Skip to comments.Massachusetts passes bill awarding electoral votes to winner of national popular vote
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!
SCOTUS will slap this down.
No problem there. Otherwise it’s a guaranteed deep-blue state anyway. Might get an occasional extra electoral votes.
Actually, yer probably right.
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.
On what grounds? The Constitution says the states have to produce electors. I don’t think it says how they have to do that.
Only if the Dem gets the popular vote.
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.
it’s called gaming the system
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
The stupid communists in control of the Massachusetts state government have just pledged their electors to Palin in 2012.
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.
Why would the SCOTUS slap down a state exercising its explicit and plenary power to choose the manner by which its electors are chosen?
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!
Proponents say they will seek consent.
Thinks of all the money to be saved on campaigning and setting up polling places.
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
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.
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.
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.