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

Skip to comments.

Mass. Senate approves national popular vote bill
baystate banner ^ | Today

Posted on 07/21/2010 11:57:50 AM PDT by jessduntno

The Massachusetts Senate has passed a bill that would give the state’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii; US: Illinois; US: Maryland; US: Massachusetts; US: New Jersey; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; cultureofcorruption; democratscandals; electoralcollege; getoverit; gorelostalready; hawaii; howtostealanelection; illinois; maryland; massachusetts; newjersey; powergrab; tyranny; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-107 next last
To: swain_forkbeard

>> 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?


51 posted on 07/21/2010 12:19:16 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Eat more spinach! Make Green Jobs for America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Nothing.

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.


52 posted on 07/21/2010 12:19:25 PM PDT by outpostinmass2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: J Edgar
Seems like this is a direct disenfranchisement of MA voters. How can this stand judicial review?

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?

53 posted on 07/21/2010 12:19:49 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Gun control was originally to protect Klansmen from their victims. The basic reason hasn't changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

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.


54 posted on 07/21/2010 12:20:03 PM PDT by Ouderkirk (Democrats...the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy, and Sedition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
LOL
So in MA, the CommieCrates have skewed the system to R. Isn't that called shoot yourself in the foot?

I opposed this thing because it is unconstitutional on its face.

55 posted on 07/21/2010 12:20:41 PM PDT by J Edgar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

“The mechanism for certifying the national popular vote isn’t at all clear to me...”

Because it does not exist. If one did exist, it would exist in the COTUS.


56 posted on 07/21/2010 12:22:47 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: gthog61
As long as none of the conservative states are stupid enough to join in I don’t see how this does anything but help conservatives.

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.

57 posted on 07/21/2010 12:25:54 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Gun control was originally to protect Klansmen from their victims. The basic reason hasn't changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker; sickoflibs
No fair, it's too easy for you -- your an Arizonan!

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

58 posted on 07/21/2010 12:26:33 PM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla (Yesterday's Left = today's status quo. Thus CONSERVATIVE is a conflicted label for battling tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
Even assuming that this would survive court challenge, such a provision would only be honored if the Democrat won the popular vote. And I can't ever see New York, California or Massachusetts giving their votes to a Republican if a Democrat won their state.

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?

59 posted on 07/21/2010 12:27:31 PM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Exactly!


60 posted on 07/21/2010 12:28:12 PM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Avoiding_Sulla
RE :"Whoring for attention and benefits is my guess. If the national candidate can concentrate on the 270 electoral vote states who've locked in, they can ignore the 269 electoral votes who've cut themselves out. And first come, first served. "

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)

61 posted on 07/21/2010 12:28:15 PM PDT by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

guess that’s it then.


62 posted on 07/21/2010 12:29:30 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Hitler Was Their Fate and their Fate Could Not Be Stayed. Von Braustitch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

“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...


63 posted on 07/21/2010 12:30:08 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny...its principles are the founding principles." - M. Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

Sounds like an unconstitutional interstate compact to me. But let the experts hash that one out.


64 posted on 07/21/2010 12:30:27 PM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

“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...


65 posted on 07/21/2010 12:31:38 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny...its principles are the founding principles." - M. Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

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


66 posted on 07/21/2010 12:32:14 PM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla (Yesterday's Left = today's status quo. Thus CONSERVATIVE is a conflicted label for battling tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
"Won't it be poetic justice if the electors of Massachusetts are forced to vote for Sarah Palin because she wins nationally, but Obozo wins in Massachusetts?"

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!

67 posted on 07/21/2010 12:36:39 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: avacado

The Democrats are banking on more people being added to the welfare rolls and thus more voters for democrats.


68 posted on 07/21/2010 12:38:58 PM PDT by outpostinmass2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Good analysis.


69 posted on 07/21/2010 12:41:17 PM PDT by matt1234 (The only crisis 0bama can manage is one he intentionally created.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

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...


70 posted on 07/21/2010 12:41:25 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: jessduntno

it’ll never get passed the Supreme Court


71 posted on 07/21/2010 12:43:20 PM PDT by screaming eagle2 (D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

it’ll never get passed the Supreme Court


72 posted on 07/21/2010 12:43:22 PM PDT by screaming eagle2 (D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
You got that right. This state law that purports to change the express terms of the US Constitution is facially unconstitutional on several different grounds. The most basic one is that it seeks to override the decisions of the people of a state in favor of the decisions of people from other states.

