Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mass Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College
Boston.Com ^ | 27 July 2010 | Martin Finucane

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: elections; electoral; electoralcollege; ma; mass; voting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last
The assault on our constitution continues.....
1 posted on 07/27/2010 2:40:31 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

“popular vote” = aka “mob rule”


2 posted on 07/27/2010 2:41:27 PM PDT by silverleaf (Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

They are setting up the elections to be determined by the 12+ million illegal aliens who would be given amnesty.


3 posted on 07/27/2010 2:41:26 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Palin says, “Thank you very much, Massachussetts!”


4 posted on 07/27/2010 2:41:55 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (How many plagues must Phara0bama bring before he Let's The People Go?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
5 posted on 07/27/2010 2:41:59 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

What idiots. Getting an early start for 2012. It never ends.


6 posted on 07/27/2010 2:43:45 PM PDT by SueRae (I can see November from my HOUSE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

The people of Massachusetts giving up their vote. MORONS!


7 posted on 07/27/2010 2:45:33 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

I don’t get it. All MA can do is affect how their own electors cast their votes; they don’t have anything to do with the rest of the country.

If MA wants to assign their electors according to the popular vote, then fine. How many do they get? Twelve?


8 posted on 07/27/2010 2:46:32 PM PDT by SandyInSeattle (When life gives you lemons, throw them back and demand chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
A further attempt to change our Republic into a Democracy.

Repeal the 17th ammendment!

9 posted on 07/27/2010 2:46:42 PM PDT by Ben Mugged (Unions are the storm troopers of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

This like everything in Assachucettes will be a good idea until it isn’t. Goldfish have a better memory of what politicians are likely to do. They even keep electing J. F. Kerry


10 posted on 07/27/2010 2:47:13 PM PDT by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
If this had been in effect in 1972 then Massachusetts would have been 'deemed' to have voted for Nixon, giving him a 50 state sweep of McGovern who would have only carried Washington, DC.

If this pot of liberal quackium gets accepted, campaigns will be conducted in 10 states at the most and his fellow founders will start calling James Madison "Spinning James" as he winds up past 100k r.p.m.s!

11 posted on 07/27/2010 2:48:07 PM PDT by SES1066 (Cycling to conserve, Conservative to save, Saving to Retire, will Retire to Cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

This is a BAD move.

Voter FRAUD will determine who wins.


12 posted on 07/27/2010 2:48:50 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Notice how this nonsense only happens in liberal states? So lets analyze this a bit. The only way Massachusetts is ever going to vote for a republican is in a blowout win (ie Reagan ‘84) Otherwise, they’ll be voting democrat. So, the only time this could ever have an impact is if a Republican wins the popular vote in a tight race but is behind in the EC until.... Massachusetts to the rescue!!!

I say, let ‘em pass it! That should work out just as well as the succession play for Kerry’s senate seat (which ultimately ended up with Scott Brown getting Kennedy’s seat)


13 posted on 07/27/2010 2:49:15 PM PDT by bigdaddy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

...

The bill, which passed on a 28-to-9 vote, now heads to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick’s desk. The governor has said in the past that he supports the bill, said his spokeswoman Kim Haberlin.

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

...


14 posted on 07/27/2010 2:50:04 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Hopefully the good folks of Massachusetts cop an attitude and leave the Union.
Pleas oh pleas oh please.


15 posted on 07/27/2010 2:50:34 PM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) Ya unAmerican p.o.s.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

mob rule here we come.


16 posted on 07/27/2010 2:50:45 PM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Won’t that be funny to watch the next time a republican wins the popular vote...?


17 posted on 07/27/2010 2:51:21 PM PDT by SandyInSeattle (When life gives you lemons, throw them back and demand chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

Would’ve worked out well for us in 2000 and 2004...


18 posted on 07/27/2010 2:53:13 PM PDT by RockinRight (Outrage does not make the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Yes, liberals also EXPLOIT voter ignorance in a “sneaky” way. A law or a Constitution doesn't matter to liberals. They do whatever they want and expect the little people and ignorant people to adhere to their self serving demands.

“Tisei also criticized the proponents for not following the normal procedures to seek a constitutional amendment.

“The thing about this that bothers me the most is it's so sneaky. This is the way that liberals do things a lot of times, very sneaky,” he said. “This is sort of an end run around the Constitution.”

19 posted on 07/27/2010 2:53:23 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

They’ll find a reason to nullify it - watch.


20 posted on 07/27/2010 2:54:11 PM PDT by RockinRight (Outrage does not make the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

I am all for every Democrat controlled state adopting this rule.


21 posted on 07/27/2010 2:54:34 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

Here’s the deal...let’s say a Republican comes along with enough popular vote to win...which I think is very possible right now...but not get sufficient electoral votes. Thanks to the wise nature of these states...they will actually allow a Republican to win the election.

