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

Skip to comments.

Massachusetts passes bill awarding electoral votes to winner of national popular vote
Hotair ^ | 07/28/2010 | Allahpundit

Posted on 07/28/2010 1:59:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Alternate headline: “Massachusetts disenfranchises self.”

Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was “tried and true” since the founding of the country.

“We’ve had a lot of bad ideas come through this chamber over the years, but this is going to be one of the worst ideas that has surfaced and actually garnered some support,” said Tisei, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor.

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.

Note well: The law only goes into effect if/when states accounting for 270 combined electoral votes pass this same bill, thereby ensuring that the winner of the national popular vote will have the EVs he needs to be elected president under the Constitution. Only five states accounting for a combined 61 votes have passed it thus far, so if Obama wins Massachusetts in 2012 but his Republican opponent wins the popular vote overall, Mass stays blue. Nothing to worry about then? Well, not quite: New York, which has 31 EVs, is on the brink of passing it and California, with 55 EVs, has twice pushed it through the legislature only to have it die on Schwarznegger’s desk. Assume those two states finally get the job done and suddenly we’re at 147 combined electoral votes pledged to the winner of the popular vote — more than halfway to the goal.

Even so, I’m not that worried. For one thing, I remember reading during the 2008 campaign (can’t find the cite, alas) that the odds of a presidential candidate winning the popular vote but not the electoral college are extremely small. It’s possible, of course — ask Al Gore — but it’s really hard to do, so this gambit will end up deciding the election only in extremely unusual circumstances. Beyond that, while the number of states that are looking at this idea is growing, it’s probably only the reliably blue ones that will go for it. Why would Florida or Ohio, say, forfeit their electoral votes by signing on when their swing-state status ensures plenty of extra attention from the candidates every four years? The more blue states sign up for this, the cooler red states and purple states will be to it, to the point where I wonder how big realistically this bloc can get. 200 EVs, maybe, until other states start walking away? Three cheers for self-interest!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: democratcorruption; democrats; elections; electoralvote; liberalfascism; massachusetts; npv; popularvote
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

1 posted on 07/28/2010 1:59:35 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

SCOTUS will slap this down.


2 posted on 07/28/2010 2:00:54 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache (Obama is Dangerclown The Manchild)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No problem there. Otherwise it’s a guaranteed deep-blue state anyway. Might get an occasional extra electoral votes.


3 posted on 07/28/2010 2:01:19 PM PDT by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
SCOTUS will slap this down.

Actually, yer probably right.

4 posted on 07/28/2010 2:02:01 PM PDT by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

When the GOP candidate wins the popular vote in 2012 but Mass votes for the ‘rat this law will require Mass’ electoral votes to be cast for the GOP candidate.


5 posted on 07/28/2010 2:02:13 PM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Napolean fries the idea powder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache

On what grounds? The Constitution says the states have to produce electors. I don’t think it says how they have to do that.


6 posted on 07/28/2010 2:02:34 PM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
SCOTUS will slap this down.

as I said before --- it will all now depend on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy wakes up in the morning.
7 posted on 07/28/2010 2:02:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Only if the Dem gets the popular vote.


8 posted on 07/28/2010 2:05:21 PM PDT by sbMKE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I wonder why this agreement among states doesn't violate the Compact Clause:

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

9 posted on 07/28/2010 2:05:34 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

it’s called gaming the system


10 posted on 07/28/2010 2:05:54 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All

this combined with ammmnesty for illegals is the dems plan to remain in control, if they just add millions of new undocumented democrats in states that are already democrat there will be no need for the new voters,there would be no change in the lection results, but if those new voters can swing the popular vote total and the election is decided by popular vote, then you can begin to understand why the weasels are trying to change the rules


11 posted on 07/28/2010 2:06:13 PM PDT by edzo4 (You call us the 'Party Of No', I call us the resistance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The stupid communists in control of the Massachusetts state government have just pledged their electors to Palin in 2012.


12 posted on 07/28/2010 2:06:53 PM PDT by Rome2000 (OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST CRYPTO-MUSLIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
SCOTUS will slap this down.

I doubt it. Checked the Constitution this morning, and it notes that the method for choosing the electors (equaling the total number of House and Senate members from the state) is left to the individual state legislatures. In other words, the ultimate in states' rights, to my way of thinking.

13 posted on 07/28/2010 2:06:56 PM PDT by ssaftler (Arizonans: Doing the job that Americans won't do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
SCOTUS will slap this down.

