Mass. may join effort to bypass Electoral College

blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
edited July 2010 in A Moving Train
While this idea has been going on for a while, this is the first I've heard of this actual movement making progress. I really don't know how I feel about it.

Wouldn't it encourage Presidential candidates to only campaign (pander to, care about etc), the large cities? I guess they do that now to an extent though anyway...


http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaki ... oin_e.html
Mass. may join effort to bypass Electoral College
July 19, 2010 10:40 AM

By Martin Finucane, Globe Staff

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.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    While this idea has been going on for a while, this is the first I've heard of this actual movement making progress. I really don't know how I feel about it.

    Wouldn't it encourage Presidential candidates to only campaign (pander to, care about etc), the large cities? I guess they do that now to an extent though anyway...
    I've always thought popular vote is the way to go but it does make me wonder how much everything would change if they just catered to the biggest population areas. I don't know if it would be very good for the Midwest small towns and businesses. Ohio would no longer be as pivotal as they are in the electoral system.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I'd love to see us get rid of the Electoral College. It had its purpose when the nation was more divided between big and small states in terms of representation and influence, but in today's modern era, it has disjointed the belief that every vote counts equally (or at all). Make it a general election and more people would participate and we would never have to worry about the rare instance where you can win the election but lose the popular vote.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • CJMST3KCJMST3K Posts: 9,722
    While I think its a joke when people say that bush "stole" the election from gore, I think it would be good to get rid of the electoral college. Rules are rules, and you can't change rules in the middle of a game to suit one side or the other. Seeing as how the game for 2012 hasn't started yet, I'd say lets get the electoral college buried soon.
    ADD 5,200 to the post count you see, thank you. :)
    *NYC 9/28/96 *NYC 9/29/96 *NJ 9/8/98 (front row "may i play drums with you")
    *MSG 9/10/98 (backstage) *MSG 9/11/98 (backstage)
    *Jones Beach 8/23/00 *Jones Beach 8/24/00 *Jones Beach 8/25/00
    *Mansfield 8/29/00 *Mansfield 8/30/00 *Nassau 4/30/03 *Nissan VA 7/1/03
    *Borgata 10/1/05 *Camden 5/27/06 *Camden 5/28/06 *DC 5/30/06
    *VA Beach 6/17/08 *DC 6/22/08 *MSG 6/24/08 (backstage) *MSG 6/25/08
    *EV DC 8/17/08 *EV Baltimore 6/15/09 *Philly 10/31/09
    *Bristow VA 5/13/10 *MSG 5/20/10 *MSG 5/21/10
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Getting rid of the electoral college sounds great, and as five said it may get more people to care about the process. But I think it runs the risk of alienating most of the midwestern small states. I don't think it is a good idea to make the change. I am not a fan of the electoral college in its current state, it definately could use some updating, but am concerned about the idea of a popular vote. It just brings the feds one step closer to eliminating states. that may be an over reaction, and I hope it is. If we do go to a general election I would hope that everyone would get behind it and participate so that we can see what the true effect of that type of election is to our government. I know that if it does happen I will certainly still participate!
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I don't think it would alienate people at all... in fact, typically in our elections, many on the West coast due to the time change, don't vote unless it's close. So more people would vote for that reason as well. The Electoral college unfairly doesn't count all the votes... ie, a democrat in Texas or a republican in NY - those votes are meaningless and count for nothing. If we had a general election, people's votes could make a difference and not solely in "swing states" where it weighs more in the final tally than others.
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Getting rid of the electoral college sounds great, and as five said it may get more people to care about the process. But I think it runs the risk of alienating most of the midwestern small states. I don't think it is a good idea to make the change. I am not a fan of the electoral college in its current state, it definately could use some updating, but am concerned about the idea of a popular vote. It just brings the feds one step closer to eliminating states. that may be an over reaction, and I hope it is. If we do go to a general election I would hope that everyone would get behind it and participate so that we can see what the true effect of that type of election is to our government. I know that if it does happen I will certainly still participate!
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    FiveB247x wrote:
    I don't think it would alienate people at all... in fact, typically in our elections, many on the West coast due to the time change, don't vote unless it's close. So more people would vote for that reason as well. The Electoral college unfairly doesn't count all the votes... ie, a democrat in Texas or a republican in NY - those votes are meaningless and count for nothing. If we had a general election, people's votes could make a difference and not solely in "swing states" where it weighs more in the final tally than others.
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Getting rid of the electoral college sounds great, and as five said it may get more people to care about the process. But I think it runs the risk of alienating most of the midwestern small states. I don't think it is a good idea to make the change. I am not a fan of the electoral college in its current state, it definately could use some updating, but am concerned about the idea of a popular vote. It just brings the feds one step closer to eliminating states. that may be an over reaction, and I hope it is. If we do go to a general election I would hope that everyone would get behind it and participate so that we can see what the true effect of that type of election is to our government. I know that if it does happen I will certainly still participate!


    peoples votes do make a difference, but without the electoral college, do you think the needs of south dakota, north dakota, montana, wyoming, idaho, etc will be met or even discussed? who would give a shit about them?
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    FiveB247x wrote:
    I don't think it would alienate people at all... in fact, typically in our elections, many on the West coast due to the time change, don't vote unless it's close. So more people would vote for that reason as well. The Electoral college unfairly doesn't count all the votes... ie, a democrat in Texas or a republican in NY - those votes are meaningless and count for nothing. If we had a general election, people's votes could make a difference and not solely in "swing states" where it weighs more in the final tally than others.

