| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Mass. may join effort to bypass Electoral College |
| 2010-07-19 |
| The state Legislature is poised to give final approval this week to a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote. Both the House and Senate have approved the National Popular Vote bill. Final enactment votes are needed in both chambers, however, before the bill goes to the governor's desk, the Globe reported last week. Governor Deval Patrick's press office didn't immediately return a message this morning seeking comment on whether he would sign the bill, if it makes its way to his desk. Under the proposed law, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally. Supporters are waging a state-by-state campaign to try to get such bills enacted. Once states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed. Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already adopted the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website. Supporters of the change say that the current Electoral College system is confusing and causes candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states. Critics say the current system is not broken. They also point to the disturbing scenario that Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state's 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters. The measure passed both branches of the Legislature in 2008 but did not make it all the way through the process. |
| Posted by:Delphi |
| #10 America is dead. This is now Rome - two years before it's destruction. |
| Posted by: newc 2010-07-19 23:38 |
| #9 Funny thing is, it would have had Mass' votes going for Bush II in the reelection of 04, despite being Kerry's home state. Its a fundamental difference between democrat who promote the rule of the mob, and those who wish to keep our Republic of Laws where individuals are paramount. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-07-19 22:35 |
| #8 So if you live in Mass. don't bother voting. Your legislature and the other states will decide for you. |
| Posted by: AuburnTom 2010-07-19 21:30 |
| #7 If enacted, this states law would seem to undercut the power of the electorate of Massachusetts. Why would you specifically campaign in Mass, when they award their electoral votes based on national results? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2010-07-19 20:56 |
| #6 Luther Martin must be spinning in his grave. But he's probably to obscure and confusing for the folks in Maryland to relate to. Dumphuchs. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-07-19 20:37 |
| #5 The traditional argument against direct elections is that the advertising imperative would render rural and flyover areas irrelevant to the candidates, who would concentrate all their attention in the top ten to twenty media markets. More bang for the media buck. However, as the older TV generation slowly dies off, and as people access more and more of their political info through servers rather than via braodcast signals, I'm not sure that objection still holds. As Barry and now Palin have shown, you can raise money nationally and overnight without spending anything on TV ads. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-07-19 19:30 |
| #4 Time to start sanctioning various...people. |
| Posted by: Secret Asian Man 2010-07-19 18:51 |
| #3 ".. say that the current Electoral College system is confusing and causes candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states." The 'majority rules' way means candidates only need to focus on major population States. And the difference is...? Sounds like algore is still crying about not carrying TN in '00. |
| Posted by: Muggsy Glink 2010-07-19 18:11 |
| #2 ".. say that the current Electoral College system is confusing and causes candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states." The 'majority rules' way means candidates only need to focus on major population States. And the difference is...? Sounds like algore is still crying about not carrying TN in '00. |
| Posted by: Muggsy Glink 2010-07-19 18:10 |
| #1 My first reaction to this article is to wonder this: Where is the empirical evidence that this law would make the system work better? How do I know that the results of this law would be better than, say, going back to having state legislatures elect our national Senators? In other words, most would agree that it is appropriate to strike a proper balance between republican (with a lower case 'r')and democratic (with a lower case 'd') tendencies in our government. Why should I believe that moving the weight further over to the democratic side of the scale is necessarily good? In what way is having candidates focus on battleground states less desirable than the alternative? Is this proposal an attempt to sound 'well-intentioned' by people who have no idea about the ramifications and unintended consequences the law would entail? Just asking. |
| Posted by: ryuge 2010-07-19 15:17 |