The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Massachusetts, Purveyor Of Fine Bollocks

Posted on | July 27, 2010 | 27 Comments

by Smitty (h/t Drudge)

Boston.com reports that the Massachusetts legislature is going in through the out door again, passing a law to ignore the will of their people, and instead just give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner nation wide.

But Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was “tried and true” since the founding of the country.
. . .
Tisei also criticized the proponents for not following the normal procedures to seek a constitutional amendment.

“The thing about this that bothers me the most is it’s so sneaky. This is the way that liberals do things a lot of times, very sneaky,” he said. “This is sort of an end run around the Constitution.”

Abso-effing-lutely. This is what Article Five is about. Understood, there seems to be a psychological joy, which some find, in taking words to mean whatever they wish. Hence the Commerce Clause becoming the Constitution over the last century. Hence the “judicial deference” doctrine, where Congress can emote whatever it wishes, and We The People get to watch the 14-ish trillion dollar debt pile up due to Federal over-reach.

Does this state even merit the privilege of having the USS Constitution moored in Charlestown?

One hopes the American people grasp that this is one more step down the path of collapse into tyranny. Possibly not a big one, but a step nonetheless, and unlikely to gain much traction in Virginia.

Update: The Corner points out that

As in other states where this measure has been passed, it will not take effect unless and until enough states adopt the measure to give it teeth. From Article III of the bill:

“This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state [i.e., states having passed similar acts] in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes.”

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • jaa1169

    So, Massachusetts is basically bending over and enticingly showing their as**s! (the rest of the country can tell us what we want) Amazing. I am all for state’s rights, and your right as a state to do this, but you are blatantly and stupidly robbing your constituents. I hope all reps voting for this are not re-elected, and are forced to live in their parent’s basements.

  • jaa1169

    So, Massachusetts is basically bending over and enticingly showing their as**s! (the rest of the country can tell us what we want) Amazing. I am all for state’s rights, and your right as a state to do this, but you are blatantly and stupidly robbing your constituents. I hope all reps voting for this are not re-elected, and are forced to live in their parent’s basements.

  • Pingback: A sneaky unconstitutional threat to your vote | Zingstrom's Blog

  • Aruges

    How might we challenge this in court? Do we have to wait for enough states to enact similar laws and then have an election in order for there to be “damages”? In the vast majority of US presidential elections, the Popular Vote and the EC results produced the same results, so would we also need that election to also be close like the 2000 election so there would be a different result between the to methods, and therefore “damages”?

  • Aruges

    How might we challenge this in court? Do we have to wait for enough states to enact similar laws and then have an election in order for there to be “damages”? In the vast majority of US presidential elections, the Popular Vote and the EC results produced the same results, so would we also need that election to also be close like the 2000 election so there would be a different result between the to methods, and therefore “damages”?

  • Pingback: Massachusetts disenfranchises their voters « DaTechguy's Blog

  • http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

    I prefer the electoral college — it’s a lot more fun. But it doesn’t matter _that_ much to the result.

    My one major problem with this is, well, when people do sketchy things, it matters only in a small number of cases. Now it’ll always matter.

    Think of a 1960-style election, in which the difference was 118,000 votes — or which Nixon won, if you don’t count the Byrd slate votes for JFK. It’d've been a giant mess, rather than just a Chicago/Texas mess.

  • http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

    I prefer the electoral college — it’s a lot more fun. But it doesn’t matter _that_ much to the result.

    My one major problem with this is, well, when people do sketchy things, it matters only in a small number of cases. Now it’ll always matter.

    Think of a 1960-style election, in which the difference was 118,000 votes — or which Nixon won, if you don’t count the Byrd slate votes for JFK. It’d've been a giant mess, rather than just a Chicago/Texas mess.

  • Bill S.

    Bloody lovely. It isn’t bad enough that MA legislators blatantly flip-flop on procedures (taking whatever position most likely to benefit Democrats), or that Massachusetts Supreme Court Judge Margaret Marshal has no problem quoting laws of OTHER NATIONS in her decisions, but now there is this.

    I think the part that angers me most about this is most in MA won’t care enough to act on it.

  • Bill S.

