Massachusetts Pushes for Popular Presidential Vote

CBS/AP

Massachusetts is poised to become the sixth state to approve a law intended to bypass the Electoral College and elect the president of the United States by popular vote.

"What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America," said Democratic state Sen. James Eldridge, the Boston Globe reports. "Every vote will be of the same weight across the country."

The state senate passed the bill 28 to 9, the Globe reports, and it now goes to the desk of Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, who has said he supports the idea.

Under the law, all 12 of Massachusetts' electoral votes will go to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes nationally. However, it will not go into effect until enough states have signed onto the plan to ensure that at least half of the nation's electoral votes -- 270 out of 538 -- go to the candidate who won the popular vote.

So far, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland and Washington have also enacted the law, for a total of 61 electoral votes, according to the National Popular Vote campaign.

Under the current system, each state is allowed to determine how to proportion its delegates to the electoral college -- equal to its numbers of U.S. senators and representatives. Typically, whichever candidate wins the popular vote in a state gets all of that state's electoral votes. The candidate who wins the popular vote does not always win the electoral college.

Supporters of the movement for a popular vote say it would compel candidates to stop ignoring states like California or Texas, which are predictably Democratic and Republican, respectively.

Opponents of the bill in Massachusetts say they are concerned that that the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally may not win in Massachusetts, the Globe reports. Massachusetts Senate minority leader Richard Tisei also reportedly criticized legislators for circumventing the normal constitutional amendment process.

The movement to get enough states to support the measure has won support from both Democrats and Republicans across the country, and a move to the popular vote is popular among the public. In a 2007 Washington Post poll, 72 percent of respondents said they would support changing to a system where the president is elected by popular vote.

[ihgfedcba]

If a candidate needs a majority of the votes nationwide to win, wouldn't that candidate choose to campaign in areas with large populations (ie urban areas)? How would this changed the "focused" campaigning of the electoral college method. It might change the area that is focused on, but it will still leave others out in the cold. Candidates will still want to spend their money targeting the most amount of people to make the most significant impact for their campaign and will choose to ignore areas where they feel they will make no impact.

Also, since these states will enact their bill once states with electoral colleges adding up to 270 have created similiar bills, they are forcing the hand of other states or ignoring the desire of other states to remain in the current method of the electoral college.

A sneaky and poor move by Massachusetts and the five other states with similiar bills.

[omega42]

This makes a lot of sense if you have a well informed electorate. However, this country has proven time and again that simply is not the case.

[paggypow]

Oh wow, that makes a lot of sense dude.

Lou
www.anonymous-surfing.es.tc

[bebgsurg]

Horrible. Stupid. Our idiocy will destroy the great republic that the likes of Jefferson and Madison conceived. What is so hard to understand : if the popular national vote is all that matters then the incentive and oppurtunity to commit voter fraud is HUGE ! Someone will win with 50.1% of the vote and every state, every district will come under suspicion. Under the current system the only way to meaningfully steal the election is to turn a close state one way or another. And in close states the two parties are equal, and vigilant. Padding a big majority in a state doesn't buy you any more electoral votes. But if the national vote total is the key, then padding makes sense, and if one party has a solid majority in a state or a district then there is little stopping them from padding their vote. I have to say that this opens the door to corrupt political machines to steal the election. I hope that the politicians in Massachusetts don't realize this and corruptly embrace it, but then again it is unwise to underestimate crude deception and dishonesty in politicians.

[sdfhlhjsdf]

This comment is a prime example of the problem with 'Comments' sections. You actually made a very interesting point, that I had failed to consider. Something that, in fact, is making me reconsider my support (probably won't change, but I am considering your argument). Unfortunately, you started off with immature name calling, and outrageous hyperbole (let's face it, there is very little that could destroy this country- it has survived far worse). Most people won't even give your point a second though because of your obnoxious wording, so your effort is mostly wasted.

[kofiannanymous]

A hypothetical situation that shows the absurdity of the electoral system (for simplicity, the fact that some states split their electoral votes has been ignored, and 100% of the population is assumed to vote):

Candidate ?A? wins each of the 11 most populated states by exactly 1 vote per state. Candidate ?B? wins the other 39 states by winning 100% of the votes in those states.

