Massachusetts passes new law giving electoral votes to national popular vote winner

A state can allocate its electoral votes however it wants. Maine and Nebraska split up their electoral votes.

 

I've always thought that, if we're going to keep the Electoral College system, that is the most fair way to handle it. It ensures that, no matter who you voted for, your vote counts in the grand scheme of things.

 

I believe this is a terrible idea. Ideally, I'd like to see each and every vote count equally across the entire country; do away with the electoral college. Giving your state to the popular vote only further entrenches the the broken two party system.

 

The electoral college is an outdated system. We can technologically handle a popular vote. If we are going to amend anything... it should be to get rid of the EC. Being America though, that type of change is too drastic and would meet too much opposition by a certain party of NO.

We also could have prevented the biggest fraud and worst administration of all-time.

 

I actually agree with tallanvor and think it's a disservice to the citizens of Massachusetts to have their electoral votes determined by the national popular vote.

That said, I'd like to get rid of the electoral college. I understand why it was implemented, but it's outdated and no longer necessary.

 

The popular vote would give too much power to large states.

 

It would weaken the voice of the super small states and this is the reason why said Amendment to go to a popular vote will never happen.

With that being said, it would be nice for my vote to count for once in my lifetime without having to move out of Texas.

 

I know it's the way the country was first set up, but why shouldn't a state with 10 times as many people have 10 times the power? Why should my votes count less if I'm in a larger state?

 

But Republicans still would've lost. Gore won the popular vote in 2000.

Republicans generally get the votes from the smaller, more rural states that have increased voting power through the electoral college which makes it more likely for them to win the electoral vote without winning the popular vote than it is for the Democrats to do the same thing.

 

One person, one vote. The Electoral College was established because it was a way for states that didn't have a chance to see the candidates speak to utilize equal power.

But now, there is no need for it. As mentioned earlier, it is a hopelessly outdated system - essentially, if you vote for a different candidate than your state votes for, your vote doesn't really count.

 

I believe most states use a winner takes all system, where the electoral votes goes to whomever won the state's popular vote.

Massachusetts is well within it's rights to choose another system, but they're throwing away their privileges by choosing the national popular votes.

 

Exactly. I can imagine anyone from Massachusetts being too happy about this.

Imagine, if in 2012, it's a really close race for President, the Republican gets a slim majority nationally, and the Democrat wins Massachusetts and would have won the Presidency except for this. I'd imagine that Massachusettians (New Englanders, whatever) would burn the State House down.

 

This won't go into effect until enough states to account for a majority of electoral votes have passed the same law, so it won't matter for 2012.

 

This doesn't make any sense. If you want every vote to count equally across the country, you should be in favor of this idea - that's exactly what this does. It makes the popular vote determine the election, with every vote being equal regardless of what state they are in.

 

Which way empowers the formation of additional parties?