Why would the SCOTUS slap down a state exercising its explicit and plenary power to choose the manner by which its electors are chosen?

14 posted on 07/28/2010 2:07:04 PM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache

No grounds...

The constitution allows the states to select the electors...

What I find more funny is that Mass would have had to give their electoral votes to W in 2004 when Kerry got what, 65% of the popular vote? What dumba$$es!


15 posted on 07/28/2010 2:07:33 PM PDT by bfh333 ("Hope"... "Change"... You better HOPE you have some CHANGE after the next 4 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Proponents say they will seek consent.

16 posted on 07/28/2010 2:08:35 PM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ssaftler
Yes, and all states should follow suit, making laws that pledge their electors to the Democrat , Republican, or Communist parties, regardless of their states actual vote.

Thinks of all the money to be saved on campaigning and setting up polling places.

17 posted on 07/28/2010 2:09:28 PM PDT by Rome2000 (OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST CRYPTO-MUSLIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

Yep...Obama will carry the state 65%-35% and Sarah will get his electoral votes....riots will ensue..and Barny Frank will crap in his cerial


18 posted on 07/28/2010 2:10:33 PM PDT by BubbaJunebug (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache

The states are the arbiters of how electoral votes are allocated. Maine does so by allotting 2 votes to the statewide winner and then the rest by one vote per congressional district victor. Nebraska as well does the same. This method is certainly constitutional.


19 posted on 07/28/2010 2:12:57 PM PDT by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Mark Levin said yesterday that this was the only way the deep blue states could get away with it. Back in ‘08 there was talk of going to popular vote and it was slapped down. After 2 years of pre-occupation with damaging other aspects of our representative Republic, they’ve finally found the time to approach the electoral college again. It is indeed a decision by and for the states to vote in this manner from what I understand.


20 posted on 07/28/2010 2:13:32 PM PDT by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In their intellectual fashion, the idiots of Massachusetts have abdicated a major state protection. God would I love to see this bite them in the ass.

The Supreme Court will not even hear the case.


21 posted on 07/28/2010 2:13:32 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln (Reconciliation will happen in November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

They may indeed. But the are entering into this agreement now, without consent. They aren’t casting the votes, but they are agreeing to the deal.


22 posted on 07/28/2010 2:13:35 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze
But the are entering into this agreement now, without consent.

The agreement isn't effective and binding at this point.

23 posted on 07/28/2010 2:16:10 PM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“as I said before -— it will all now depend on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy wakes up in the morning.”

AND IF HE DOESN’T WAKE UP? THAT’S A REAL NIGHTMARE.


24 posted on 07/28/2010 2:16:12 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 7 | View Replies]

To: bfh333

” No grounds... “

Maybe no direct Constitutional grounds to challenge this - but I’d imagine there’d be a wide-open door to go after it on the grounds of voter equity, since it’s very likely that it will, at some time, (say, when a Republican leads the national popular vote) lead to the disenfranchisement of the majority of Massachusets voters (who would, of course, have overwhelmingly voted for the Rat)....


25 posted on 07/28/2010 2:16:57 PM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: edzo4

edzo4 wrote “this combined with ammmnesty for illegals is the dems plan to remain in control, if they just add millions of new undocumented democrats in states that are already democrat there will be no need for the new voters,there would be no change in the election results, but if those new voters can swing the popular vote total and the election is decided by popular vote, then you can begin to understand why the weasels are trying to change the rules”

You are absolutely correct. Plus, doing away with the electorial college in favor of the popular vote disenfranchises small states and rural voters. All future elections will be fought in the big cities where turnout can be maximized with minimal dollars. And since big cities are havens for the poor, minorities, libtards and other dumbcrat strongholds, then it is easy to see what the intent is. This is a VERY BAD bill.


26 posted on 07/28/2010 2:17:37 PM PDT by SDShack (0zer0care = "The Final Solution" - Socialized Soylent Green Healthcare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
The agreement isn't effective and binding at this point.

It never will be.

These socialist crooks will cast their electoral votes for the marxist Obama in 2012 even if Palin wins the popular vote, and there will be no penalty whatsoever.

27 posted on 07/28/2010 2:23:22 PM PDT by Rome2000 (OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST CRYPTO-MUSLIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This law will last only until the first time it is activated.

This law will never ever ever deny a Republican the Massachussetts electoral votes he rightly earned by virtue of the state's voters. The scenario where a Republican loses the national popular vote but carries Massachussetts is absurd on it's face.

But, of course, there could be a scenario where a Democrat loses the popular vote, after winning Mass by a huge margin. It'll be hilarious to watch all the dipshit massholes howl when their votes are all tossed aside as irrelevant and their electoral votes are given to the Republican candidate, by virtue of his strong showing in the deep south!

Morons.

28 posted on 07/28/2010 2:23:56 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ssaftler
I doubt it. Checked the Constitution this morning, and it notes that the method for choosing the electors (equaling the total number of House and Senate members from the state) is left to the individual state legislatures. In other words, the ultimate in states' rights, to my way of thinking.

True, but the states cannot use a system to choose electors that is, in itself, unconstitutional, i.e., such as excluding black voters or electors. Here, the MA law treats voters differently depending upon how the voters in other states vote in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause.

29 posted on 07/28/2010 2:25:07 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This is dumb. But coming from the peoples’ republic of Massachusets, no surprise.


30 posted on 07/28/2010 2:25:34 PM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (liberalism: severe deterioration of the thinking apparattus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Would anyone else find it hilarious if Palin was to win the popular vote and Mass had to give her their electoral votes under this new law?

(yes I know they would change the law before that ever happened)


31 posted on 07/28/2010 2:27:20 PM PDT by Brytani (There Is No (D) in November! Go Allen!!! www.allenwestforcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ssaftler
I doubt it. Checked the Constitution this morning, and it notes that the method for choosing the electors (equaling the total number of House and Senate members from the state) is left to the individual state legislatures. In other words, the ultimate in states' rights, to my way of thinking.

Each State has the right to choose its electors how it sees fit. However, the Constitution prohibits the States from entering into Agreements or Compacts without the consent of Congress.

MD passed this same law, but it is inoperative unless enough States [representing 270 electoral votes] do the same.

If enough states pass this kind of law, the question is whether it is a tacit Agreement or Compact without the consent of Congress ...

32 posted on 07/28/2010 2:29:14 PM PDT by Lmo56 (</i><p>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

So nevermind what all of the citizens of Mass decide ... just ignore them and go with LA, NY, Miami, etc. want. Whatever.


33 posted on 07/28/2010 2:30:28 PM PDT by al_c (http://www.blowoutcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If a Republican wins in 2012, although MA will obviously NOT have to give its electoral votes to him/her [since the law will not be in effect], MA voters WILL DEMAND that MA change the law.

It will stick in their craw that, had the law been in effect, its electoral votes would go to the loser of their state ...


34 posted on 07/28/2010 2:37:29 PM PDT by Lmo56 (</i><p>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

then why even put the presidential race on the ballot ?


35 posted on 07/28/2010 2:41:25 PM PDT by stylin19a (Never buy a putter until you first get a chance to throw it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BubbaJunebug
Yep...Obama will carry the state 65%-35% and Sarah will get his electoral votes....riots will ensue..and Barny Frank will be foaming at the mouth, chasing car down the street naked and rubbing shit in his hair.
36 posted on 07/28/2010 2:48:29 PM PDT by Rumplemeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Rumplemeyer

” Barny Frank will be foaming at the mouth, chasing car down the street naked and rubbing shit in his hair “

IOW, just a typical Saturday Night at the Frank House??


37 posted on 07/28/2010 2:52:06 PM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
You do realize that if this doesn't produce the desired electoral result the state government will find a way around it.

It's like when the state legislature decreed that if Kerry were elected president, Mitt Romney couldn't pick his replacement in the Senate and then, when Ted Kennedy died they tried to allow Deval Patrick to handpick his successor. The difference was that Romney was a Republican and Patrick a Democrat.

As soon as it looks like this legislation could put a Republican in the White House you'll find the Boston Globe and the Democratic Party ordering that the law simply be disregarded.

38 posted on 07/28/2010 3:11:21 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This is one of the better ideas from the People's Democratic Nation of Massachusetts.

From my reading of contemporary documents (18th century documents) the idea behind the electoral college was to ensure that the smaller sates, most of New England, would have some voice in national politics. You could never tell, when starting a national campaign, when a few electoral votes would mean the difference between victory and defeat.

The democrats of the people's republic are very happy to reduce the importance of Massachusetts from minor to totally ineffective. But then, isn't this the same state that rewrote how they were going to replace Teddy Kennedy in the senate upon his death twice in less than a decade?

