Massachusetts passes bill awarding electoral votes to winner of national popular vote
posted at 9:02 pm on July 27, 2010 by Allahpundit
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!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I actually see this as having unforeseen consequences for the corrupted state reps in MA. The electoral votes in MA have always gone automatically to the Dems, but if a a Republican votes the national votes, even by a small margin, the automatic Dem MA electoral votes GO TO THE GOP.
bayview on July 27, 2010 at 10:57 PM
Ahhhhhhhhhh does that mean Mass voters don’t need to vote?
Mass waits till all 49 other States have counted their votes and then who ever has the popular vote automatically get the Mass votes?
That’s the dumbest dang thing I’ve heard all week.
DSchoen on July 27, 2010 at 11:07 PM
I think this will ultimately bite the MA dems in the ass, just like Scott Brown winning the “Kennedy” seat. After all, the MA legislature has more than once changed the laws to favor the Dems.
ladyingray on July 27, 2010 at 11:07 PM
How to thwart the will of the people, and throw the electoral college out the window, using as a tool the legislatures of fewer than half the states in the country.
As I’m wont to say:
Sometimes I think it’s the gyroscopic motion of all the dead patriots buried in Massachusetts spinning in their graves that keeps the planet aligned on its axis.
Bruce MacMahon on July 27, 2010 at 11:09 PM
Also, this could keep people away form the polls and allow local issues to be passed with fewer votes and much less opposition at the polls, meaning the unions stay organized and get the vote out. Anything they want, they can get.
Bruce MacMahon on July 27, 2010 at 11:11 PM
What happens if no one gets a majority of the vote like in 1996 or 1992? Is it just plurality? What if we get an election that looks like 1824 or 1860?
There’s a reason we have the damn electoral college and the procedures to ensure that the majority of the people, or at least their states, are represented.
cpaulus on July 27, 2010 at 11:13 PM
Massholes will be for this law until it works against them. Just like they were with the senate pick.
Caper29 on July 27, 2010 at 11:16 PM
And to think if they never changed the law in the first place there’d be 2 Democrat senators from Massachusetts right now. Funny how things work out.
Dave_d on July 27, 2010 at 11:19 PM
A popular vote nation wide would be very convenient if by chance millions of new voters were added via amnesty, no? Just a thought.
Alinsky on July 27, 2010 at 11:23 PM
While it’s hard to do, one can win the Presidency without winning the popular vote. John Q. Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Cleveland, and Bush 43 all did it. That’s not a tiny percentage. I think we’ve had 55 Presidential elections, so that makes up 7.2% of all elections.
PurpleWombats on July 27, 2010 at 11:24 PM
So now the politicians can only focus on the urban highly dense areas and just forget about those damn ‘southerners’ and Midwestern little towns.
It would seem to only be an issue of blue loosing blue votes, but in the long run it’s more about the minority bloc’s expanding baby populations – got 5 baby’s? poor? illegal? and on government support? …hell, start counting the votes now!
Might as well as get rid of the Senate too, while their at it.
Joek7132 on July 27, 2010 at 11:29 PM
I like it in blue states. McGovern only got 17 electoral votes when Nixon trounced him….. this move would have left him with 3. They sould re-think this one as they never vote Republican for President. Next time, they will.
CC
CapedConservative on July 27, 2010 at 11:34 PM
Well, until they come up with a new rule to forestall such a revoltin’ development.
ddrintn on July 27, 2010 at 11:39 PM
We need a new constitutional amendment – the prevention of cowflop officeholders amendment.
It would require proof of minimum sanity levels PRIOR to taking the oath of office.
platypus on July 27, 2010 at 11:46 PM
The “Fly-Over” States will truly be irrelevant if the country goes this route. ONLY Urban areas and high-population States will get any attention.
It’s getting on time to re-take this country. November 2010 will indicate HOW we re-take it.
Justrand on July 27, 2010 at 11:47 PM
Correct!
If Massachusetts had this law in force in 2004, by law they would have to give their Electoral College votes to the national popular vote winner, Chimpy Bush.
And I bet if you went back in time and applied the same law to other elections, you might be surprised. They would have also elected Reagan, and Nixon.
“Mission Accomplished!”
Del Dolemonte on July 27, 2010 at 11:50 PM
And don’t forget, you can still win the presidency with less than 50% of people voting for you. Ask Bill Clinton.
