Skip to comments.Massachusetts for Palin?
Posted on 07/31/2010 8:13:03 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
IT IS Election Night, 2012. The polls have closed. State by state, the votes are being counted, and gradually it becomes clear, to the bottomless horror of some voters and the unbridled delight of others, that Sarah Palin, the Republican presidential nominee, has bested President Barack Obama in the popular vote nationwide.
In Massachusetts, where Obama crushed Palin in a 79 percent landslide the most lopsidedly anti-Palin vote of any state bottomless horror doesnt begin to describe the political reaction. For in 2010, Massachusetts joined the National Popular Vote compact, making a commitment to cast all of its electoral votes for the presidential candidate receiving the most votes nationally, regardless of the results in Massachusetts. The compact took effect in December 2011, when California became the 15th state to join, thereby uniting enough states to control a majority of the Electoral College. Now Massachusetts, the bluest of the blue states, must award its presidential electors to a candidate Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly opposed.
. . .
Well, thats one scenario. Maybe it wont be Sarah Palin, maybe it wont be 2012, but sooner or later a Republican is going to win the largest number of votes in a presidential election, and that Republican probably isnt going to carry Massachusetts. What will Bay State liberals and Democrats say when the National Popular Vote compact that so many of them endorsed requires Massachusetts electors to line up behind the Republican? Imagine if Massachusetts had been compelled to give its electoral votes in 1972 not to George McGovern, but to Richard Nixon. Or to the first George Bush in 1988, instead of Michael Dukakis. Or to George W. Bush, not John Kerry, in 2004.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
‘Schadenfreude’ is the word you’re looking for.
schudenfreude (botched spelling no doubt, but you get the gist of the word)
Ask a democrat.
Of course the NPV would never be used to elect a GOP candidate. In the scenario above, ballots would just be printed until enough, no matter how many millions or billions, ballots were needed to assure 0bama’s re-election.
Amendment XIV, Section 2:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Massachusetts is renowned for passing laws they later greatly regret.
Also, note that the Legislature of Mass would quickly change the rules... What? Socialists lie? How can anyone say that? After all Obama was all for government funding of elections with restrictions on totals until it was in his favor to do otherwise.
I believe this will be another case of unintended consequences. One of the biggest whining points of the dems is that republicans use of the filibuster has made a 60/40 vote necessary on just about all bills. If I am correct the rules on filibustering were imposed by democrats at the behest of one Robert Byrd.
Does anyone know who the woman is behind Sarah. Talk about two beautiful women!
(If only algore had been able to carry his *home* state...BWAHAHAHA!)
They're also famous for enacting ex post facto laws, like they did with Ted Kennedy's replacement. Of course no one challenges them on that.
He did. He won DC handily.
“It’s hard to figure out how Gay State leftists think this will help any RAT nominee”
I’ve been having a “discussion” about this on a leftist site in Boston, they don’t have a clue. They think the entire electoral college is being elimanated, not just gerry rigged in a few states.
That last ex-post facto change got Death Care passed and the budget limit raised trillions. We should all care.
That is very interesting...
And just imagine if Jacoby's scenario played out. They would cry for years again about the stolen election, if their emergency meeting of the legislature failed to overturn the law in typical Massachusetts fashion, like when Kennedy died and the law had to be changed to undo what was done when they were silly enough to think Kerry could get elected president and their was a Republican governor.
Liberals never seem to take a hard look at the possible outcomes when they sign on to an agenda. Look at the Global Warmies. Do they not understand that there is no way ever for their position to be vindicated, but a perfectly plausible and likely way for it to be disproven. If the world isn't warmer in 20 years they are all fools and idiots. If it is warmer (plausible, since it's been warming since the end of the last ice age), but not ending, they and are still fools and idiots. If it's warmer and in great peril (yea, right), they still can't prove why it's warmer (that ice age thing again). So they are destined to bang their heads against a wall for the rest of their lives on the issue, no matter what happens.
that what happens when you thought the will of the state come 2nd to the will of the majority of Americans. Its the argument that the Left been pushing since 2000 because Bush won the CV votes while Gore won the popular vote
That would be so sweeeet!
However, it cuts both ways.
I don’t fancy messing with the electoral college, anyway.
The left are short sighted. The CV system is MUCH better than a Popular Vote system. It reduces tyranny of the majority
I forgot about that clause of the 14th. At least the Radical Republicans are still fighting for us! Any honest court would declare this an unconstitutional run around the specified amendment procedure. Any dishonest court still able to stop short of treason, would have to at least rule such a Compact required formal consent of Congress (Article I, Sect. 10).
Red states won’t sign up for this. Blue states will. That means the law can ONLY hurt blue states.
That said, this is a HORRIBLE idea - one step closer to being a democracy, one step further from being a republic.
What would really be amusing would be if,
1. Palin barely won the popular vote running up huge margins in the mountain states
2. It was very very close in the electoral college, but OBama would prevail 280 to 258 in the electoral college.
3. But alas since the 12 MA EVs are going to the popular vote winner, Palin, despite Obama winning the state, she wins the presidency 270 to 268.