For the country, Candidate ?B? has been voted for by 201,259,720 people, that is 72% of the popular vote.
For the country, Candidate ?A? has been voted for by 80,162,186 people, that is only 28% of the popular vote and 121,097,534 fewer votes than Candidate ?B?, yet Candidate ?A? wins the election because they won the 271 electoral votes represented by the 11 states that candidate barely won.

Go Massachusetts!

[Mortar_29]

Why do you hate America?

[massey24]

Chicago alone could give Obama 100 million votes. As it is, that only affects Illinois. But allowing that corruption to impact all of us is ludiKRUS.

[larrryshrine]

I lived in Texas for a long time. Texas is a decidedly red state. But I dutifully stood in line at the polls and picked who I thought was best qualified. In the last presidential election I stood in the rain and voted for Obama, full well knowing it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

I firmly believe in the up and down, majority rules, one person one vote, and all votes mean something. The time for the Electoral College is gone. It should be done away with. And by the way, I can't stand the Senate rule we so lovingly call the filibuster.

[billpl-2009]

be careful what you wish for

when the politically winds shift and rednecks start to shift back to the democratic party (where they belong) and Massachusetts will need southern and heartland support

...they'll be kicking themselves

[danielle_mom]

People hate the system when it works against them, but is in favor of it when it works for them. Although, the current system favors those states with small population with three electoral votes but it does give them a voice. The current setup is a reasonable compromise to avoid large population centers to control the election. It was a compromised that has work for over two centuries.

[Mortar_29]

Recognizing the strong regional interests and loyalties which have played so great a role in American history, proponents argue that the Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country be requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president, without such a mechanism, they point out, president would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones. Indeed, it is principally because of the Electoral College that presidential nominees are inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a region other than their own. For as things stand now, no one region contains the absolute majority (270) of electoral votes required to elect a president. Thus, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull together coalitions of States and regions rather than to exacerbate regional differences. Such a unifying mechanism seems especially prudent in view of the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and even, in its time, the Roman Empire.

This unifying mechanism does not, however, come without a small price. And the price is that in very close popular elections, it is possible that the candidate who wins a slight majority of popular votes may not be the one elected president - depending (as in 1888) on whether his popularity is concentrated in a few States or whether it is more evenly distributed across the States. Yet this is less of a problem than it seems since, as a practical matter, the popular difference between the two candidates would likely be so small that either candidate could govern effectively.

Proponents thus believe that the practical value of requiring a distribution of popular support outweighs whatever sentimental value may attach to obtaining a bare majority of popular support. Indeed, they point out that the Electoral College system is designed to work in a rational series of defaults: if, in the first instance, a candidate receives a substantial majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is virtually certain to win enough electoral votes to be elected president; in the event that the popular vote is extremely close, then the election defaults to that candidate with the best distribution of popular votes (as evidenced by obtaining the absolute majority of electoral votes); in the event the country is so divided that no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the choice of president defaults to the States in the U.S. House of Representatives. One way or another, then, the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern.

[thesevenveils]

The electoral college was created because our forefathers believed that the majority of the population of American citizens were uneducated unread and did not have the civility or reasoning to be given the popular vote.

Many people see the electoral college as giving a smaller population in a less populated state a greater voice in the election than in a highly populated state. If one assigns a weight to the influence a person from the least populous state in the presidential election and compare it to the weight of the influence a person from the most populous state it is easy to see the person in the less populous state has a greater influence, an almost unfair advantage, over the person from the most populous state.

Look at the statistics of the college board vote versus the popular vote and what is seen when the two vary it is the result of how a state manipulated their voters in order to give an advantage to the states majority party. This practice has become almost common place in recent presidential elections.

[Mortar_29]

You are only partially right. The Founders created the electoral college because they hated democracy. They knew it was the worst form of government.

So, they wanted a check and balance in the government, even over the popular will.

[tdj63]

Your vote won't count within your state if the national popular vote is different than the vote count is in your state. This is how I understand it. Again, this nationalizes the vote and promotes broad national initiatives. Not a good thing in my opinion. Why would anybody in state or local government support this. Isn't the responsibility of representing the interest of your states constituents enough. What is it with this nationalization crap. Get out of my face please, for gads sakes what a bunch of whacko's we have in government. I guess they sold their souls for a chance to sell ours. Thats the pay off.