feste_sylvain

I managed to kick off a minor firestorm (but well-behaved!) on my Facebook today when I declared the bill that just passed the Massachusetts state House a bad idea.

The point of the bill is to devote Massachusetts's electoral votes to whomever gets the majority in the nationwide totals.

There are many things wrong with this idea; I will try to articulate them here:

1. We do not have national elections in this country. None. Even the presidential election is done state-by-state, with the resulting electors then sent to the Electoral College in December to actually vote for president. This means:
   
   • No state has the authority to demand the electoral results from any other state, let alone every other state.
     
   • If the nationwide numbers are a statistical tie, or if there are any reasonable disputes, there is not only no mechanism for one state to demand a recount, states are actually abjured from doing so.
     
   
   
2. Accountability: Just as the Secretary of State of each state is charged with holding municipalities accountable for elections, the Federal government (I believe the Attorney General) is charged with holding the states accountable for elections. Who, and what level, could hold a national election accountable? (That was rhetorical. At this time of history, with the current state of the United Nations or other international organization, there is no holding our Federal government accountable.)
   
3. In 1972, had this law been in place, Massachusetts's electoral votes would have gone to Nixon.
   
   • There would have been no conscience to nag at the nation.
     
   • The voters of Massachusetts, despite voting for McGovern, would have seen their votes thrown away, with resentment building as the truth came out.
     
   
   
4. I get the idea that "the president should be elected by the majority of voters" is based on the notion that the president runs the country. That is emphatically not the job description. The president is the Chief Executive, responsible for enacting and enforcing federal laws and policies, and running the bureaucracy. This Federal position deals with international and interstate matters. It is far more important that such an office have widespread support, rather than concentrated support. This is supposed to be the President of the United States, not the mayor of NYC, Chicago, and LA.
   
5. "The Electoral College is weighted toward smaller states". Yeah. So? Again, this prevents concentration. And it's not like Wyoming and Vermont get flooded with campaign commercials for their 3 electoral votes each; this skewing simply keeps them from being ignored. Also, this issue is not addressed at all by this bill (except in the sense that it could make the entire point of the Electoral College obsolete).
   
6. I can only imagine that a presidential election based on the national results would lead to less voting. And with fewer voters, motivated single-issue candidates can stir their "base" more easily; these single-issue types tend to be those who want to wield governmental power to force an unpopular position (e.g. anti-abortion).
   
7. The Perot Factor. What happens when a state votes one way, but the national outcome has no candidate with a majority? And the plurality candidate is not the winner in Massachusetts? (Remember, Clinton never got an nationwide majority.)
   
8. This edge case, this Electoral winner who does not get a national plurality, is infrequent. Out of 56 elections, it has happened all of 4 times. This appears to be the wrong solution to a minor issue (which I can't bring myself to even call a "problem").
   [ETA:]
9. The bill currently says that it won't take effect until states accounting for 270 electoral votes (out of 538) agree to do the same. But populations shift, and the number of Electors in a given state shifts with it. If states which account for a majority today eventually comprise an electoral minority, the concentration effect will become wildly skewed.