Mass. Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College

[Jeremy]

Mass. Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College - Local News Updates - MetroDesk - The Boston Globe

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Dear voters of Massachusetts,

GO FUCK YOURSELVES!!!!!

Sincerely,

The Massachusetts Legislature

 

[Baruch Menachem]

really stupid and unfair to MA voters, as even if 0bama were to win the state, that would mean the states votes would go the republican candidate.

An interesting concept. MA is willing to jump off the cliff for the benefit of the country as a whole.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They are going to wait until everyone else in the country votes before they decide who wins their election? Why have the election at all?

On the other hand, this could mean that Massachusetts could elect a Republican as president.

 

[Avatar4321]

Stupid idea. Continue to make the state irrelevant people

 

[hortysir]

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Seriously???

 

[Charles_Main]

Blatantly Unconstitutional. The electoral College Gets a bad rap, but it is a fundamental Part of what Makes American Democracy, American Democracy. We are a Huge Continental, Ethnically, Religiously, and Ideologically diverse Nation. The Electoral College is a check against the Tyranny of the Majority. In a sense all it really does is count the popular vote state by state instead of as a whole. So in rare cases (4 times so far) a Candidate can win the Over all popular vote, but lose the election because their opponent Won more state Popular votes. In every case where it has happened so far, the Candidate that won the election but not the over all popular vote, only lost that vote by a very slim margin. Bush for example lost by less than 1 half of 1 percent of the total votes cast.

The rallying cry against the Electoral College is 1 man 1 vote. How will you feel the day the person you voted for wins your states popular vote, but your state casts it's ballots for the other candidate. How does that jive with 1 man 1 vote.

If we really believe in that, 1 man 1 vote, with out any protections for the Minority Parties, then we should do away with the Senate, Unlike the Electoral College and the House, the Senate is made up of 2 from each state, regardless of population. Meaning that People from Montana votes are roughly 54 times as powerful as people from California. The electoral College is populated by counting how many senators, and Congresspeople a state has.

If we do away with the Electoral College, we might as well Do away with the States because we will have removed the last vestige of States rights, then we might as well become a parliamentary Democracy,where the Majority rules and the Minority Party can STFU and sit down. Our founders set it up this way for a reason. As I said We are a Massive, continental Country with a very Ethically, Religiously, and Ideologically Diverse Population. Any other form of Democracy would no be as well fitted as what we have. A Federal Republic, the Electoral College is an important part of what makes us that, and not any other parliamentary Democracy.

 

[Avatar4321]

Do they realize they just insured that no Presidential candidate ever has to step in Massachusetts again? They can focus the Massachusetts time and money in California and Texas and not have to worry about it.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Dumbest thing Mass has done since Teddy.

 

[Greenbeard]

Blatantly Unconstitutional.

Does anyone actually look at the text of the document before they say that?

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...​

The Massachusetts legislature could decide which electoral slate to send to Washington based on whether or not a groundhog sees its shadow and that would still be Constitutional. There's nothing that says a popular election decides who the electoral votes go to and, indeed, in the early presidential election that's not how they were awarded.

 

[Chris]

The Electoral College should be done away with, but by the Congress, not the states.

 

[Charles_Main]

Blatantly Unconstitutional.

Does anyone actually look at the text of the document before they say that?

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...​

The Massachusetts legislature could decide which electoral slate to send to Washington based on whether or not a groundhog sees its shadow and that would still be Constitutional. There's nothing that says a popular election decides who the electoral votes go to and, indeed, in the early presidential election that's not how they were awarded.

I stand corrected, However the Rest of my point is still valid. It has been a very long Day and I Misspoke, It is not unconstitutional. It is just wrong. Mass is saying we do not care how our State votes, we care more how everyone else votes. Must be nice to know as a person from Mass that your vote is meaningless now, your state is going with who every wins the Popular vote no matter what. You might as well stay home.

Oh and who ever said it was right. Candidates now have almost NO reason to campaign In MASS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Blatantly Unconstitutional.

