Massachusetts Attempts To Nullify Their Citizens Votes In Presidential Elections

[nonlnear]

This thread brings the lulz. On the other hand, there is finally a Patranus thread that very nearly warrants a serious post. That's got to count for something!

 

[PokerGuy]

Once again, Patranus' thread title is inaccurate. Mass is not choosing to "nullify" the votes of its residents. It is choosing to forego the electoral college system (maintaining it in name only) and simply add the votes of its state to the national popular vote, which in turn will determine how its electors vote. Many people prefer that presidential elections be determined by popular vote so that we don't get a candidate losing the popular vote but winning the election (as in 2000.) Whatever the merits of Mass' position on this, they aren't nullifying the votes of their residents.

- wolf

They ARE essentially nullifying the votes of MA residents. Theoretically, EVERY SINGLE resident in MA could vote for candidate A, yet all the electoral votes for MA will go to candidate B. Tell me again how the voters in MA matter in that case?

Nobody said it's unconstitutional, nobody said MA can't do it. Just pointing out the obvious stupidity - obvious to all but the liberals of course.

 

[MotF Bane]

If every state did this, we'd finally have 1 person = 1 vote

Undermining the idea of a republic. If every state can agree to want the electoral college gone, there are methods to do it, this is not one of the correct forms.

Edit: Which is not to say that it is illegal, but why not just use the methods already outlined? Alternatively, it still brings back the point that up to perhaps 30 of the states' citizens (sorry, I'm not familiar with the exact population of all states) could choose one candidate, yet the votes still go elsewhere?

 

[Patranus]

Once again, Patranus' thread title is inaccurate. Mass is not choosing to "nullify" the votes of its residents. It is choosing to forego the electoral college system (maintaining it in name only) and simply add the votes of its state to the national popular vote, which in turn will determine how its electors vote. Many people prefer that presidential elections be determined by popular vote so that we don't get a candidate losing the popular vote but winning the election (as in 2000.) Whatever the merits of Mass' position on this, they aren't nullifying the votes of their residents.

- wolf

If the state votes one way and the popular vote is another way it most certainly nullifies the votes of the people in that state.

 

[sandorski]

Perhaps that they are still upset about Gore losing? Or to get this passed long before the next Presidential election cycle? Trying to influence the governor's race? Who knows.

I suspect that's a large part. Not necessarily because Gore lost specifically, but because he Won the National Popular Vote.

 

[MotF Bane]

I suspect that's a large part. Not necessarily because Gore lost specifically, but because he Won the National Popular Vote.

Fair enough.

 

[sandorski]

If the state votes one way and the popular vote is another way it most certainly nullifies the votes of the people in that state.

Negative. That isn't any more true than if one City Votes one way, but the rest of the State Votes another way that the City votes are nullified and somehow Illegitimate.

 

[child of wonder]

All this will do is cause voter turnout in Massachusetts to plummet.

What a stupid idea.

 

[Throckmorton]

Undermining the idea of a republic. If every state can agree to want the electoral college gone, there are methods to do it, this is not one of the correct forms.

Edit: Which is not to say that it is illegal, but why not just use the methods already outlined? Alternatively, it still brings back the point that up to perhaps 30 of the states' citizens (sorry, I'm not familiar with the exact population of all states) could choose one candidate, yet the votes still go elsewhere?

Republicanism doesn't mean you necessarily elect presidents with an electoral college. It means the Congress is made up of representatives.

The electoral college has huge huge drawbacks. Only a few swing states matter at all, in the rest of them, your vote literally doesn't count.

 

[Patranus]

I'm not up on electoral law, but isn't the electoral college a federal law, and if it is, is MA really allowed to change their method of voting?

Constitution.
It is left up to the state legislature to decide how the appropriate those votes.

Again, no one is saying the can't do it rather the stupidity in doing it.

 

[Capt Caveman]

If the state votes one way and the popular vote is another way it most certainly nullifies the votes of the people in that state.

You forgot that their votes go toward the national vote.

 

[PokerGuy]

You forgot that their votes go toward the national vote.

So if the national vote is for candidate B and every single person in MA voted for candidate A, their electoral votes go to candidate B. Essentially, their votes mean nothing.

 

[Throckmorton]

I think Patranus is right, it does nullify the votes of the people in Massachusetts. The amount your vote counts in MA is the amount it affects the total national vote, which is miniscule.

This is completely unfair unless every state passes the same law.

 

[Vette73]

All this will do is cause voter turnout in Massachusetts to plummet.

What a stupid idea.

Actually it could cause it to go up.

If you live in a HARD red/blue state and do not vote that way then you may stay home if the chance of it tunring toward your vote is small. Why vote if you know your state goes Purple and you vote Green. Or if it goes so hard green you know your vote will not matter as Green person will get the College votes.