Del Dolemonte on July 27, 2010 at 11:55 PM
Mob Rule circumvention. This will enhance and compliment the atrocious 19th Amendment. States rights will be more severely hampered and a virtual disconnect between Federal power and state power will result. Control the message control the elections. State legislatures will be marginalized even more.
A Constitutional republic no more.
Egfrow on July 28, 2010 at 12:14 AM
Ah, so what are the odds Massachusetts becomes a “Red State” in ’12?
Sekhmet on July 28, 2010 at 12:20 AM
The constitution carefully avoided the “tyranny of the majority,” both in terms of states and of people.
Making Senators elected by popular vote was a blow against that, and so is this.
The left wants the popular vote to count more than it does because they have more power in dense urban areas.
If they can elect people and pass laws by a bare majority of the whole, there’s little limit on the idiocy they can pull off.
We might as well go the UK path and allow Congress to amend the Constitution by bare majority with no state input (metaphorically – they obviously don’t have states).
People can be so dumb.
Merovign on July 28, 2010 at 12:26 AM
That’s the big upside to this… increased voter apathy in the One Party state. The more those giggly Obamasoxer chowderheads stay away from the polls the better.
miles on July 28, 2010 at 12:31 AM
All part of the effort to subvert the Electoral College.
A marxist CA professor came up with the idea, and it’s been gettign pimped hard to the oath-breaking marxicrat whores in the most-populous states.
Subverted Feds won’t try to stop it.
Ignorant people won’t stop it.
The people who are supposed to be serving US won’t stop it.
‘Innovator Devises Way Around Electoral College’
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/us/politics/22electoral.html
What are YOU going to do to stop it?
rayra on July 28, 2010 at 12:41 AM
Because it is conditional on other states doing the same, I think it’s very likely unconstitutional:
Off topic, but that clause also allows that states can engage in war without consent of Congress if they’re being invaded (or are in imminent danger of it). Couldn’t AZ just declare it’s being invaded and engage in “war” with Mexico?
edshepp on July 28, 2010 at 12:41 AM
Gore’s popular vote margin over Bush in 2000 was greater in Southern California than his national popular vote margin. Think about that.
The framers put the Electoral College in place to specifically rectify the problem of large population areas — LA, NYC, Boston, etc. — from lording over the rural areas. It is a brilliant mathematical system based on a philosophy called “the wisdom of the yeoman farmer”, which means they felt salt of the earth rural folks are less prone to being swayed by sweet talking demigods and having corrupt political machines. And they weighted the Electoral College accordingly.
Massachusetts is leading the way toward a system where less populace states are ignored by national politicians, who will instead spend far more time wooing Los Angeles voters.
miles on July 28, 2010 at 12:44 AM
Don’t the idjuts in Massachusetts realize that they just voted away their SOVEREIGNTY?
People won’t have to vote anymore – and they’ve just given up their right to differ with the rest of the country.
Massachusetts and the other few states that have done this have decided to let the other 45 or so states call the shots for them.
Worse, if the people of Massachusetts vote against a candidate, but this law then throws their votes to the candidate they voted against, who then goes on to win due to the Massachusetts votes, you have a bona fide case of taxation without representation – because they did not vote for the man the electors elected!
Again, if the majority vote one way, and then their votes are thrown the other way, by definition they ARE NOT REPRESENTED!
If I lived in Massachusetts, it would be time for a full-scale, no-holds-barred revolt. First order of business would be to form a statewide coalition of angry voters and stop paying all taxes.
Those who voted for this just crossed a bright line into subversion of the Constitution and became domestic enemies of the United States of America.
The oldest vets fought in WWII for freedom and just lost the right to vote their choice!
cane_loader on July 28, 2010 at 12:44 AM
Umm this is dumb. Instead of some larger states having “undue influence,” this idea would mean that cities would have undue influence, and no one would take into consideration what rural voters cared about…just campaign where all the people are, and to hell with the outlying areas!
TheBlueSite on July 28, 2010 at 1:15 AM
If anything of the electoral college needs to be changed, it needs to be reconstrued based on the fact that states at the beginning of this Republic were tantamount to Congressional Districts now.
I would be all in favor of a push back against the “popular vote” types to give each Congressional District an elector that votes based solely on the popular vote in their district.
This would actually throw the power back in to the rural areas. How long have those of us who live in blue states where our own areas vote red been disenfranchised?