Can you imagine the lefts reaction to this scenario?
Yes, entirely predictable...8 years of whining about the illegitimate Presidency of Sarah Palin, racism in the South and the disenfranchisement of minorities in the Dem controlled inner cities of New York, Philly, Detroit, LA, Chicago and Atlanta.
Except that since there are (or will be) some 15 states in the compact, a 280-258 would end up far more lopsided, since they would all cast their EVs for the popular vote winner.
Right I thought maybe CO had done the same thing. So you see ultimately 15 state voting for this?
I guess my scenario would still hold if Pa1lin took all but 1, MA, of those 15 states and the EV ended up as I said.
It looks like Michael Jackson.
Just an eyeball, but it kinda looks like Bo Derek.
One (big) problem with your scenario.Unless the RATS succeeded in their effort to scam the census this year (certainly possible) the Gay State is sure to lose at least one Congressional seat for the '12 election and I've even heard some say it will be two.So if it's one...then we'd have an Electoral Vote tie and if it's two,well....
My German's not very good, but I think it's palinwinnen.
I put it in Gothic Font as that's how das deutsche Volk (Germans) used to print everything.
Once again, the Kennedy-Kerry-Brown-Romney-Patrick-Bulger
fascists refuse to let a single Massachusetts voter
actually .... vote.
Even the GOP was stolen by Romney and Brown preventing
a primary this year. Massachusetts citizens’ civil rights
have been stolen by carpetbagging outsiders from Chicago
America, wake up. The Commonwealth is the canary.
'Massachusetts for Palin?'
There's one 'little' problem with this 'compact', its Unconstitutional.
(I know, that's a mere technicality to the commieRATS)
Article I, Section 10, clause 10.3 prohibits 'Compacts Among States'. So the first time its used, hello SCOTUS here we come. Not to mention that other little technicality like the scenario of this article. It disenfranchises voters. And we know how SCOTUS views that.
Annnnnnnd if a Blue State was 'forced' to go the other way because of said compact, there aren't enough TV Cameras in the world to cover all the protests by Rev Al, Jesse, the NAACP -- and all the race riots that would ensue.
Plus thanks to this 'Compact' all the court challenges would throw the election results up for grabs for months.
It'd be Bush v Gore x 108 power.
Not so fast. Just how many times did the courts tell us "You have no standing" when people sued for the COLB in the eligibility lawsuits?
They told Alan Keyes, a candidate, the same thing, iirc.
They'll just dummy up again.
Under that scenario, 0bama would also lose Illinois (his home state) since Illinois has also signed on to the NPV travesty.
There are already 4 or 5 other states that have passed similar legislation. Ultimately, they need 15 to sign on for the compact to become active, and once it’s active, it doesn’t matter how many of those states are “won” by their candidate; they’ll all be bound to case for the popular vote winner.
Right and that has nothing to do with my scenario where Palin wins all of those 15 states except MA, wins the popular vote, narrowly loses the EV calculated the old way, but since she gets the MA EVs too wins the presidency. Of course it is unlikely to happen that way, but it could.
Rarely has it happened that the popular vote winner lost in the electoral college. In 50+ Presidential elections it has happened only twice to the best of my knowledge -- 1876, Hayes v Tilden, and 2000, Bush v Gore.
There are many reasons why the Founders chose the electoral college, and how these manifest. But in its simplest statement, the basic effect today is that for extremely close elections (e.g., Bush v Gore), the tie goes to the candidate with the broader electoral appeal, meaning the rural parts of the country. This is exactly what the Founders wanted -- they didn't want the populous cities to disenfranchise the voters from the less populated agrarian states.
And a very important ancillary impact is that the Dems have no reason to engage in wholesale fraud in the inner city precincts that vote 100% democratic, unless there is a statewide race (e.g., Senate) that is close. Let's not forget that in 2000, there were many precincts in Miami and St Louis which had 102% and 105% turnout.
Should the Presidential election become a direct election, you can bet that ballot-stuffing in the inner city will be rampant in ALL precincts, every four years.
“Rarely has it happened that the popular vote winner lost in the electoral college. In 50+ Presidential elections it has happened only twice to the best of my knowledge — 1876, Hayes v Tilden, and 2000, Bush v Gore.”
Well there is 1960, Kennedy v. Nixon also. Additionally, it is not clear there was a final national count in 2000 to know who won it.
JLS, now I’m a bit of an American history buff and I’m wondering if you really know the details of why JFK did not win a majority of popular votes. Because it’s true but only by a technicality. Do you know that story?
In case you don’t, here’s the facts:
Kennedy’s popular vote total was 0.17%, or 112,000 votes out of 68 million cast. Just about any source will use these figures.
But the truth is that some of Kennedy is routinely “awarded” votes in the state of Alabama that were not intended for him. At the time, voters in Alabama voted for electors, not presidential candidates, and Kennedy’s tally includes the highest vote total for an Alabama elector even though almost half of the electors refused to vote for him when the electoral college convened. So, a more accurate accounting would give Kennedy fewer votes and a majority of popular votes to Nixon.
It’s hard to find detail about this but the NYT has a good summary: