Posted on 07/27/2010 2:40:29 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi
The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.
"What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America," Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.
Under the new bill, he said, "Every vote will be of the same weight across the country."
But Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was "tried and true" since the founding of the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
It will be wonderful watching them have to award them to a republican in 2012!
Acorn operatives and thug lawyers counting and recounting chad 24 hours a day in every single election precinct in the country ..... until every Democrat on every ballot is elected.
LOL! So if Sarah Palin gets 52% of the national vote and Obama gets 52% of the Massachusetts vote, then Palin’s electoral slate is elected in Massachusetts.
“The only downside is if there is an amnesty of all illegals”
Amnesty only matters in states without motor voter.
Here in Illinois, to be registered to vote at the DMV, all you have to do is check 2 boxes, 1 that states you are an American Citizen, and 1 that states that you reside in such and such county.
There is no verification of citizenship. Your drivers license is proof enough, and you don’t have to be a citizen to get a drivers license.
Now, according to the law, after an election, votes can be challenged. But, who is going to know after an election if so and so is a citizen or not?
Their policy here is to issue a voter card, and then, later, IF someone challenges your vote, they will check it out.
But, we all know, that stating that you think a Hispanic is Illegal is classified as racist, and is not grounds (here at least) for disputing a vote. You have to have hard evidence, and this is what they bank on. Maybe a few people can come up with hard evidence that a couple Mexicans are illegal, but not enough to change the votes of the 1-2 million that have already voted.
Oh, and they get picked up and bussed to the polling place I have been informed, or they vote at their Hispanic Churches.
Why the republicans ever let this motor voter shenanigans take place is beyond me.
This probably not unconstitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution nor in Federal law that requires electors to vote based on the popular vote in their state. Political parties often extract “pledges” from the electorates but that’s about it. It has happened before that an electorate did not cast his vote for the candidate of his states choosing, but there was no law broken therefore no jail time etc. I think all that can be done is a fine. Maybe someone else can elaborate............
This probably not unconstitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution nor in Federal law that requires electors to vote based on the popular vote in their state. Political parties often extract “pledges” from the electorates but that’s about it. It has happened before that an electorate did not cast his vote for the candidate of his states choosing, but there was no law broken therefore no jail time etc. I think all that can be done is a fine. Maybe someone else can elaborate............
EXACTLY!!!.....years ago, those things were taught in school....usually in conjunction with the brilliance of the Founding Fathers design....
Exactly— we were set up as a Republic, not a Democracy. Electoral college was set up to prevent mob rule and give the small states some power and voice. This is on purpose though, that is why they are for open borders and felons voting. It will allow New York and California to determine our president.
If MA wants to assign their electors according to the popular vote, then fine. How many do they get? Twelve?
This is the way it works in MD [it passed same law]. The law is inoperative until enough states representing 270 electoral votes pass the same law.
If that happens, in the following presidential election, then the electoral votes representing MD [10] are awarded to the winner of the national popular vote - regardless of who won the state.
So, the net effect is to take the states with the smallest populations out of the game. AK, HI, ID, ME, MT, ND, SD, UT, VT, WY, etc. become highly irrelevent.
CA, FL, IL, IN, MA, MI, NJ, NY, PA, TX, etc. become the kingmakers.
Conceivably [if all states passed this law], the winner of the popular vote would receive ALL of the electoral votes [538] - even if he won the popular vote by one vote.
I don't know about you, but I want my vote represented. If I vote in my state, and my candidate wins [but loses the popular vote] - I want my state's electoral votes counted for my guy.
The electoral college was set up to give small states a chance to be relevant during an election. If the only thing that counts is the popular votes, candidates would never go to the smaller or less populous states.
before an election is resolved....so we could have these cons in our White House for how long??????? My gray hair just turned white - under the color, of course.
FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)
This state is doomed.
Yep, pretty much.
This really only hurts the Democrats because the chance of a Republican presidenctial candidate winning in Massachusetts is very slim. (Yes I know Scott Brown won the Senate election but that was a different situation.)
If Obama wins Mass. 60-40% and the GOP candidate gets 51% of the national vote, MA’s 12 electors go to the GOP and could swing the election. If that happens, this law will be repealed very, very fast.
What’s bad would be is if all the current blue states pass this and the Democrats gain all those illegal alien votes. However I dont see all the Obama states passing this. A swing state would never, ever pass a law like this, no matter if they are blue or red.
Last days of a Republic.
Why should we have states then?
Still can’t get over algore.
LOL.
No, the electoral votes should go to the candidate who wins Massachusetts. 69% (395 votes)
Yes, the candidate who wins the popular vote should win the election. 31% (178 votes)
Total Votes: 573
You know, even if this passed in enough states for it to take effect, it could be good for us. You see, as someone pointed out, it would be guaranteed to spark endless recounts. However, the Electoral College has to meet and vote on a specific date, and if the challenges are not resolved by that date, that state’s Electoral votes are not counted. That would likely result in the election being thrown to the House (for President) and Senate (for VP). Each state gets 1 vote. After this next election, there will be a large majority of states with delegations dominated by the GOP.
And in this case, they are not limited to electing the candidates that were on the ballot. Say if you had an election between Romney and Obama, and it was thrown to the House, they could choose to elect Jim DeMint or Sarah Palin instead...
I haven't given up jack shit.
I hate this state more than you do.
No, the electoral votes should go to the candidate who wins Massachusetts. — 70% (425 votes)
Yes, the candidate who wins the popular vote should win the election. — 30% (184 votes)
Total Votes: 609
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.