The votes you cast in presidential elections are not for candidates but are for a slate of Electors pledged to the candidates of your choice. Collectively Electors are referred to as the Electoral College.
The Constitutional Convention in 1787 chose this indirect method for electing the president and vice president because of the political and social attitudes of the times, as well as the slowness of transportation and communication in the 18th century. Some delegates worried about giving direct political power to choose the head of government to those they thought might not be well educated and well informed about important issues.
It was also hoped that the Electoral College system would reconcile the differences between state and federal interests; give less populous states some additional leverage by apportioning electoral votes not in strict proportion to state population.
Massachusetts now has 11 Electoral Votes. This number is determined by adding the number of our Members of Congress (we will have 9 after the November election) plus two Senators.
So many ask should the Electoral College be abolished? Does it still serve a purpose? Two states currently apportion their Electors based on the popular vote in their state. Should all states do that?
Participate in our poll question on the Electoral College go to http://vote2012info.com/poll-question.
toto
12:36 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. In California, the presidential race has been competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. A smaller fraction of the country's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 30%) that now get overwhelming attention, while more than two-thirds of the states are ignored Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
toto
12:37 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the primaries, like Massachusetts.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
toto
12:40 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
A survey of Massachusetts voters in 2010 showed 72% overall support for the idea that the President should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked
"How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?"
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 86% among Democrats, 54% among Republicans, and 68% among others.
By gender, support was 85% among women and 60% among men.
By age, support was 85% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.
NationalPopularVote
toto
12:41 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
Massachusetts voters were also asked a 3-way question by Public Policy Polling:
"Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the state's electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?"
The results of this three-way question were that
68% favored a national popular vote,
16% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district, and
16% favored the existing statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
NationalPopularVote
toto
12:42 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state. Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, Massachusetts – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions, including Massachusetts, possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
toto
12:43 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
On June 14, 2010, after a detailed study of the issue in 2009 involving over 6,500 League members from over 200 local Leagues, the League of Women Voters endorsed the National Popular Vote bill at their annual convention in Atlanta. "We support the use of the National Popular Vote Compact as one acceptable way to achieve the goal of the direct popular vote for election of the president until the abolition of the Electoral College is accomplished"
Motion #534-573, LWV of Arizona.
Motion APPROVED.
The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by other organizations such as Common Cause, FairVote, Sierra Club, NAACP, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, ACLU, the National Latino Congreso, Asian American Action Fund, DEMOS, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, and the Brennan Center for Justice.
League of Women Voters of Brookline
7:40 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
Participate in our poll question about the Electoral College on our 2012 voting and election website - http://vote2012info.com/poll-question