Massachusetts wants to bypass the electoral college...
By dragon54u
@dragon54u (31633)
United States
July 29, 2010 10:50am CST
"Under the proposed law, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally." This is from a story at:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/legislature_poi.html
I don't know what to think of this. We've had a few presidents that have not won the popular vote--more than half of the people voted against them--but won the electoral vote. However, if we throw out the electoral college the high-population states that are dominated by one party or the other may dictate who we elect.
I don't know what to think of this. What do you think? What will be the consequences, good or bad?
2 people like this
5 responses
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
29 Jul 10
I have to agree with others...this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. What is the point of voting in that state...if it won't count either way....and it won't. It goes with the national vote wether it agrees with the state vote or not...so why even look at the state vote..it won't decide jack....so the people of MA might as well just stay home on election days...your voice just got silenced...your votes don't count.
2 people like this
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
29 Jul 10
Maybe that's what the framers of the proposed law want--to shut people up? I used to think the EC was useless but now that I see what this law could do I think the EC is about the best we could do if we want most of the people to be heard.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
29 Jul 10
This may very well be one of the dumbest pieces of legislation I've ever seen. Basically, they're saying that if EVERYONE in the state votes for Bob, and some guy named Jim gets more votes everywhere else, than all of Massachusetts is considered to have voted for Jim.
I've heard of people being too stupid to think for themselves, but this really takes the cake and effectively disenfranchises the entire state since their votes no longer really count.
Personally I think it may violate the constitution, but I'm going to have to read though that section and get back to you.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
29 Jul 10
Taskr36, you made me laugh! 
While it's not a laughing matter to me, your second paragraph had me lol'ing.
I would think it would violate the constitution. From what I remember, it is very specific on how the government is supposed to be run and votes tallied.
While it's not a laughing matter to me, your second paragraph had me lol'ing.
I would think it would violate the constitution. From what I remember, it is very specific on how the government is supposed to be run and votes tallied. @sierras236 (2739)
• United States
29 Jul 10
Massachusetts isn't getting rid of the electoral college. Reread that part you copied and pasted. They are changing how the votes are allocated. In other words, they are voting to become an all or nothing state. Instead of splitting the number of electoral votes among two candidates, only one will get them. There are a few other all or nothing states, Florida is one that comes to mind.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
29 Jul 10
You're right, I didn't say that very well. I understand that they are bypassing the EC and giving their votes to the popular candidate.
I used to think the EC was outdated, because people in a state can vote for one candidate and their EC votes will go to another. But the more I think about it, bypassing the EC would make that situation worse, not better. If the whole state votes for A but B has more EC votes or nationwide popular votes, their votes will go to B. That doesn't make sense to me, the peoples' voices aren't being heard--or are being misrepresented.
Thanks for your comments! I did not know there were more states like that, I only just recently woke up politically.
@Hatley (163772)
• Garden Grove, California
30 Jul 10
hi dragon54u my husband and I used to debate that years ago and never really came to a conclusion. My son and I talked about it and he claims'that the popular vote would really be the most fair. I am
not sure but was always thinking the popular vote would be from the
will of the people without any go betweens. so why not?It could be
good, and would not be any worse than the electoral college, and
might even be better. In any way someone is going to win and someone'is going to lose.And either the democrats or the republicans will be ranting so what else is news.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
30 Jul 10
I have heard of several examples of a state voting for A but the EC voting for B and that is NOT fair! But if we go by the popular vote, highly populated and partisan states like California can really tip the vote towards a candidate that people with other value systems would not want. On the other hand, I like the idea of every vote counting. But I don't like the idea that MA could vote for Bill but if Mary wins she would get their votes.
Nothing seems to work as it should anymore. 
@savypat (20216)
• United States
1 Aug 10
One does wonder if the electoral college is past it's day. But I don't think so our states are still to deversified. An urban state with it's large population often has very little in common with an agriculture state and the college helps to allow each state to have a vote that counts. I don't think it would be healthy for the largest number of population to have the sole power just due to numbers in our elections. I have lived in two states where one half of the state is urban and the other agricultural. I lived in the agricultural part and was very aware of the unfairness generated by the larger population in the other part of the state, many times, even though we paid more than our half of the taxes, laws were passed that totally ignored our concerns.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
1 Aug 10
That's my main objection to the EC--it can vote any way it likes even though it is supposed to cast its votes the way the people vote. I know this principle is violated a lot.
I live in an agricultural state/urban state now. The urban vote is very liberal and entitlement-based while the agricultural vote tends to be conservative and those people want as little government as possible.