How about some push back by red and purple states changing the status of their electors from going for popular vote of the state to each one representing popular vote of their respective Congressional Districts???
Of course, the 2 electors apportioned to State Senators would go to popular vote of the State; however, the rest of the state’s electors would represent each CD.
Revolutionary? No – just bringing this back in line to represent the people without shredding the Constitution or the Republic.
Greyledge Gal on July 28, 2010 at 1:36 AM
Jeez – just spent 5 minutes on a post that disappeared. OK –
Electors need to be changed to represent popular vote of each Congressional District which brings power back to rural/suburban areas. The 2 State Senator electors would still go for state popular votes, but the rest of the electors in a state would each go to the winner of the CD.
How about getting some red and purple states to pass this law?
Greyledge Gal on July 28, 2010 at 1:39 AM
Allwways Late.
Has anybody been keeping track of the tiny town of Bell, CA? Seems in 2005 a special election was held, the day after Thanksgiving and by less than 400 votes (of 10,000 registered), Bell became a charter city. They could write their own laws.
Fast forward to 2010 and the city manager (of 38K citizens) makes almost $800K /year, the police chief $400K and an assistant $360K. Plus 4/5 city councilors get $100+K.
The town is $140M in debt. Has laid off productive folks. But the graft grows.
Don’t yet know where this fraud ends. But it sure is interesting.
Caststeel on July 28, 2010 at 1:47 AM
Caststeel – Apparently all the folks in bell have reduced their salaries by 90% after citizen revolts.
The mayor will now serve without salary and he will not run again, so he says. Big change from a few days ago when the mayor was saying that the town gave good services and you had to pay for good services, huh? :)
The peeps can win – just keep it civil protest and not violent.
Greyledge Gal on July 28, 2010 at 1:50 AM
Awwww.
The comparison is between MA bypassing the electoral college and Bell holding a fraudulent election to develop greater fraud. This is what socialists do.
One of these days …
Caststeel on July 28, 2010 at 1:52 AM
It is barely begun. The typical frauds are visible but it is spreading to neighboring towns. CALPERS, Burbank, Reseda and others are involved. KFI/John & Ken is doing a yeoman service here.
Sweetest is that Jerry Brown and Steve Cooley are both on it. in an election year!!
Caststeel on July 28, 2010 at 1:58 AM
The point is they’re basically wanting to get rid of the electoral college, so they’re doing an end run.
ButterflyDragon on July 28, 2010 at 2:09 AM
Oh, my Goodness. What a nightmare that would be- a national recount of _all_ votes everywhere for months. :/
Theophile on July 28, 2010 at 2:11 AM
Early Alzheimers.
I forgot to mention all the fraudsters are O’rats.
Amazing how easy it is to connect a few small town grafters to POTUS. Now to pull the string and see what happens.
The “Pots and Pans Bangers” at KFI do not rest. After all, that’s how they make their, and their station money. And they are good. “Heads on a Stick” is their schtick. And now in Espanol.
It’s almost fun to be in CA, sometimes.
Caststeel on July 28, 2010 at 2:17 AM
It’s even worse than that. The truth is, we don’t really know that Gore won the popular vote, because once the state went for Gore or Bush, there was no need to count every last vote.
In 2000, some of the 20 states that Gore won didn’t even count all their absentee ballots, because the margin of victory for Gore was bigger than the remaining ballots to be counted. So even if every absentee ballot had been meant for Bush, Gore would have still won the state. In our current system, it made no sense to go to the expense of counting those last ballots.
Since the popular vote margin for Gore was only about 500,000 nationwide, it’s entirely possible that Bush would have won the popular vote if every ballot had been counted.
We’ll never know, because the popular vote just didn’t matter!
There Goes The Neighborhood on July 28, 2010 at 2:27 AM
Think it through, people: Voter fraud consists of ADDING fake votes to the tally. This law will benefit whichever party is planning to cheat the most.
There is no way ACORN or anyone else can possibly coordinate enough goons to take over 3.5 million square miles. This way, all they need to do is really, really go crazy in a few of the most densely populated urban areas. Then they take the whole enchilada, no matter what happens in the other 99.9% of the country.
logis on July 28, 2010 at 2:39 AM
Absolutely right Butterfy Dragon (Welsh flag?) America is indeed well constructed. The socialists must bypass all Constitutionally established procedures or they fail.
Aeronautical engineering has the concept of stability in flight. A control movement or outside disturbance is canceled by a return to stable flight.
