyone will agree on what the national vote total is, especially when “fabricating” votes in all fifty states could potentially tip the balance?
Exactly!
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.