Posted on 07/31/2010 2:34:58 PM PDT by betty boop
BOSTON — The Massachusetts Senate has enacted a bill that would give the state's Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.
The bill enacted by the Senate 28-9 Tuesday 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 now be sent to Gov. Deval Patrick, who has said in the past he supports the bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at masslive.com ...
Right now voter fraud only helps the Democrats win individual states. If there was a national popular vote, there would be an incentive for even more widespread vote fraud in all the big cities.
“If I am reading this right, would 1980,84, and 88 presidental elections under this law sent their electoral votes to a pubbie candidate?”
Exactly - seems to me that any state who is heavily one party or the other is ensuring that the presidential candidate of the opposite party wins the election in the event he were to win the most popular but not the most electoral votes.
In the case of Massachusetts, it being heavily democrat, if a democrat wins the most national popular votes, but not the most electoral vote, their new law will make no difference. However if a republican wins the most popular votes but is short a few electoral votes, massachusetts would put him over the top. It would actually turn the democrat winner of the most electoral votes (by the old way) into the loser.
Talk about stoopid!
Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they’ve told you what you think it is you want to hear.
Heh!
Wasn’t the concern before 2000 that Bush would win the popular and Gore would win the electoral?
I remember it being a funny twist when the opposite happened.
Right?
In any case, be careful what you wish for.
“If I am reading this right, would 1980,84, and 88 presidental elections under this law sent their electoral votes to a pubbie candidate”
Mass would have went in the Nixon column in 68 & 72 as well, and Bush would have received the electoral votes in 2004 from Mass, imagine that!
Who want’s to bet this gets a “Demon Pass” also?
There’s two easy ways to take this nonsense on:
1) Article I Section X. of the U.S. Constitution begins “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;”
This vote scheme is clearly and prohibited alliance, because there is no reason to include the popular vote from all 50 states. If this effort is legit, what would stop them from passing a law saying the electoral votes go to the person getting the majority of votes in only states who pass this law.
2) The small states are not required to have a popular vote. If the small states legislators decide to choose the electors directly and forgo an election there would be no national popular vote.
In other words, it will never go into effect, because the Red States' legislatures will never approve this!
The Dems are fighting the Battle of 2000 all over again. (Notwithstanding that the electoral votes of Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington went to Gore in 2000, law or not.) I think the Dems will continue to do stuff like this until dirt is finally shoveled over 'em.
AFAIK, states can tell their electors to do anything at all -- they can ask them vote for the candidate who lost their state, or tell them to vote for Mickey Mouse and it's up to their voters to extract their revenge from the legislature. This law is just stupid and a waste of time. Doesn't Massachusetts have any real problems that their legislators can address?
Sadly, Betty, these people don’t understand how the Founders intended to have our most powerful leader be identified prior to the advent of political parties.
The electors were themselves voted into their role because they were such remarkably noteworthy citizens that in their own corner of the colonies they were what was considered to be “presidential material” or they had a firm grasp of those who were presidential.
All of these electors gathered and guess whose name came up the first time around? You guessed it: George Washington.
These assembled noteworthy citizens met, discussed, caucused, etc., and came up with the most distinguished gentleman they could imagine to lead the nation. Washington accepted their call.
All wiothout hte artificiality of party politics.
Yep. Just like how they made it where Romney couldn’t appoint a replacement senator but they tried to send that out the window when it was a Dem governor and Kennedy’s seat.
Excellent point.
Stuck on stupid. Now I can understand, as never before, why so many conservative DO NOT want the 17th Amendment repealed. Can you imagine this pack of jokers choosing U.S. Senators?
A judge can be found who will rule the law constitutional.
If the election swings to a Republican, Mass. will ignore its own law.
Thanks for the FYI
Good grief. Have they even read the Constitution? Thanks for letting us know, dearest sister in Christ!
Well, I have to admit you’re right there. Technically, the legislature can throw darts at a dartboard and declare the electoral vote winner that way, but when they enter into an agreement, that is clearly the power of the state government.
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.