The Founders had a similar political concept in mind. A disturbance or control disruption could return to a stable country. Only total destruction of our Constitution will destroy the country.
The socialists must destroy all law. Small problem; anarchy is a natural enemy of socialism or even any organization. E.g. Somalia.
Just like conservatives, socialists are constrained by results of action. Unlike conservatives (who have historical president as a guide, socialist know it all. Poor darlings.
Caststeel on July 28, 2010 at 2:39 AM
Stupid lawmakers make stupid laws. Massachusetts lawmakers go beyond stupid, past idiotic, from the ridiculous to the sublime.
`
`
The fact is that states have no power to force Electors even to vote for the candidate for whom they were elected. How will they magically acquire the power to force Electors for vote for someone else?
`
`
The Electors for each candidate are selected on the basis of proven loyalty for just this reason. Would a McCain or Obama loyal Elector cast his vote for the other guy just because the state tells him to, when they have no enforcement authority? No, this is just more stupid leftists thinking up stupid ideas to grab power they should not have.
Adjoran on July 28, 2010 at 2:52 AM
You’re mostly right but fools are so ingenious. As the Bell example shows, an unannounced election works, too. Fraud has way too many manifestations to consider just one way. Freedom must constantly be guarded.
The way it works is that there are the charlatans and the gullible. Just like criminals are c.1%, charlatans are 1/2% and gullible are 30% – 40% of the population. It will never change.
Constant awareness and challenge are what America needs. The present is but another eruption, a pimple.
Keep the focus on Constitution, small government, and low taxes and the country will survive into the next crisis.
Caststeel on July 28, 2010 at 2:56 AM
I love how our intrepid Allahpundit blows this off as no big deal.
This is a big f’ing deal. This is the first stage of massive election stealing.
Allah is too dumb to realize these people plan generations ahead. Those pushing this may all be dead before it happens, but they’ll go to their graves knowing they did their part to move it along.
Sad ….
gary4205 on July 28, 2010 at 3:03 AM
These are the same corrupt morons that has serially elected House Speakers that have gone/will go to prison on corruption charges, and tried to rig then re-rig election law to ensure that Teddy’s Senate seat would be forever in the hands of Democrats.
Ask Scott Brown how that worked out for them.
Note well that we elected Reagan, twice.
These nutcases could very well have handed a bunch of electoral votes to the Arctic Fox.
turfmann on July 28, 2010 at 5:08 AM
true dat…
massachusetts, the flip flop state….
would make a nice license plate, yeah?
cmsinaz on July 28, 2010 at 6:10 AM
Nonsense, allah; it’s happened four times in 55 presidential elections, better than a one in 14 chance. That’s beyond the probaility where one can say it’s small odds.
radjah shelduck on July 28, 2010 at 6:15 AM
This means that the state count could then be 50-0 instead of 49-1 in 2012 for the non-commie candidate.
curved space on July 28, 2010 at 6:31 AM
The first time a Republican wins the national vote, this will be repealed…
right2bright on July 28, 2010 at 7:15 AM
I am glad to see that the Old Bay State wants to erase retroactively its electoral vote in 1972 for George McGovern. Nothing should make Massachusetts Democrats happier than knowing that they now can prevent their state from the shame of being citizens of the only state not to vote for Richard Nixon. Massachusetts Democrats have hung their heads in shame for too many decades over their foolish vote for McGovern.
Kidding aside, the motivation of this bill is revenge on George W. Bush for his election over Al Gore. But what makes Massachusetts Democrats think that a Democrat who carries Massachusetts and enough other states to be elected in the Electoral College will never lose the popular vote?
ddh on July 28, 2010 at 7:18 AM
The law of ‘unintended consequences’ stikes again.
We have ‘sugar free’ soda, ‘sugar free’ gum, ‘lead free’ gasoline, ‘lead free’ paint, but there will never be ‘consequence free’ stupidity.
listens2glenn on July 28, 2010 at 7:28 AM
I’m just surprised Illinois didn’t do this first. I mean, when it comes to political corruption on an epic scale, Illinois is #1 in that regard, bar none!
pilamaye on July 28, 2010 at 7:48 AM
Why do Democrats hate the Constitution so much?
angryed on July 28, 2010 at 9:00 AM
Amnesty, and ACORN fraud, and race-baiting to frighten black voters, and lawsuits to keep polls open until midnight, and throwing away military votes, and letting felons in prison cast absentee ballots……the possibilities are endless. Just imagine how much hoo-ha there will be over those “provisional ballots” if only the popular vote matters. It will be the fulfillment of Wade Rathke’s dream of flooding the polls with invalid voters and overwhelming the system so that no election is provably fair. That way any time a Republican actually wins the “progressives” will scream that they stole the election and say they have the “right” to stop them from undoing the progressive ruination of our government and private institutions.