    Bloody lovely. It isn’t bad enough that MA legislators blatantly flip-flop on procedures (taking whatever position most likely to benefit Democrats), or that Massachusetts Supreme Court Judge Margaret Marshal has no problem quoting laws of OTHER NATIONS in her decisions, but now there is this.

    I think the part that angers me most about this is most in MA won’t care enough to act on it.

  • gahrie

    If it ever came down to an election that mattered, it wouldn’t matter anyway, because members of the Electoral College can vote for whoever they want, regardless of how the actual vote went.

  • gahrie

    If it ever came down to an election that mattered, it wouldn’t matter anyway, because members of the Electoral College can vote for whoever they want, regardless of how the actual vote went.

  • Pingback: Massachusetts Legislature has No Use for the Electoral College :: The Lonely Conservative

  • http://pointofagun.blogspot.com/ Dave C

    From the link to the Corner:

    Which means Massachusetts could realistically go Republican in 2012. .

    Which will put the legislator on the fast track to reverse the measure..

  • http://pointofagun.blogspot.com/ Dave C

    From the link to the Corner:

    Which means Massachusetts could realistically go Republican in 2012. .

    Which will put the legislator on the fast track to reverse the measure..

  • gadfly

    As Don Surber points out:

    “Look for Massachusetts to abandon this goofy law in 2012 when its 12 Electoral Votes* go to Republican Sarah Palin.”

  • http:/hergadfly.blogspot.com/ gadfly

    As Don Surber points out:

    “Look for Massachusetts to abandon this goofy law in 2012 when its 12 Electoral Votes* go to Republican Sarah Palin.”

  • http://americanglob.com Aleister

    Awesome post, Smitty.

    I echoed your sentiments here:

    http://tinyurl.com/24324gj

    -Aleister

  • http://americanglob.com Aleister

    Awesome post, Smitty.

    I echoed your sentiments here:

    http://tinyurl.com/24324gj

    -Aleister

  • Estragon

    gahrie has it right. States don’t even have the power to force Electors to vote for the candidate for whom they were elected to vote – under what drug-addled fantasy does MA think they can force the Electors to vote for someone ELSE?

  • Estragon

    gahrie has it right. States don’t even have the power to force Electors to vote for the candidate for whom they were elected to vote – under what drug-addled fantasy does MA think they can force the Electors to vote for someone ELSE?

  • Pingback: Massachussets Approves Electoral College Bypass

  • Chris

    There is a simple way to put an end to this. If one moderately-to-large size declares the following, this will collapse:

    1. The popular vote count is used in the state, as today, to determine electors.
    2. The secretary of state does not however publish that vote count as certified. Let’s call it the confirmed vote count.
    3. The secretary of state will then certify that the confirmed vote winner won 100% of the votes.

    With a good sized state, you are looking at several million votes going exclusively to one candidate. Unless the election is a complete blow-out, that state will dictate the popular vote winner and thus dictate all of the elector votes for all of the other states. Ah, it’s good to be king-maker.

  • Chris

    There is a simple way to put an end to this. If one moderately-to-large size declares the following, this will collapse:

    1. The popular vote count is used in the state, as today, to determine electors.
    2. The secretary of state does not however publish that vote count as certified. Let’s call it the confirmed vote count.
    3. The secretary of state will then certify that the confirmed vote winner won 100% of the votes.

    With a good sized state, you are looking at several million votes going exclusively to one candidate. Unless the election is a complete blow-out, that state will dictate the popular vote winner and thus dictate all of the elector votes for all of the other states. Ah, it’s good to be king-maker.

  • http://www.medary.com filbert

    Does not the Constitution guarantee to all of the states a republican form of government? Republicanism in this case being the right of the people of each State to choose their own electors to the Electoral College?

    Does this state statute not violate the concept of republicanism in favor of democracy?

    Seems to me that you could build a civil-rights violation case out of this if you used the right words in the right order in front of the right judge . . .

  • http://www.medary.com filbert

    Does not the Constitution guarantee to all of the states a republican form of government? Republicanism in this case being the right of the people of each State to choose their own electors to the Electoral College?

    Does this state statute not violate the concept of republicanism in favor of democracy?

    Seems to me that you could build a civil-rights violation case out of this if you used the right words in the right order in front of the right judge . . .

  • Pingback: What A Bunch Of College Dropouts! « Around The Sphere