Does anyone actually look at the text of the document before they say that?

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...​

The Massachusetts legislature could decide which electoral slate to send to Washington based on whether or not a groundhog sees its shadow and that would still be Constitutional. There's nothing that says a popular election decides who the electoral votes go to and, indeed, in the early presidential election that's not how they were awarded.

I stand corrected, However the Rest of my point is still valid. It has been a very long Day and I Misspoke, It is not unconstitutional. It is just wrong.

It is Undemocratic and beyond STUPID. Further they only have until December 12th if I remember right to assign and send their list of Electoral college participants. If the National numbers are not known in time, these buffoons will eliminate any vote by Massachusetts.

 

[Charles_Main]

Does anyone actually look at the text of the document before they say that?

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...​

The Massachusetts legislature could decide which electoral slate to send to Washington based on whether or not a groundhog sees its shadow and that would still be Constitutional. There's nothing that says a popular election decides who the electoral votes go to and, indeed, in the early presidential election that's not how they were awarded.

I stand corrected, However the Rest of my point is still valid. It has been a very long Day and I Misspoke, It is not unconstitutional. It is just wrong.

It is Undemocratic and beyond STUPID. Further they only have until December 12th if I remember right to assign and send their list of Electoral college participants. If the National numbers are not known in time, these buffoons will eliminate any vote by Massachusetts.

Nah they will just cast their Ballots for umm who they think is going to win... yeah thats it.

 

[Greenbeard]

It is Undemocratic

RetiredGySgt, meet the Electoral College. Electoral College, RetiredGySgt.

 

[mvymvy]

“A survey of 800 Massachusetts voters conducted on May 23-24, 2010 showed 72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Voters were asked

‘How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?’

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 86% among Democrats, 54% among Republicans, and 68% among others. By gender, support was 85% among women and 60% among men. By age, support was 85% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.

Massachusetts voters were also asked a 3-way question:

‘Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the state’s electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?’

The results of this three-way question were that 68% favored a national popular vote, 16% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district, and 16% favored the existing statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a states electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

 

[mvymvy]

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but now used by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Massachusetts (the 13th largest population state, with 12 electoral college votes) and 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is Undemocratic

RetiredGySgt, meet the Electoral College. Electoral College, RetiredGySgt.

The electoral college is not undemocratic you dumb ass. It provides an equal footing for the Individual States. It ensures that even small States are important to the National Political system and it ensures the Majority do not simply roll over the Minority.

Now explain again how it is undemocratic? Democracy is NOT JUST one man one vote and in fact that kind of democracy does not work on a level of which the US is at. Over 300 million people.

We get a vote for President. That vote matters within our State. Currently 2 States split Electoral college seats with the State popular vote. To an extent. Neither has ever actually sent one to each side.

Now we have one State that has invalidated its entire State's vote. It has told all politicians running for President, do not bother running here, worry about the other States. Waste no money on us, we are irrelevant. Our input is meaningless, our desires pointless, our vote worthless.

In fact what the law says is that the State need not even hold an election, which IS unconstitutional, by the way. And I would suggest that Constitutional Scholars should check that out. By invalidating the election process they DENY their citizens a Republican form of Government. And that IS in the Constitution.

You have made the claim that the electoral process is not Democratic, prove it.

 

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. It would no longer matter who won a state. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

The current winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote), including current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

National Popular Vote is a bipartisan coalition of legislators, scholars, constitutionalists and grassroots activists committed to preserving the Electoral College, while guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who earns the most votes in all fifty states.

NationalPopularVote.com

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but now used by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Massachusetts (the 13th largest population state, with 12 electoral college votes) and 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

Our Presidential elections have NEVER been by popular vote. It was specifically designed to give States power. FROM day ONE. Whining about the popular vote may make you sound important and caring about the population and citizenry but it has NO BEARING on our Election system in regards our President and NEVER has. NOT EVER. NOT AT ANYTIME.

 

[mvymvy]

A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a “republican” form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.