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!
BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING...
JONATHAN SOROS:It’s Time to Junk the Electoral College We don’t need an amendment to do it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122930124441705413.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
AND
(note the “We The People” copycat Header)
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=MA
Check out party affiliations of these Sens. & Reps.
BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING...
JONATHAN SOROS:It’s Time to Junk the Electoral College We don’t need an amendment to do it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122930124441705413.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
AND
(note the “We The People” copycat Header)
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=MA
Check out party affiliations of these Sens. & Reps.
BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING...
JONATHAN SOROS:It’s Time to Junk the Electoral College We don’t need an amendment to do it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122930124441705413.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
AND
(note the “We The People” copycat Header)
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=MA
Check out party affiliations of these Sens. & Reps.
BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING...
JONATHAN SOROS:It’s Time to Junk the Electoral College We don’t need an amendment to do it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122930124441705413.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
AND
(note the “We The People” copycat Header)
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=MA
Check out party affiliations of these Sens. & Reps.
BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING...
JONATHAN SOROS:It’s Time to Junk the Electoral College We don’t need an amendment to do it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122930124441705413.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
AND
(note the “We The People” copycat Header)
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=MA
Check out party affiliations of these Sens. & Reps.
SO SORRY! I AM NOT SPAMMING! I kept getting an error message and thought the post didn’t go thru. egads.....
CHANGING MY NAME TO “REPEATIE”!
SO SORRY! I AM NOT SPAMMING! I kept getting an error message and thought the post didn’t go thru. egads.....
CHANGING MY NAME TO “REPEATIE”!
yikes...as Mass. goes, so goes the nation ?
I cannot agree with that, at least not when put so baldly. I do not support democracy, except when it is buffered by oligarchy and monarchy. Any of the three is toxic in isolation as a socio-political system, but with all three, and a separation of powers among them, the toxicity is reduced. The voters have the House of Representatives through which their voice is heard. That was the original intent for how far their voice should be heard. I cannot improve upon the Founders’ wisdom in the matter.
Barack Obama—1,000,000
Sarah Palin—5
National winner, popular vote: Sarah Palin.
Palin wins all MA electoral votes...
And it would be truly beautiful if MA's electoral votes to Palin was what decided the election.
A state can invent any method they want. They could go as far as saying whatever candidate wins in Florida...automatically gets their electoral votes, and just nullify the entire voting apparatus in their own state.
I think the more folks try to tinker with this mess...the bigger the mess becomes. Everyone is convinced that the electoral college is broke. But if you explained the mess of letting popular vote run the thing...and only the results of the ten biggest states matter then...then they all hate popular vote.
The Framers were wise but human and were not perfect. They originally wanted small government with most of the power going to the states and to the people. How could a system that was designed to have small government result in the present socialist system we now have? The federal government is huge and there seems to be no end in sight as to how big they can get. Flaws in what the Framers gave us are that the safeguards put in place to keep government small have been breached and there does not seem to be reasonably quick remedies to restore a small government.
He chases the cars in his barefeet.
The flaws were introduced by the Progressives in the early 20th Century. The system as designed was working quite well. Yes, it would never power a world-dominant nation, but it was intended NOT to. Our ancestors came here to get away from European power games, not to find ways to trump them.
IMHO, I guess.
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.