These people really are trying to steal our Republic and destroy it from within.
rockmom on July 28, 2010 at 9:11 AM
Do you even have to ask? It’s all that prevents them from a Chavez-style takeover and dictatorship here in America. They want to destroy our Republican form of government so that the “takers” become a permanent governing majority and the “producers” are tyrannized.
rockmom on July 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM
Pretty soon we won’t need to have elections. It will just be decided for us.
Kissmygrits on July 28, 2010 at 9:22 AM
The brilliant Founders who designed the Electoral College came up with a formula of popular vote + land mass. Look at the Bush-Gore map and you’ll see that Bush won a vastly greater amount of the country in terms of geographic area. And it is impossible for an EC win to come out the other way around (i.e. a candidate only winning big cities).
This was done because the Electoral College only plays a role in determining razor thin elections (something like one percent differential of the popular vote or less), which the Founders looked at as a tie and the EC as a tiebreaker. The reason it is weighted toward rural areas is they knew whoever ended up governing after such a contentious election would need broader geographical support to maintain order. And how did they know it would be a contentious time of political unrest? Because the election was a tie!
miles on July 28, 2010 at 9:46 AM
AP —
You’re missing the bigger picture here. Right now, the massive (and it is massive) urban voter fraud by Dems is largely contained within the electoral boundaries of the states. If this passes, the Democrats who votes 16x in Chicago is directly affecting GOP voters in Utah and Texas.
That’s why they’re pushing this — it means the GOP will never again win a close Presidential election, because the corrupt precinct heads will manufacture enough votes to win.
TallDave on July 28, 2010 at 9:50 AM
That’s true, of course it just means the only way we vote Republican is if the Democrat hasn’t got a prayer of winning the election. (For those that care Reagan beat Carter here by 3892 votes. Yes, it was really that close.) If there’s any chance the Dem might win we vote Dem. (So our vote pretty much hasn’t counted in decades.)
Dave_d on July 28, 2010 at 9:56 AM
Which is exactly why the Electoral College was formed. The founders of this country didn’t want just the most populous parts of the country deciding who won the election.
Reagan won Massachusetts outright in ’80 and ’84. He wouldn’t have needed this law. Is everyone so young here that they don’t remember this?
slug on July 28, 2010 at 10:06 AM
The first time these laws force liberals to vote Republican, they’ll be abolished.
JohnJ on July 28, 2010 at 10:08 AM
No worry here, Taxachusetts will quickly repeal this in October 2012 when when Sarah-Newt poll to win a majority vote over Barack-Hillary and the Presidency, but Barack-Hillary would win the electoral process (and White House) if Mass votes for who wins Mass.
The real question is will Mass wait until after the vote to make the change to whatever favors the Dems winning the White House the most?
drfredc on July 28, 2010 at 10:48 AM
Liberals love the WORD “Constitution” because, as they understand that term, it means giving the central government unlimited power, so it can keep as all free.
What liberals hate with a passion is the concept of a Constitutional form of government. Because any limitation on the power of the central authority is a limitation on how much of their good intentions they can impose on the productive members of society.
logis on July 28, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Ironically, passed without a vote of the people of Massachusetts.
Pablo Snooze on July 28, 2010 at 12:33 PM
I think Allah underestimates the dead seriousness of this…
Not only has the MA legislature advanced the mindset of full central authority by voluntarily giving away State sovereignty, but they may have found a way to commit voter fraud at an even higher level, and therefore undermine our Constitutional Republic.
With the current system, rampant voter fraud can be contained within a state. But if enough states pass this “winner takes all” approach, voter fraud can now have the possibility of influencing national elections and will no longer be contained by state electors.
And I wouldn’t say that the 270 point threshold is a limiting factor either since only liberal states are even considering this law.
In effect, if enough liberal states enact this law, it allows them to collude through (a refusal to prosecute) national voter fraud to control the Federal Government and circumvent our Constitutional Republic’s elections.
