Skip to comments.Mass. Senate approves national popular vote bill
Posted on 07/21/2010 11:57:50 AM PDT by jessduntno
The Massachusetts Senate has passed a bill that would give the states Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.
The bill approved by the Senate 28-10 last week is part of a nationwide effort to secure the agreement of enough states so the winner of the national popular vote would be guaranteed to win the presidency.
The bill will not go into effect until states possessing a majority of Electoral College votes pass similar legislation. Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington state have approved the measure.
The House passed its version of the legislation in June.
The bill will now be sent to Gov. Deval Patrick.
(Excerpt) Read more at baystatebanner.com ...
>> What happens when different States settle on different national popular vote totals?
I dunno. Steel cage death match rounds pitting their governors against each other?
And it has already happened. See Scott Brown election.
In fact I am shocked that the Democrats haven’t changed the succession law back to governor appoinment for remainder of term.
The Constitution states in Article 2, Section 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:
You don't even have to have a popular vote in the state for the electors. The legislature could (and many states did in the early years of our history) just select the electors itself.
About the only Constitutional question is the agreement between states voting for this an illegal compact without congressional approval?
Exactly...just wait until their votes go to a republican and this whole idea will come to a screeching halt.
Right now they think that they can game the system and keep electing democrats.
I opposed this thing because it is unconstitutional on its face.
“The mechanism for certifying the national popular vote isnt at all clear to me...”
Because it does not exist. If one did exist, it would exist in the COTUS.
The big risk is in a close popular vote tally, truck loads of ballots could be found in safe Democratic states to push the Democrat to victory. How can you argue with 25 million Illinois voters all voting for Obama's relection. Most years Illinois counting wouldn't affect the national result (1960 being the notable exception), but it would under this new plan.
Oh, and now you have an idea? Greed and cowardice in equal measure is the answer to sickoflibs question.
Oh, for good measure, McCain would LOVE to see such an agreement because he's the single most Statist Republican currently in office.
Ruling Class Country Class McCain Hayworth
And this is also an invitation to nationwide fraud. Why do people assume everyone will agree on what the national vote total is, especially when “fabricating” votes in all fifty states could potentially tip the balance?
At first glance I thought that maybe MD gave up it's right to vote Democrat every election. But then I noticed the loophole that keeps the law from being enacted. If they really believe this crap, they should get rid of the loophole now and let another state pick their president in 2012. ( I would complain about that too LOL)
guess that’s it then.
“This maneuver will give the voting power to the socialist laden urban areas at the expense of the Conservative rural areas.”
Exactly...we will be controlled by the dazzling urbanites...
Sounds like an unconstitutional interstate compact to me. But let the experts hash that one out.
“The national populist vote that Al Gore and Rats love to brag about from 2000 differed by 0.51% between the two candidates (half of one percent) which would have necessitated a NATIONWIDE PRECINCT BY PRECINCT RECOUNT. Dumb idea, New Englanders.”
They forgot about Kennedy already, I guess...
Seems to me that the Sherman Antitrust Act could be used to beat this back. We can be sure that Eric Holder is planning to file charges right this moment. /s
Your scenario gets even better! If Mass has to give those votes to Palin, yet those electoral votes would have allowed a Democrat to win the electoral college and win the presidency!
The Democrats are banking on more people being added to the welfare rolls and thus more voters for democrats.
unless they pass this first, amenesty for illegals will not have as big an infulence on the election, see if you just add 12 million new votes to states like CA and MA that are already mostly democrat it will not change the election results, but make it about the popular vote and add 12 million new undocumented democrats and now you can really steal some elections...
it’ll never get passed the Supreme Court
it’ll never get passed the Supreme Court
It is hard to imagine a more fundamental affront to the whole political/constitutional history of the United States than this provision.
John / Billybob
PS: Request for help. Please give me a link to the instruction page on html for posting on FR. I need to find out, once again, how to post a link to a FR thread as part of my signatures on FR posts. — John
so if they had done this 30 years ago their electoral votes would have gone to Reagan?
John / Billybob
Because the national popular vote might actually be close, and thus your GOP vote in Massachusetts might actually count, whereas the majority Masshole vote will be for the Donk. Then, when the Republican wins the popular vote, and the networks color Massachusetts red, the libtards will have shot themselves in the foot.
They did go to Reagan. TWICE!
Doesn’t different states have different criteria for determining voter eligibility? And would that mean that MA would have to discount all votes made by people in other states but that would be ineligible in MA in the “popular vote”?
