Mass. may join effort to bypass Electoral College

blackredyellow

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.

Jason P

blackredyellow wrote:

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.

FiveB247x

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.

CJMST3K

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.

mikepegg44

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!

FiveB247x

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!

mikepegg44

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?

blackredyellow

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?

FiveB247x

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

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?

OutOfBreath

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

Jason P

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

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

FiveB247x

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

dpmay

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...

mikepegg44

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.

mysticweed

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.

FiveB247x

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.