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

73 posted on 07/21/2010 12:44:27 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

so if they had done this 30 years ago their electoral votes would have gone to Reagan?


74 posted on 07/21/2010 12:45:59 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
What you state, an interstate compact not approved by Congress, is the second reason why this is flatly unconstitutional.

John / Billybob

75 posted on 07/21/2010 12:50:11 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
So why vote for President in D-Mass anyway then? So goes the national vote, so goes Massachusetts.

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.

76 posted on 07/21/2010 12:54:33 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

They did go to Reagan. TWICE!


77 posted on 07/21/2010 12:55:10 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

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.


78 posted on 07/21/2010 12:55:27 PM PDT by SwedishConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwedishConservative

“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...


79 posted on 07/21/2010 1:01:55 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny...its principles are the founding principles." - M. Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

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.


80 posted on 07/21/2010 1:02:36 PM PDT by Snow Eagle ("... Against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Adder

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.


81 posted on 07/21/2010 1:03:15 PM PDT by 08bil98z24 (Say NO to the WOD ------>>> NObama ------>>> Equal Opportunity Politician Basher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

“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.


82 posted on 07/21/2010 1:08:04 PM PDT by Grumplestiltskin (I may look new, but it's only deja vu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
Net result: There is a chance that Massachusetts EVs might go for a Republican instead of a Democrat. The reverse won't happen unless the poles of the earth flip.

The last times the poles flipped were in 1980 and 1984. We're talking a lot of R's here.

83 posted on 07/21/2010 1:08:10 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

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.


84 posted on 07/21/2010 1:09:27 PM PDT by CoastWatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

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.


85 posted on 07/21/2010 1:16:40 PM PDT by Truth is a Weapon (If I weren't afraid of the feds, I would refer to Obama as our "undocumented POTUS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

LOL, they have just disenfranchised their voters.


86 posted on 07/21/2010 1:23:26 PM PDT by McGavin999 (I'm sorry, your race card is overdrawn and no further charges can be accepted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Massachusetts should be purged from the union. The state is simply not needed and is a drag on the nation


87 posted on 07/21/2010 1:25:33 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... The winds of war are freshening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

They keep this stuff up it won’t matter anyway, they’ll only have 1 electoral vote.


88 posted on 07/21/2010 1:27:31 PM PDT by McGavin999 (I'm sorry, your race card is overdrawn and no further charges can be accepted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
U.S. Constitution, Section 10, Paragraph 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.

My emphasis.

So how is the new law not a violation of this section of the Constitution?


89 posted on 07/21/2010 1:35:56 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

“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.


90 posted on 07/21/2010 1:38:45 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny...its principles are the founding principles." - M. Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
They'll call a special session of the legislature to repeal their own law.

This is the intent of the law. If the MA political hacks like the national outcome, but not the local results, (aka Scott Brown) they simply point to the law and say "too bad."

If they don't like the national result, or the way the polls are trending leading up to the election,they simply change the law. They did it when Teddy *hic* died, they can do it during an election.
91 posted on 07/21/2010 1:49:50 PM PDT by ConservativeWarrior (In last year's nests, there are no birds this year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Yessir, that is correct. But their laws have not been found to be constitutional....yet.


92 posted on 07/21/2010 1:59:32 PM PDT by Adder (Note to self: 11-2-10 Take out the Trash!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

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.


93 posted on 07/21/2010 3:14:38 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

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.


94 posted on 07/21/2010 3:19:46 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Avoiding_Sulla

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 ;-)


95 posted on 07/21/2010 3:30:18 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Support our Troops, and vote out the RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: All

Totally disenfranchises my state’s EV based upon the votes in other states. A few high-population states overides my state....F**K THAT.


96 posted on 07/21/2010 4:28:49 PM PDT by ak267
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch
Someone, somewhere will file suit when their state voted for candidate X but Y won the popular vote

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".

97 posted on 07/21/2010 10:44:12 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
McCain would LOVE to see such an agreement because he’s the single most Statist Republican currently in office.

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.

98 posted on 07/21/2010 10:54:02 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
.....do it without the need for a pesky Constitutional Amendment...

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.

99 posted on 07/21/2010 10:58:46 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

” 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 ;-)


100 posted on 07/22/2010 6:26:05 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Support our Troops, and vote out the RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-107 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