At that point...they will all reverse their decision...kinda like the Massachusetts episode with how to replace Kennedy...and go back to normal.


22 posted on 07/27/2010 2:54:59 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SES1066

And likewise, if in effect in 2004, where John effin Kerry took “his” state with 62% of the vote, our EC votes would have gone to George Bush, with 51% of the popular vote.


23 posted on 07/27/2010 2:55:07 PM PDT by C210N (0bama, Making the world safe for Marxism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
I live in Massachusetts, and I have been hoping for years that an accurate (I know, I know) 2010 Census would result in the loss of 2 Congressional Seats.

Likely it will be only one Seat lost, but still, this is a pretty dumb idea.

I simply cannot believe that these chumps have the audacity to pull this off with everything that is going on since Obama’s illegal Inauguration.

24 posted on 07/27/2010 2:55:07 PM PDT by Radix ("..Democrats are holding a meeting today to decide whether to overturn the results of the election.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

To the extent that this measure stays confined to states that are already highly likely to award their electoral votes to the Democrat, this is good for us.

It is very difficult to image a scenario in which Massachusetts was going to award its electoral votes to the Republican except in the case of a massive Republican landslide like Reagan v Mondale. Same with Illinois, DC, and California if it adopts this measure. So we lose nothing due to this law.

On the other hand, there are lots of plausible scenarios in which the liberal residents of Massachusetts could find that under this law, their electoral votes went to the Republican who lost Massachusetts but won the popular vote by some razor-thin margin.

If the liberals are stupid enough to keep passing this in liberal states while other states don't go along, the liberals will sooner or later help to elect the exact person they didn't want.


25 posted on 07/27/2010 2:55:12 PM PDT by Nick Danger (Pin the fail on the donkey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle
Won’t that be funny to watch the next time a republican wins the popular vote...?

Such as 2012? Hee hee.
26 posted on 07/27/2010 2:55:28 PM PDT by Genoa (Titus 2:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

I hate what Massachusetts has done. I consider it anti-American...they did this because they focus to population centers only on the left and motivate their voters to get out. That is and always has been their strategy,. With this kind of dumb rule Al Gore would have been in the White House. With this dumb rule 100% of Massachusetts can vote for candidate x, but in the USA Candidate Y gets more votes and Mass would have to go AGAINST 100% of their people to then give Candidate Y their electoral votes.

Its unconstitutional. But then again, the Mass Legislature answers to no one...especially the little people.


27 posted on 07/27/2010 2:58:49 PM PDT by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

Won’t that be funny to watch the next time a republican wins the popular vote...?


Yea, I don’t think they have really thought this through.

Conservatives work at a disadvantage, because several of the larger states (Calif, NY, Mass) are pretty much locked in to give all of their electorial votes to Dems, even though there is a significant GOP vote in those states.

Had this law been in effect in 2004, Bush would have gotten all of Mass’ electorial votes, because Bush won the majority of votes. Is that really what they want?

If Mass wants to disenfranchise their voters by giving away its 12 electorial votes based on what happens in the other 49 states, I guess they can, but you have to think that even in Mass the voters would wake up and say “I don’t want Texas helping determine who gets Mass’ electorial votes.”


28 posted on 07/27/2010 2:59:26 PM PDT by Brookhaven (The next step for the Tea Party--The Conservative Hand--is available at Amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
President Palin Pictures, Images and Photos

When Massachusetts ends up voting for Palin in 2012, this law will be revoked in record time.

29 posted on 07/27/2010 3:01:20 PM PDT by Snickering Hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Wouldn’t this be unconstitutional? Someone will bring it before the courts. The artical mentions that several other states have already passed such a law. It’s interesting to note that these are all blue states (Democrat) and are mostly on the 2 left coasts. They don’t want to live by the law because they see it as a stumbling block to getting their way.


30 posted on 07/27/2010 3:02:23 PM PDT by DallasDeb (USAFA '06 Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

“The assault on our constitution continues.....”

In New Hamsha, these folks are known as Massholes...


31 posted on 07/27/2010 3:03:02 PM PDT by jessduntno (Each day, I await a fresh insult to America by this usurper...he never fails to deliver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged
Any state who does this should not have their votes counted at the Electoral College.

We may not be able to defeat this. States could manipulate their electoral voters to vote the way of the majority. Most would do what they are told.

32 posted on 07/27/2010 3:05:53 PM PDT by DallasDeb (USAFA '06 Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie
Palin says, “Thank you very much, Massachussetts!”

Huh? this is about as anti-Palin and anti-Republican as you can get.