You may think I’ve gone off into conspiracy territory, but please show me one case where liberal state officials have chosen to prosecute electoral fraud. I can’t think of any.
dominigan on July 28, 2010 at 12:42 PM
I just noticed we seem to be on the same page. I just worry that suddenly other liberal states will see the light, and then we’ll have a major problem…
dominigan on July 28, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Well this is good. No longer will anyone anywhere ever need to campaign in MA.
Swaying the voters specifically in MA makes no difference, has no effect on the outcome, and is generally meaningless. Now there are only 49 states worth focusing on… definitely working to simplify the process.
gekkobear on July 28, 2010 at 1:33 PM
I just don’t see it as much of a problem. Only the liberal states want it.
So, there’s two scenarios: 1) A Dem wins popular vote – nothing changes in these states; or 2) A Republican wins popular vote, but not in these states (’cause they probably wouldn’t) – then these states would have to fork over their electoral votes making the Repub win stronger.
What was someone saying about unintended consequences?
Pablo Snooze on July 28, 2010 at 1:37 PM
Oh, Lord, can you imagine the hilarity if the blue and purple states had done this after 2000?
In 2004, we were all up late to learn whether Bush would take Ohio and thereby beat Kerry. If this law had been on the books, we would have had the joy of listening to commentators explain: “While a Kerry victory in Ohio would seem at first glance to tip the election to him, a little-noticed vote in the Massachusetts legislature will in that event redirect that state’s electoral votes to George W. Bush, the leader in the national popular vote.”
Imagine the joy of watching MA legislators explain to their state how their buffoonery cost their favorite son candidate the presidency.
Stupidity knows no bounds.
Chuckles3 on July 28, 2010 at 5:13 PM
Sweet Electoral Justice………The DOTUS wins Mass by 15 pts in 2012……..Palin wins Popular vote but only about 260 Electoral votes, but because she wins National Popular vote the Electors from Mass are bound to vote for the Hillbilly from Wasilly.
Thanks Hahvuhd!!!
PappyD61 on July 28, 2010 at 5:31 PM
I recall Scott Brown’s famous line “it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat” -
You get the point.
diogenes on July 28, 2010 at 10:24 PM
In 1995, the Supreme Court, in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, ruled that states could not place term limits on Federal elected officials (i.e. US Senators & Reps) because the Federal Constitution gives no such restrictions. The same logic could be used to throw out this law.
Seabecker on July 29, 2010 at 1:07 AM
Mass is already banking on 30 million new Los Voters to close any gaps.
Alden Pyle on July 29, 2010 at 7:20 AM
The problem with this is that the “urban areas and high-population States” that the Corruptocrats control are rapidly becoming depopulated. People have been voting with their feet and have been (and still are) leaving Corruptocrat strongholds like New York, California, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, etc. because the excessive taxation and agenda driven regulations are driving them out. Once those people get away from these things many of these people realize how just how destructive the liberal/leftist policies are not only to them but to their employers and start to change their outlook and attitudes from being a supporter of big government and leftist policies to someone that their former dyed in the wool Democrat neighbors in LA, NYC or Chicago would call a “racist reich whinger”.
I have seen it happen over and over again where I live-it seems to take on average about two years for the change to become evident. They arrive here with their Obama or Kerry for President bumperstickers on their cars and they spout the Democrat party line then over time the bumperstickers disappear and they, quietly at first, admit that they were wrong. They drop their subscriptions to the NYT that they were so proud of having so they could “stay informed”, stop watching MSNBC, stop advocating the formation of unions at their workplaces and quietly admit that actually have started listening to Rush but also admit that he is right about alot of stuff.
It does not happen with all who move from the bleu state gulags but it happens enough that even the Democrats illegal immigrant “new voters” will not even out the change in attitude.
Nahanni on July 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM
Votes are property of voters, not politicians. They may not be “assigned” to anyone, and especially not to a politician whom the voters did not choose.
This is just more glorified vote fraud by liberals.
Noel on July 29, 2010 at 6:37 PM
We’re getting close to a peaceful resolve to some of this nonsense. One poster mentions that Mass. voters need not vote if they are going to give the electorals based on the National total. They just disenfranchised anyone in Mass. that votes. SO go to all other 49 states and ring up millions of fake votes for the Dems, and bingo. Gee, also, why did they wait until Kennedy died to do this?
johnnyU on July 29, 2010 at 7:50 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2