Published August 3, 2010
Finally, an excuse to bring this guy back. Remember Florida? (AP)
Gov. Deval Patrick has to review 100 bills in 10 days. One of them is a measure that would effectively bypass the Electoral College.
It would award all 12 of the commonwealth’s electoral votes to the candidate chosen in the national popular vote. That is, as long as enough other states sign on.
We debated the measure last week on Radio Boston. On Twitter, I asked for your opinions and then retweeted each response. You raised interesting points and good questions.
Here are some of your responses with my notes underneath:
@rvwhalen: I’m against it. It would have meant that in 72 Massachusetts would have voted for Nixon instead of McGovern.
@marionsd: I’m all for allocating electoral votes, state by state, to match results in that state, but this would subvert will of local voters.
It’s true. In 1972, Massachusetts was the only state to vote for George McGovern — a symbol of pride for this ever-rebellious state. Had this bill been law back then, all of the Bay State’s electors would have gone to Nixon. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California gave this reasoning when he vetoed a similar measure.
@things_she_said: WORST IDEA! This means that idiots who are uninformed can sway the vote.
Um, not sure about that, but you sound a lot like the Founding Fathers who created the system in the first place. That said, the system has a lot of defenders, including people who say it protects small and rural states.
@jon_persky: There are lots of misconceptions: The law will go into effect ONLY when states controlling 270 electoral votes pass the same bill.
@jeffmather: I’m all in favor of the MA electoral college change, esp. the on-ramp it provides other states to join in w/o losing out.
This is true. (The “magic number” is 270. If a candidate gets that many electors, the election is decided.) So far, five other states have signed on to this national compact. Massachusetts’ signing on would bring that number to 73. The “on-ramp” allows other states to sign on without obligation if enough states don’t follow suit.
@donaldlehman: I question whether it will pass constitutional muster. Art. 1 Sec. 10 prohibits interstate compacts. Precedent is unclear
Excellent point. The U.S. Constitution says: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.” Indeed, this is a criticism levied by critics. That it’s unconstitutional.
@muerl: I think the opposite is better. A move to follow the Maine System where electoral votes reflect regional rather than state votes
@rvwhalen: A better plan would be for states to allocate their electoral votes proportionally to the vote in the state. A few states do this now.
@Johnheartstype: Mass. electoral votes should go to candidates Mass. residents are voting for. If anything, they should use a proportional system.
This was a popular response. Nebraska also divvies electors proportionally. If this were the case in Massachusetts, you would probably see a wave of red in the middle of the state (except for Worcester County) surrounded on both sides by blue. Probably. Commonwealth voters are highly unpredictable.
@Gavin_WMFO: I love Massachusetts’ pioneering attitude in these matters. It seems like the first real swing at a stunningly undemocratic system.
Massachusetts has never been afraid to blaze trails. If this compact were in effect in 2000, Gore would have won the presidency.
We know 