33 posted on 07/27/2010 3:06:49 PM PDT by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
On the other hand, there are lots of plausible scenarios in which the liberal residents of Massachusetts could find that under this law, their electoral votes went to the Republican who lost Massachusetts but won the popular vote by some razor-thin margin.

I agree, Nick. This could result in some deliciously ironic scenarios.

Still, I don't see how this could possibly be constitutional, to have voters in other states elect Massachusetts Electors to their offices??? Still, betcha four legal idiots on the Supreme Court would figure out how to vote to uphold it.

34 posted on 07/27/2010 3:07:09 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

So Mass wants to make itself competitive for the GOP? I think this is going to play out where the Lib states will do it and the sparsely populated conservative states won’t. Net positive for the GOP in presidential elections.


35 posted on 07/27/2010 3:07:31 PM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
"I am all for every Democrat controlled state adopting this rule."

Absolutely. If a republican wins the popular vote 50% of the time, this means that states which would normally vote dem 100% of the time will now vote dem only 50% of the time. They will have voluntarily disenfranchised themselves.

The only downside is if there is an amnesty of all illegals in this country, they would all illegally vote dem (given the lack of voting controls in blue states).

36 posted on 07/27/2010 3:11:54 PM PDT by 10mm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
"I am all for every Democrat controlled state adopting this rule."

Absolutely. If a republican wins the popular vote 50% of the time, this means that states which would normally vote dem 100% of the time will now vote dem only 50% of the time. They will have voluntarily disenfranchised themselves.

The only downside is if there is an amnesty of all illegals in this country, they would all illegally vote dem (given the lack of voting controls in blue states).

37 posted on 07/27/2010 3:11:54 PM PDT by 10mm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SES1066

One of their reasons for doing it is because politicians don’t hit all the states. Their logic is totally mixed up. This means that the east and west coast will rule because their populations are generally larger than flyover country.


38 posted on 07/27/2010 3:12:02 PM PDT by DallasDeb (USAFA '06 Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 10mm

Wow. My first double-post. Sorry :^)


39 posted on 07/27/2010 3:13:05 PM PDT by 10mm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

This can /will lead to so many law suits it will be years before an election is resolved.
In theory an opposition party could tie up the electoral distribution until all the other States resolve fraud issues. Esp. if the other 'rogue' States have the same distribution plan, and I think they do.

40 posted on 07/27/2010 3:13:49 PM PDT by Vinnie (You're Nobody 'Til Somebody Jihads You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Radix

#24: The problem is, most people in this country think this is the right thing to do. They have never understood the Electoral College process. They don’t even understand what it means to be a Republic, not a simple Democracy.


41 posted on 07/27/2010 3:15:00 PM PDT by DallasDeb (USAFA '06 Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

If states end up doing this and the courts allow it, this will open the door for lots of fraud in voting.


42 posted on 07/27/2010 3:15:49 PM PDT by DallasDeb (USAFA '06 Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Gee, I seem to remember a clause in the dusty old piece of paper called the US Constitution stating that each State shall guarantee a republican form of government.


43 posted on 07/27/2010 3:15:58 PM PDT by thecabal (Destroy Progressivism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

It will never get 67 votes in the Senate.


44 posted on 07/27/2010 3:16:01 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Helter Skelter. The Revolution is Upon Us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

Apparently they have a provision to ignore the law if a non socialist wins the popular vote


45 posted on 07/27/2010 3:16:05 PM PDT by Rome2000 (OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST CRYPTO-MUSLIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle
If MA wants to assign their electors according to the popular vote, then fine. How many do they get? Twelve?

Considering the number of folks voting with their feet and bugging out of MA, more now than they'll have later.

46 posted on 07/27/2010 3:17:01 PM PDT by mewzilla (Still voteless in NY-29. Over 370 roll call votes missed and counting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger

But what about states that are mainly republican? If those legislatures pass a similar bill, then their votes would to to the Democrats, should the democrat win the popular vote. We must keep our legislatures from passing this bill!


47 posted on 07/27/2010 3:19:53 PM PDT by DallasDeb (USAFA '06 Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bigdaddy45
So, the only time this could ever have an impact is if a Republican wins the popular vote in a tight race but is behind in the EC until.... Massachusetts to the rescue!!!

I say, let ‘em pass it!

This scenario would be worth the entertainment value alone.

48 posted on 07/27/2010 3:19:58 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

**Won’t that be funny to watch the next time a republican wins the popular vote...?**

It surely will - watching those folks choke on their own bile. giggle

You can bet that law will then be repealed as quickly as the Ted Kennedy succession bill.


49 posted on 07/27/2010 3:21:25 PM PDT by chickadee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: chickadee

Oh, heck yes. Laws in Massachusetts are temporary, at best.


50 posted on 07/27/2010 3:22:35 PM PDT by SandyInSeattle (When life gives you lemons, throw them back and demand chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson