Mass moves on National Popular Vote

7:15AM ON 07/10/2008
BY Dave Segal

The Massachusetts House of Reps just passed it overwhelmingly:

BOSTON - Massachusetts may join a coalition of states that wants to elect the president and vice president through a popular vote instead of the Electoral College system.

The state House of Representatives voted 119-36 today to approve a bill that would direct the state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome in Massachusetts.

If Mass signs the bill into law, we’ll be up to 62 electoral votes represented — well on the way to implementation, after just two years’ worth of effort. It’s looking more and more like this will be the last cycle in which elections take place within a ‘red-state, blue-state, swing-state’ framework.

This entry was posted You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Comments on “ Mass moves on National Popular Vote ”

July 10th, 2008 at 8:47AM
Victoria Andolina Says:

Can someone explain to me the appeal of using a popular vote versus the Electoral College. Granted I know the entire drama with the 2000 election but I can help but think of the reasons why the Electoral College was implemented. I feel like with the popular vote a small state, like Rhode Island, would loser their voice tremendously in the crowd. In the long run, I do not see the benefits of switching to a popular vote.

Also, I’m currently living in Boston. I actually work right next to the state house. Over MA general assembly session I have been following several bills. This one caught my eye because of its closeness to a RI bill recently veto by the Governor. I would determine the faith of this bill in MA as not 100% a sure thing.

[Reply]
July 11th, 2008 at 12:47PM
Ari Savitzky Says:

Hi Victoria-

Well, to answer your question- this particular effort didn’t start because of 2000, but because of 2004, when the focus on the swing states was more intense than ever, and over 30 states were again marginalizd and on the sidelines.

In very American election there are two basic principles: Every person gets one equal vote, and the candidate with more votes is the winner. 2000 was one example of how that second principle is not upheld, but the same thing could have happened in OH in 2004, a swing of 60,000 votes there would have made John Kerry the winner even though Bush won the national vote by 3.5 million.

But the first principle is also incredibly important. Right now, if you live in a red or blue state, a safe state, then your vote as an individual does not matter - the result of your states electoral votes is a foregone conclusion, and there is no reason to campaign, to organize, or to get active in your state beyond driving to New Hampshire. Your vote doesn’t matter- In MA or RI, if you want to vote R you have nothing to gain, and if you’re a D voter you have nothing to gain.

Now let’s step back and look at the current system of electing a president (th words electoral college never even appear in the consitution).

It was NOT designed to protect small states, but to create an independent, deliberative body that would elect the president. The major debate was over popular or non-popular election of the president, and the result was a system designed to create third-party electors. This system gave complete power to the states to decided how these people would be chosen.

So why, then, do w have the current system? Again, it’s crucial to understand when it comes to presidential elections, states create the system. The states gradually moved to popular elections of their electors, and to a winner-take all system, in the first half of the 19th century.

Because of winner take all, only the swing states matter, and the votes there are worth much more. To make matters worse, the number of swing states has been shrinking. In the 60’s When NY was still a swing state, Delaware and a group of predominantly small states actually sued NY on the grounds that their winner take all system was marginalizing the other stats. Delaware lost, because, again, the states are ultimately given complete power over what to do with their electors.

These days, small states are almost all safe states 6 Red, 6 Blue, and only one swing state, New Hampshire. All 12 of those states ar ignored, even though they represent double the electoral votes.

The bottom line, if you live in a safe state, your vote is worth vastly less than if you live in a saf state. w all know this intuitively.

The fairest system would be making every vote equal, which is why a national popular vote has drawn consistent statewide and national support at 70% of the public for decades. If every vote was equal, our votes in RI, and MA, would matter, and candidates would seek them, talk about our issues, and campaign in our states.

I’m hoping it passes in MA, and RI. Please let me know if you have any questions.

[Reply]