But if you know your vote will add to the large pool and that is wht gets the college vote then you may vote.

 

[MotF Bane]

Actually it could cause it to go up.

If you live in a HARD red/blue state and do not vote that way then you may stay home if the chance of it tunring toward your vote is small. Why vote if you know your state goes Purple and you vote Green. Or if it goes so hard green you know your vote will not matter as Green person will get the College votes.

But if you know your vote will add to the large pool and that is wht gets the college vote then you may vote.

Interesting logic, but I'll go with the third and final option - voter turnout will remain effectively unchanged, due to a general ignorance of the populace; who may or may not know about the law change, or may not care at all regarding the new law, voting, or politics. Still, I like what you said.

 

[MotF Bane]

I think Patranus is right, it does nullify the votes of the people in Massachusetts. The amount your vote counts in MA is the amount it affects the total national vote, which is miniscule.

This is completely unfair unless every state passes the same law.

Then the states can inform Congress they want to hold a convention, hold such a convention, propose the change, and then ratify it. Good luck to them.

At that point, one can only hope that the voter will rise to the challenge - something I doubt very much.

 

[Capt Caveman]

So if the national vote is for candidate B and every single person in MA voted for candidate A, their electoral votes go to candidate B. Essentially, their votes mean nothing.

You mean like Al Gore?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Actually it could cause it to go up.

If you live in a HARD red/blue state and do not vote that way then you may stay home if the chance of it tunring toward your vote is small. Why vote if you know your state goes Purple and you vote Green. Or if it goes so hard green you know your vote will not matter as Green person will get the College votes.

But if you know your vote will add to the large pool and that is wht gets the college vote then you may vote.

Correct, I almost didn't vote last time b/c I knew Obama would win here. Now, every vote counts.

 

[boomerang]

Perhaps that they are still upset about Gore losing? Or to get this passed long before the next Presidential election cycle? Trying to influence the governor's race? Who knows.

As I said, I don't know. But it's a double edged sword.

I'd like to read more about this. I'd also like to hear how all these other states are considering this too and nothing has been heard about it until today.

 

[MotF Bane]

You mean like Al Gore?

Wherein Massachusetts voted for Gore by both popular and electoral votes. Your comparison missed the mark.

 

[Thump553]

I don't see this as a nullification at all. Right now national elections are decided by a handful of voters in "battleground" states. If this plan was adopted universally then the concerns of ALL voters would have to be better addressed rather than pandering to a relatively few voters in swing "battleground" states.

Great idea, but I think the chances of persuading all of the battleground states to join in is nill. And any battleground state that holds out will have even more disproportionate influence.

 

[woolfe9999]

Actually, it's fairly accurate. So, let's say Palin runs against Obama in '12. Obama will of course take MA, since it's MA. Palin takes 50% of the popular vote, Obama takes 49%, and 1% goes to other parties. Despite the fact that MA voted for Obama, the electoral votes go to the candidate that MA residents do not want. Do you see it now? It may or may not end up changing an outcome, but it's the principle of the matter.

The Mass votes count in the popular votes, which in turn determines which way the Mass electors vote. The Mass votes aren't even partially "nullified" unless assigning them to other candidate - the one who received the majority popular vote - changes the outcome. Otherwise, it's just a matter of symbolism. Yet if it really is a matter of principle, then why can the candidate who loses the popular vote win the election? Doesn't sound very democratic to me, and many, many people share that view. I understand why Mass is doing it this way. If every state did it, we'd be basing the outcome on the popular vote, which is how it should be.

Incidentally, not only is our system undemocratic in the sense that it isn't one man, one vote, but it distorts the electoral process by putting all the focus on swing states in elections, as if the voters in the non-swing states aren't worthy of the candidates' attention and don't need to be convinced.

I support what Mass is doing here.

- Wolf

 

[PokerGuy]

The other thing that makes this idea stupid is the fact that in most places when the outcome of the vote has been determined, they don't even bother going through all the absentee ballots and the like, since there's no point. Those MA idiots never fail to deliver the fail

 

[nonlnear]

I don't see this as a nullification at all. Right now national elections are decided by a handful of voters in "battleground" states. If this plan was adopted universally then the concerns of ALL voters would have to be better addressed rather than pandering to a relatively few voters in swing "battleground" states.

Great idea, but I think the chances of persuading all of the battleground states to join in is nill. And any battleground state that holds out will have even more disproportionate influence.

You're missing one important point: complete persuasion of the states isn't necessary to change the system. All that is needed is for 50% +1 EC votes to be determined by national popular vote, and then the swing/battleground states will be irrelevant.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Wherein Massachusetts voted for Gore by both popular and electoral votes. Your comparison missed the mark.

If all states, followed suit. You really need to think beyond your nose.