Mass Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College

Boston.Com ^ | 27 July 2010 | Martin Finucane

[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.

[Bubba_Leroy]

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

[pepsionice]

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.

[C210N]

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.

[Radix]

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.

[Nick Danger]

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.

[Genoa]

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

Such as 2012? Hee hee.

[ICE-FLYER]

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.

[Brookhaven]

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.”

[Snickering Hound]

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

[DallasDeb]

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.

[jessduntno]

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

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

[DallasDeb]

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.

[San Jacinto]

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

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

[colorado tanker]

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.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

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.

[10mm]

"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).

[10mm]

"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).

[DallasDeb]

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.

[10mm]

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

[Vinnie]

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.