Massachusetts may join effort to bypass Electoral College

The [Massachusetts] 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.

Full story: Mass. may join effort to bypass Electoral College – Local News Updates – MetroDesk – The Boston Globe

  • keyboard jockey

    Massachusetts always trying to rig the playing field.

  • didacticrogue

    The “popular vote movement” is nothing more than the brainchild of the “progressive” left: an effort to enhance the status of the heavily Democrat population centers at the expense of the more sparsely populated “fly over” states.

    The argument, made here and elsewhere, that the popular vote will make candidates more beholden to citizens of smaller states is incredibly specious, as that is precisely the opposite result that its supporters want and that its adoption will bring about.

    Why the big push now? Because the “progressives” can see the writing on the wall: Obama is on track to become a one term president, and they are doing whatever they can to keep that from happening. Inventing a “populist” movement that makes 80% of the states irrelevant is just the kind of subversion that makes them change their sheets every morning.

    As to the “I don’t care what the founding fathers said. The electoral college has never made any sense to me” argument, please invest some time in the study of American (and historical) government, so that you may understand that what appears to be popular is not always best.

  • laphil

    For one of the few times in my adult life I agree with Massachusetts (the other time was when they elected Scott Brown). I don’t care what the founding fathers said. The electoral college has never made any sense to me and never will. We elect all other representatives by a popular vote without respect to proportional representation, and there’s no reason this shouldn’t be done when electing a president.

  • gatortarian

    First, I am not going to be able to stop laughing if all of Mass’s electoral votes are cast for Palin. Second, if we are going to use the popular vote then we need to actually count all of the votes in each state no matter what. Right now absentee ballots aren’t counted if they can’t change the State results. That is why we will never know if Gore did actually get the most votes in 2000.

  • dx2krudop

    In the 2000 election, George Bush won 50,456,002 popular votes. Al Gore won 50,999,897. Supposedly making Gore the winner by 543,895 votes. A total of 105,405,100 were cast including all other candidates. This gives Gore the popular vote by 0.516% of the votes cast. Everywhere that major elections are determined by popular vote, that margin would require a recount.

    Remember Florida? If the popular vote is the determinative factor, every precinct in the Country would have to be recounted. There are a little over 6,000 Counties in the Country so we could multiply what happened in Broward County by 6,000. Wouldn’t that be fun. There aren’t enough Attorneys in the Country to handle that.

    Say the recount gave the election to Bush by about 50,000 votes. Does anyone think there might be a court case or two or maybe 50 or more? Say the Supreme Court decides another recount is necessary and Gore wins by 500. Now everyone will be happy, right?

    Earlier I said Gore supposedly won the popular vote. That’s because, without a total recount of every single precinct, no one knows for sure who one the popular vote in that election. Sometimes one must be careful what one wishes for because you might get it.

  • notyourtypicalnewyorker

    Hey Massachusetts, if you don’t like the way that the Founding Fathers constructed the United States of America, LEAVE! The rest of us like it just fine,thank you.

    Gol Dang socialist scum…

    • Llantha

      When travel was virtually impossible and the vast majority of the white, male, landowners illiterate, this made sense. Now, being born in Ohio is no predictor of where one will like or die. Make all votes equal. If equality is socialism then most of us prefer it to whatever it is you would likely prefer.

  • woola

    No surprise that the overwhelming progressives of Massachusetts would favor this repeal.

    They can win all elections with the help of all the unions, Acorn, rigged voting booths, with prisoners, college students voting multiple times and lets not forget the deceased vote.

    Wake up America.

  • BigPop

    Do you really want every presidential race decided by the people in NYC, Boston, Chicago and LA? The electoral college was created to prevent certain pockets of the population from dominating everyone else. The only reason Dems support this is because they control the cities and this would ensure Dem WH control pretty much forever.

    • Bayou Babe

      You’re exactly right, BigPop. Elimination of the Electoral College will further diminish the power of the states by shifting electoral power to population centers. Essentially, it will usher in mob rule – something James Madison cautioned against.