    But the polls would still close in the east first and results would still on the news... If a guy is up 50 electoral votes or 10% of the popular vote early, wouldn't that have the same effect on the west coast voters?
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    peoples votes do make a difference, but without the electoral college, do you think the needs of south dakota, north dakota, montana, wyoming, idaho, etc will be met or even discussed? who would give a shit about them?

    Are they discussed now?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Not all votes matter, count or make a difference and it is simply because the all or none style of the Electoral college votes system. The system is already very flawed and certain small states are irrelevant. Making it a general election will alter that problem atleast in some manner and give the illusion that voting matters :D
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    peoples votes do make a difference, but without the electoral college, do you think the needs of south dakota, north dakota, montana, wyoming, idaho, etc will be met or even discussed? who would give a shit about them?
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    peoples votes do make a difference, but without the electoral college, do you think the needs of south dakota, north dakota, montana, wyoming, idaho, etc will be met or even discussed? who would give a shit about them?
    Their congressmen and senators? A small peripheral state is a small peripheral state in the big scheme, no matter if some get some more pull come presidential elections. It is fully possible to elect president by popular vote, and everything else by states as they do now. I believe many other countries do it that way.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Not all votes matter, count or make a difference and it is simply because the all or none style of the Electoral college votes system. The system is already very flawed and certain small states are irrelevant. Making it a general election will alter that problem atleast in some manner and give the illusion that voting matters :D
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    peoples votes do make a difference, but without the electoral college, do you think the needs of south dakota, north dakota, montana, wyoming, idaho, etc will be met or even discussed? who would give a shit about them?
    I'm not so sure it would be small population states that would suffer. I think you would see a disparity that is probably best modeled by major league baseball. The big market cities such as New York, Chicago, and LA would be prime targets of politicians and would enjoy the spoils. Our agricultural producing states would be all but ignored.*

    *Maybe
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Perhaps, but think of it this way... in most places like these, the state swings in one direction and the minority of opposition voters count for nothing. So perhaps NY is 75% Democrat... in a general election, that 25% Republican would count for something where as in the Electoral College there is no dividing the Electoral votes.
    Jason P wrote:
    I'm not so sure it would be small population states that would suffer. I think you would see a disparity that is probably best modeled by major league baseball. The big market cities such as New York, Chicago, and LA would be prime targets of politicians and would enjoy the spoils. Our agricultural producing states would be all but ignored.*

    *Maybe
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • dpmaydpmay Posts: 643
    mikepegg44 wrote:


    peoples votes do make a difference, but without the electoral college, do you think the needs of south dakota, north dakota, montana, wyoming, idaho, etc will be met or even discussed? who would give a shit about them?


    i live in one of these small population states - and i agree that the electoral college does give my indivudual vote more weight than someone's in a more populated area. that said, it's not like we here in wyoming are rolling around in our over-influence. even in the context of the EC, our 3 votes out of what, 535, don't really mean shit anyway. especially since they will always go, what, red anyway...
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    dpmay wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:


    peoples votes do make a difference, but without the electoral college, do you think the needs of south dakota, north dakota, montana, wyoming, idaho, etc will be met or even discussed? who would give a shit about them?


    i live in one of these small population states - and i agree that the electoral college does give my indivudual vote more weight than someone's in a more populated area. that said, it's not like we here in wyoming are rolling around in our over-influence. even in the context of the EC, our 3 votes out of what, 535, don't really mean shit anyway. especially since they will always go, what, red anyway...


    you have a good point, but I just think it is the all or nothing system that needs to go, the electoral college isn't completely awful, just a little broken. If they did percentages for all states I would much prefer that

    I just really think things like national parks and other environmental issues would not be in any sort of for front, and I can promise that we would see more and more farms swept away, but it is just a feeling. I could be terribly wrong, and I hate to always think of the what ifs, if they do make a change, I guess we will just have to see how it goes.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • mysticweedmysticweed Posts: 3,710
    FiveB247x wrote:
    I'd love to see us get rid of the Electoral College. It had its purpose when the nation was more divided between big and small states in terms of representation and influence, but in today's modern era, it has disjointed the belief that every vote counts equally (or at all). Make it a general election and more people would participate and we would never have to worry about the rare instance where you can win the election but lose the popular vote.

    It sure could have prevented a whole shit can of fucking trouble in 2000 and since.
    fuck 'em if they can't take a joke

    "what a long, strange trip it's been"
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    This is and will always be an unknown.. you can't presume that because what happened in Florida and automatically assume it would have gone the other way if the Supreme Court ruled differently or the people in power in Florida handled it differently. More than anything, the fact that it went to this historic and unprecedented level just shows what depths our democracy, processes and electorate has fallen. People focus more on the partisan politics side because they're bitter and jaded, but the lastly result is not solely who got office, but our system was once again shown to be penetrable by money, influence and outside forces which it was not intended to involve or include.
    lettinggo wrote:
    FiveB247x wrote:
    I'd love to see us get rid of the Electoral College. It had its purpose when the nation was more divided between big and small states in terms of representation and influence, but in today's modern era, it has disjointed the belief that every vote counts equally (or at all). Make it a general election and more people would participate and we would never have to worry about the rare instance where you can win the election but lose the popular vote.

    It sure could have prevented a whole shit can of fucking trouble in 2000 and since.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Sign In or Register to comment.