Regadless, what a cluster-f**k. Like someone already mentioned, you would have recounts in every voting district in every state in the US, every election. And even with that, you’d have a more error-prone and fraud-vulnerable system than today.
“Regadless, what a cluster-f**k.”
Yep...creating as much chaos as possible...they are just f***ing with us now because they can...civil war can not be far behind...
What “they” are missing is that no state knows what the popular vote is until ALL absentee ballots are counted.... not just those counted in a so-called close election. Until every single absentee ballot is counted, there is no way to determine who actually wins the popular vote. Thus the liberal cry of “Bush stole the election” because ALGORE won the popular vote is complete BS.
The Constitution can be changed ...
By a constitutional amendment ... (but as people we seem to have forgotten about that )
Since the people of this country have been allowing the government to operate outside of the rule of law and everybody (all political parties) seems to approve ... many many laws have been passed that are unconstitutional ...
Once again the problem in this country lies in the way Americans receive information, as the information they receive is always polluted with opinion and bias.
“Pardon me, but doesn’t that substantially dilute the value of the votes of the very Massachussetts voters who are supposed to be represented by the Electors?
I mean, if you’re a Massachussetts citizen, why even vote? The state’s electoral votes are going to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote, no matter which way Massachussetts votes as a state.”
Eventually, this attempt to end-run around the U.S. Constitution will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
One cannot predict the final outcome, but I sense that your argument will be the foundation for the final opinion.
This strikes at the core of “civil rights” and voter disenfranchisement. Suppose Pennsylvania (largely white) passed a law stating that its electors would be determined by who won the election in North Dakota? What would that do to the votes of the blacks in Philadelphia?
That is to say, “National Popular Vote” seeks to accomplish its goal through the abolishment of the core value of “one man, one vote”. Yes, the states have a right to determine how their electors are to be chosen, but I predict that if states expect to hold elections in which voters actually cast votes for electors (in presidential elections), that they will be HELD to the outcome of those votes cast within their own state borders.
The last times the poles flipped were in 1980 and 1984. We're talking a lot of R's here.
So if everyone in the state of Mass. Votes for Wally, but wally does not win the national popular vote; none of the Mass. electoral colleges votes would go toward Wally. This would happen even if Wally would win the election if he had the Mass. votes.
Yep. Only Mass. could come up with something so stupid.
I don’t understand how the fools rule these days. Why would any small state advocate for going around the electoral college? It is the disproportionate representation of small states in the electoral college that gets them visits by candidates and, for that matter, federal dollars. Talk about committing suicide.
LOL, they have just disenfranchised their voters.
Massachusetts should be purged from the union. The state is simply not needed and is a drag on the nation
They keep this stuff up it won’t matter anyway, they’ll only have 1 electoral vote.
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.
So how is the new law not a violation of this section of the Constitution?
“LOL, they have just disenfranchised their voters.”
While that may be true locally, they could conceivably be part of a grander scheme to centralize all of the voting power in NY, CA, PA and the major population centers...you know, the “dazzling urbanites” who could care less about what the rest of America wants...and do it without the need for a pesky Constitutional Amendment...which would take 2/3 of the state to ratify...which would NEVER happen.
Yessir, that is correct. But their laws have not been found to be constitutional....yet.
Power grab so that the tyranny of the majority can be established. And you can bet that part of that tyranny will be based on hostility to orthodox religious faith.
The Constitution does not affirm their views so adherence to it creates a hostile environment that makes it impossible for them actualize their dreams and potential. It’s got to go.
Oh, for good measure, McCain would LOVE to see such an agreement because he’s the single most Statist Republican currently in office.
Good job ;-)
Totally disenfranchises my state’s EV based upon the votes in other states. A few high-population states overides my state....F**K THAT.
The courts will pull the same stunt they did with all the lawsuits over Obama's Article II eligibility issue.
They'll just gavel the People down and tell them they have no "standing", i.e. "you are not the Democratic Party of the United States".
Camille Paglia, the hardcore gay Philly art-history prof who is Rush Limbaugh's occasional lunch date, once described McPain, about 10 years ago, as "positively bulging with protofascist impulses" -- pretty close to what you said.
Which would bring them PDQ to the Supreme Court and the whole enterprise crashing down as the Supremes hammer their little game as unconstitutional on its face.
” Camille Paglia, the hardcore gay Philly art-history prof who is Rush Limbaugh’s occasional lunch date, once described McPain, about 10 years ago, as “positively bulging with protofascist impulses”
Camille nailed it this time ;-)