Mass. Senate approves national popular vote bill

baystate banner ^ | Today

[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.

[08bil98z24]

The Constitution can be changed ...

By a constitutional amendment ... (but as people we seem to have forgotten about that )

Since the people of this country have been allowing the government to operate outside of the rule of law and everybody (all political parties) seems to approve ... many many laws have been passed that are unconstitutional ...

Once again the problem in this country lies in the way Americans receive information, as the information they receive is always polluted with opinion and bias.

[Grumplestiltskin]

“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?
I mean, if you’re a Massachussetts citizen, why even vote? The state’s electoral votes are going to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote, no matter which way Massachussetts votes as a state.”

Eventually, this attempt to end-run around the U.S. Constitution will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

One cannot predict the final outcome, but I sense that your argument will be the foundation for the final opinion.

This strikes at the core of “civil rights” and voter disenfranchisement. Suppose Pennsylvania (largely white) passed a law stating that its electors would be determined by who won the election in North Dakota? What would that do to the votes of the blacks in Philadelphia?

That is to say, “National Popular Vote” seeks to accomplish its goal through the abolishment of the core value of “one man, one vote”. Yes, the states have a right to determine how their electors are to be chosen, but I predict that if states expect to hold elections in which voters actually cast votes for electors (in presidential elections), that they will be HELD to the outcome of those votes cast within their own state borders.

[cynwoody]

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.

The last times the poles flipped were in 1980 and 1984. We're talking a lot of R's here.

[CoastWatcher]

So if everyone in the state of Mass. Votes for Wally, but wally does not win the national popular vote; none of the Mass. electoral colleges votes would go toward Wally. This would happen even if Wally would win the election if he had the Mass. votes.

Yep. Only Mass. could come up with something so stupid.

[Truth is a Weapon]

I don’t understand how the fools rule these days. Why would any small state advocate for going around the electoral college? It is the disproportionate representation of small states in the electoral college that gets them visits by candidates and, for that matter, federal dollars. Talk about committing suicide.

[McGavin999]

LOL, they have just disenfranchised their voters.

[bert]

Massachusetts should be purged from the union. The state is simply not needed and is a drag on the nation

[McGavin999]

They keep this stuff up it won’t matter anyway, they’ll only have 1 electoral vote.

[RonF]

U.S. Constitution, Section 10, Paragraph 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

My emphasis.

So how is the new law not a violation of this section of the Constitution?

[jessduntno]

“LOL, they have just disenfranchised their voters.”

While that may be true locally, they could conceivably be part of a grander scheme to centralize all of the voting power in NY, CA, PA and the major population centers...you know, the “dazzling urbanites” who could care less about what the rest of America wants...and do it without the need for a pesky Constitutional Amendment...which would take 2/3 of the state to ratify...which would NEVER happen.

[ConservativeWarrior]

They'll call a special session of the legislature to repeal their own law.

This is the intent of the law. If the MA political hacks like the national outcome, but not the local results, (aka Scott Brown) they simply point to the law and say "too bad."

If they don't like the national result, or the way the polls are trending leading up to the election,they simply change the law. They did it when Teddy *hic* died, they can do it during an election.

[Adder]

Yessir, that is correct. But their laws have not been found to be constitutional....yet.

[lastchance]

Power grab so that the tyranny of the majority can be established. And you can bet that part of that tyranny will be based on hostility to orthodox religious faith.

[lastchance]

The Constitution does not affirm their views so adherence to it creates a hostile environment that makes it impossible for them actualize their dreams and potential. It’s got to go.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Oh, for good measure, McCain would LOVE to see such an agreement because he’s the single most Statist Republican currently in office.

Good job ;-)

[ak267]

Totally disenfranchises my state’s EV based upon the votes in other states. A few high-population states overides my state....F**K THAT.

[lentulusgracchus]

Someone, somewhere will file suit when their state voted for candidate X but Y won the popular vote

The courts will pull the same stunt they did with all the lawsuits over Obama's Article II eligibility issue.

They'll just gavel the People down and tell them they have no "standing", i.e. "you are not the Democratic Party of the United States".

[lentulusgracchus]

McCain would LOVE to see such an agreement because he’s the single most Statist Republican currently in office.

Camille Paglia, the hardcore gay Philly art-history prof who is Rush Limbaugh's occasional lunch date, once described McPain, about 10 years ago, as "positively bulging with protofascist impulses" -- pretty close to what you said.

[lentulusgracchus]

.....do it without the need for a pesky Constitutional Amendment...

Which would bring them PDQ to the Supreme Court and the whole enterprise crashing down as the Supremes hammer their little game as unconstitutional on its face.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Camille Paglia, the hardcore gay Philly art-history prof who is Rush Limbaugh’s occasional lunch date, once described McPain, about 10 years ago, as “positively bulging with protofascist impulses”

Camille nailed it this time ;-)