As a general rule, I think messing around with the Electoral College is a bad idea. Making the presidential race simply a popular vote ensures that many states, and in fact, vast swaths of the country, will be irrelevant to the contest. The current system, for all of its flaws, requires a candidate to win a somewhat diverse batch of states.
But if you want Republican presidential candidates to have an advantage in the coming cycles, by all means, do what you can to help out this effort in Massachusetts:
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 . . . 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.
Despite Scott Brown’s win, Massachusetts remains a heavily Democratic state, particularly in presidential elections. Obama took 62 percent of the vote in 2008; local guy John Kerry won 61.9 percent in 2004; Al Gore won 59.9 percent in 2000; Bill Clinton won 61.5 percent in 1996 and 47.5 percent in 1992 (Perot took 22.7 percent); local guy Michael Dukakis won 53 percent in 1988. The last time a Republican won the state was Reagan in 1984, with 51.2 percent.
Anything is possible, but it is most likely that Massachusetts will be heavily Democratic for quite a while. But it’s not that unthinkable that a Republican will win the popular vote in 2012 or 2016 or 2020 or at some point; under this law, Massachusetts’s 12 electoral votes would go to that Republican candidate, not the Democrat who actually won the most votes in the state.
Beyond that, why would any candidate of either party waste a moment campaigning at all Massachusetts? Better to do your best in the other 49 states. Under this law, candidates wouldn’t even have to pretend to care about winning Massachusetts.
Enacting this law would be one of the most epically self-destructive acts in modern American politics. Go for it, Massachusetts Democrats!
UPDATE: A reader writes in that the legislation would only go into effect once enough states to get 270 electoral votes have enacted similar bills, a point echoed by Stateline.org: “The proposal — being pushed in legislatures around the country by an organization called National Popular Vote — wouldn’t take effect until enough states have passed identical legislation.”
The Globe didn’t bother to mention that point.
Jim -
Unless MA wrote this law differently than the other states that are mentioned in this article - and the Boston.com article implies that they did - it only goes into effect if and when a similar law is adopted by states that add up to a majority of the EC vote. In other words, it would be impossible for MA to throw away their electoral votes as part of this plan.
Now, being at work right now and not having time to do any real research, I'm not sure that the MA version of this law includes that provision, but I'd be shocked if it didn't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is a testament to how far off track the country is that this debate is not about a Constitutional amendment, but about subverting the Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI still think Mr. Geraghty is right, in the sense that turning our Presidential election into a beauty contest would be one of the worst ideas ever to come down the pike. The current electoral college protects the interests of the states (as states) and helps to protect us all from Hugo Chavez-style 'mass populism.'
The electoral college, in spite of liberal propaganda to the contrary, is one of the best things about our American Republic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I would find interesting is if Republican-leaning states started jumping on board. So far, only Colorado seems to be seriously flirting with the idea, if you can count that as a Republican-leaning state. (It traditionally has been but certainly isn’t one at the moment, given its state government and congressional delegation.) Republicans have generally been more opposed to weakening the electoral college, maybe because more states with small populations tend to be Republican than Democratic and therefore have more power because of the electoral college, maybe because we tend to trust the Constitution as it was written more rather than thinking it needs to evolve without necessarily being changed through amendments, and maybe because Democrats are the last to fall victim to an electoral college/popular vote split. States that are not swing states and have large populations have the most to gain with a popular vote, but states that are swing states or small states would have the most to lose. If this movement progresses to the point that it is within striking distance of 270, I would guess subsequent states would become more wary of jumping on board, and some states that had come aboard may jump ship if upon reconsideration they would not benefit from a popular vote. (As much as I don’t like the national popular vote movement, I like this means a lot more than a Constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college, which would be much more permanent.) FWIW, my guess is that the national popular vote movement will lose momentum as we get further from the 2000 election.
I actually do see some upsides to a national popular vote. Although it would weaken small states, it would give voters in minority parties in non-swing states more reason to vote. Presidential candidates would have more reason to appeal to voters in states they would otherwise lose.
My main problem with abolishing the EC is that the EC limits one state’s tolerance of voter fraud to that state. It’s bad enough that voter fraud could cause a particular state to swing from one candidate to another, but at least an extra 20,000 fraudulent votes in a non-swing state doesn’t corrupt the results nationally under the present system. As long as each state is in charge of policing its own elections and has its own election laws and standards, there’s no way I’d support a national popular vote. And since I don’t want the federal government taking on another role that should be handled by the states, I imagine I will never support the national popular vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo these national vote yahoos even remember the fiasco that was the FL recount in 2000. If the national popular vote had been in place in 2000, we would have needed a nationwide recount. The loser of the popular vote has gained the presidency by winning the electoral college three times in our history. The truth is the electoral college provides a great way to quarantine any recounts to 1 or possibly a couple states in a truly close election like we had in 2000. We scrap it at the risk of a real constitutional crisis.
Then again, as Rep. Hare is found of saying "I don't worry about the Constitution".
MA really is the basket case you all imagine it to be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy you don't want politicians doing anything. This is a slow motion reaction to AlGore's defeat. Typical liberals, they are living in yesterday and apparently unaware that this only ensures 12 more votes for the Republicans this next cycle. That should result in a serious spike in therapist visits in the Bay State! Particularly if Palin were to get the votes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou would think the home state of John Adams would realize the he and the others really knew what they were doing.
Don't be fooled. Once it became clear that MA's 12 electoral votes might go to a Republican, the MA legislature would change the rule.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse