Skip to comments.Mass. Senate approves national popular vote bill
Posted on 07/21/2010 11:57:50 AM PDT by jessduntno
The Massachusetts Senate has passed a bill that would give the states 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 ...
That’ll last until Sarah Palin, 2012.
Critics say the current system is not broken. They also point to the disturbing scenario that Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state’s 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.
This maneuver will give the voting power to the socialist laden urban areas at the expense of the Conservative rural areas.
So why vote for President in D-Mass anyway then? So goes the national vote, so goes Massachusetts.
This is all part of the mass amnesty plan. Once that happens, they’ll always win popular vote. And the republic is cooked.
Watch, Maryland will be next.
So what’s to keep a state from just changing the law back and forth from election to election depending on the standing of their preferred candidate at the time.
>> until states possessing a majority of Electoral College votes pass similar legislation
If I were from Mass I would blow a gasket over this, as it might serve to make my vote irrelevant.
Dumb idea, New Englanders.
The people of Massachusetts no longer have a vote in the national election! Dumbasses!!! Can’t wait for the national vote goes to a Republican yet Massachusetts voted for a Democrat and Massachusetts HAS to give the vote to the Republican. Morons!!!
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.
>> Dumb idea, New Englanders.
so lemme see how this would work:
the state top vote getter doesn’t necessarily get the electoral votes. if the other candidate wins the national popular vote, then the mass electoral votes go to them even if mass popular vote goes to the other candidate.
no wonder they call ‘em “Massholes”
Great, that means the rest of New England becomes a colony to Boston. Sweet how that works. Too bad, NH, ME, VT, RI won’t go along with the Boston hustle.
Ummmm the electors’ freedom to vote for whoever they damn well please is enshrined in the US Constitution.
The first time this happens there will be a court battle that will make Bush vs. Gore look like a walk in the park.
Is a plurality good enough? So 34% of the popular vote can take all the marbles?
I’m glad that we have all of these modern genii who are SO much better equipped to architect an electoral system than those dead white slave-owning men.
If I were from Mass I would blow a gasket over this, as it might serve to make my vote irrelevant.”
If I were a betting person I would bet that almost no one in the news covers this and discusses its ramifications. I would also bet that less than a haldful of our so called educational institutions discuss it in any classroom.
This is already what the crooks in the Bay state do to keep Democrats in office. Recall the changes to filling vacancies back and forth.
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||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?
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?
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 its done right.”
CNN. So you know its 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.
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.