Jul 28 2010

MA Voters Lose Right To Select President

Published by at 10:25 am under All General Discussions

As if we need to see any more whacky, stupid liberal ideas this year, but this latest one takes the cake:

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 [Massachusetts'] electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

So why vote for President in MA if your vote won’t count? Why even pretend, when the state will just ignore the will of its people and let the rest of the nation decide? Dumb, dumber and dumbest. MA just decided its people not need to vote for President anymore.

12 responses so far

12 Responses to “MA Voters Lose Right To Select President”

  1. WWS says:

    Parts of this country truly is an Idiocracy – do these people honestly think that a Republican will never win the popular vote again? And yet consider the outrage in Mass. during the next election when Mass. is required to give it’s votes to the Republican, even when the state has voted for the Democrat.

    Imagine the federal voting rights lawsuits coming out of that! A State legislature can’t vote itself the power to simply ignore the votes of the populace!

    And this is blatantly unconstitutional in so many ways – forget about how it is trying to amend the Constitution through a back door and just look at this:

    Article 1, Section 10: “No State shall, without the consent of Congress… enter into any agreement or Compact with any other State.”

    That pretty much nails it right there.

    btw – not a surpise the Fed. judge agreed with Obama on immigration, they had shopped the forum to guarantee that result. The real game will be when this gets to the Supremes.

  2. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Free To Prosper, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: MA Voters Lose Right To Select President http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/13815 [...]

  3. Mike M. says:

    Considering the track record of MA voters, the question might rather be whether they should be allowed to vote for any elective office. Any state that would repeatedly elect a Barney Frank or a Ted Kennedy needs to tighten its voting requirements.

  4. Paul from Boston says:

    Finally, my Republican vote will count!

    This is perfectly Constitutional as I read it. Article II, Section1. paragraph 2

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature 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:

    I’d rather that they give an Elector to the winner of each Congressional District and the two “Senatorial Electors” to the winner of the overall majority. Makes it harder to cheat. But what do you expect of a legislature that is about to have the fourth Speaker in a row under indictment by the Feds for criminal activity?

    Mike M. You left out Gerry Studds who committed statutory rape by having homosexual sex with an underage Congressional page. He was subsquently re-elected, despite censure by the House, until he died in office, about 20 years later.

  5. Paul from Boston says:

    My bad, I didn’t read the news articles about this.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/27/massachusetts-passes-bill-awarding-electoral-votes-to-winner-of-national-popular-vote/

    “The law only goes into effect if/when states accounting for 270 combined electoral votes pass this same bill”

    So it does violate Article I, Section 10

  6. [...] thefts of student food? – hotair.com 07/28/2010 Poaching on poverty programs. more… MA Voters Lose Right To Select President – strata-sphere.com 07/28/2010 As if we need to see any more whacky, stupid liberal ideas [...]

  7. Frogg1 says:

    There are five other states that have approved this. IL, NJ, HI, MD, and WA. Looks to me like they have about 73 electoral votes so far. Also, looks to me like they are all blue states that would normally vote Democrat. I just don’t see many other states wanting to get in on this deal.

  8. Rick C says:

    Paul, this is a crazy idea and depends on trusting of all the other states in the agreement. First, no legislature can bind a future legislature. So, unless it is in the state constitution, it can be changed quickly. So, here is the example. Massachusetts narrowly votes, say 50.5-49.5 for the Democratic candidate. But, the Republican narrowly wins the popular vote, but loses what should be the electoral vote. Then, after about 6 months of recounts in each state, we get to the actual electoral balloting.

    You may remember, just prior to the Bush-Gore electoral balloting, there were serious efforts to flip some pledged electoral votes. So, what happens now? How much pressure will there be on the Massachusetts legislature to honor its citizens votes? I suspect a huge amount. In fact, I would bet, politics being politics, the legislature would flip and authorize the states electoral votes go to the Democrat. That would be the end of that little compact. Who wants to be in a compact when the agreement is only dependent on how the state feels that year?

  9. lurker9876 says:

    I hope that the rest of the states will never go for NPV.

    As I understand Judge Bolton’s ruling is that this is a temporary and an injunction pending some court’s ruling.

    I hope that Arizona will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

    I understand that the mainstream media is touting this a Obama win.

    A strange interpretation of a victory when it is temporary and an injunction based on specious argument.

    Had Bolton put a hold on the entire bill, I would agree that it is a Obama victory.

    But the fact that Bolton found most parts of the bill constitutional makes it easier for Arizona to limit its focus on the parts that Bolton put a hold on.

    So in the long term, this may actually be a victory for Arizona.

  10. lurker9876 says:

    Rick C, don’t forget how Al Franken was able to influence the outcome towards a win to his name.

    And now there’s efforts by DoJ to either NOT count the overseas military votes or come up with cumbersome process so that those votes arrived “late” or something.

    These Democrats are going to find ways to influence the elections…much like Chavez’s elections…Iranian elections, too.

    The only way to beat them are landslide elections.

  11. WWS says:

    “The only way to beat them are landslide elections.”

    There’s another way, but let’s hope we don’t have to go there. Let’s try elections first.

    Btw, Franken’s just a puppet who’s willing to read whatever script is put in front of him (just like the Resident) Don’t credit him with actually knowing anything about how he was put in power. He’s there solely because he’s absolutely loyal to his paymasters, who are the real problem, and the real enemy.

    These are the people who know that a weak and chaotic US, collapsing in on itself, is going to be extremely profitable for their international operations. That’s who’s calling the shots with those they’ve put in power, and that’s the only true goal.

  12. OregonGuy says:

    Oregon has also passed this law.

    Brilliant.
    .