39 posted on 07/28/2010 3:27:49 PM PDT by Nip (Arizona Immigration Law - the case heard around the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
That law clearly contradicts the constitution, IMO, and should be challenged.
40 posted on 07/28/2010 3:37:21 PM PDT by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
SCOTUS will slap this down.

Not likely.

41 posted on 07/28/2010 3:39:10 PM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow
... The Constitution says the states have to produce electors. I don’t think it says how they have to do that.

True. What if there is a clear winner in each state, but the popular vote comes out 50.01% vs. 49.99%? Recounts will be demanded everywhere, and we'll have more "hanging chad" fiascos than we can count. Does MA want to pay for all of the recounts?

It might be legal, but I can see future elections stretching out for months of recounts while the "Popular Vote" states decide where they're going.

42 posted on 07/28/2010 3:41:29 PM PDT by ken in texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dead

Great post, and completely realistic. I’m not sure what the Dems in MA are thinking with this change of election law. I can’t see any way that it benefits the people a that state.


43 posted on 07/28/2010 4:13:23 PM PDT by Carling (Remember November)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Massachusetts legislature is 90% RAT (and I mean *filthy* RAT) and our Governor...who’s on his way to winning reelection with 38% of the vote (he’s got a straw man in the race)...is the filthiest RAT you can imagine (a good pal of Hussein’s).Just as they did with our system of filling vacant Senate seats I’m sure their attitude is “hey,we’ll see how things are going as an election approaches and legislate accordingly”.


44 posted on 07/28/2010 4:16:37 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (''I don't regret setting bombs,I feel we didn't do enough.'' ->Bill Ayers,Hussein's mentor,9/11/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken in texas

Oh, I’m not suggesting what MA has done makes the least particle of sense. It is a bald and petty attempt to seem ‘democratic’ and to put all this ‘the US is a republic’ nonsense to bed permanently. All I was saying was that however foolhardy any particular state wants to be in this matter appears to be fully constitutional. The resulting train-wreck, when the proposal is both wrong-headed and foolish, would be most instructive. Here’s hoping the test is graded quickly. Sometimes progressives point to things done and recommend them elsewhere before the consequences have a chance to play out.


45 posted on 07/28/2010 4:32:30 PM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: All

The states are the arbiters of how electoral votes are allocated. Maine does so by allotting 2 votes to the statewide winner and then the rest by one vote per congressional district victor. Nebraska as well does the same. This method is certainly constitutional.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes, but that’s because their EV’s will be decided by their state’s popular vote, not the national popular vote.

This new process stinks. Why should my State EV vote be determined by other states!!!!! That disenfranchising my vote.

They should just pass a Constitutional Amendment.


46 posted on 07/28/2010 4:35:12 PM PDT by ak267
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

contra-constitutional isnt it?


47 posted on 07/28/2010 4:47:31 PM PDT by Chickensoup (The Acting President....is an incompetent puppet of Soros.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache

“SCOTUS will slap this down.”

SCOTUS can’t slap this down as the State can cast its electors anyway it wants to cast them. No my friend we will have to kill this in a State by state campaign highlighting how our state could vote against our own interest.

The big issue with this is not only the issue politicians being able to focus on just the largest city’s ignoring everyone else.

But a National popular election would enable crooked states to pass election laws that effectually allow people to vote multi-able times, simply by making it not legally preventable.

That illegal voting will permit such states and their populations to sway the new National popular election in their favor by having the illusion of disproportionately high turn out.


48 posted on 07/28/2010 5:12:28 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dead

2012 Results in MA:

Barack Obama—1,000,000
Sarah Palin—5

National winner, popular vote: Sarah Palin.

Palin wins all MA electoral votes...


49 posted on 07/28/2010 5:21:36 PM PDT by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

You can argue almost any state law on equal protection grounds.

It is somewhat dissappointing that Florida’s legislature didn’t pick the electors themselves when the vote became as spoiled as it did (yes, the punch cards were spoiled: with all the handling, pregnant chads had become hanging chads).

I don’t know what would happen now if a state legislature did decide to choose the electors at the last minute, and its electors were critical. Which version of the count would count, if any, with regard to the other states?

It’s a rare chance here that the provisions of this law will ever be invoked but it seems to me there’s going to be greater strife with this law than without.


50 posted on 07/28/2010 5:40:43 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 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