Breaking the Hold of Liberalism in Massachusetts

My own head :-) | 3/29/04 | joedownthestreet

[joedownthestreet]

I was just wondering. I've never done anything like this before, and would like opinions. It seems to me that being a republican or conservative in Massachusetts is almost a futile effort when it comes to voting for president. The way our electoral votes are distributed, as in many states, gives us NO voice in the matter.

I would like to start a grass roots movement to have our system changed to a system by where the electoral votes of Massachusetts are divided according to the percentage vote of the population.

[dirtboy]

You might want to check out the electoral vote allocation process in Nebraska and Main - they allocate electoral votes for each congressional district won and then give two electoral votes for the statewide winner.

[joedownthestreet]

oops, sorry for the mispellings. :-)

[DM1]

I gave up on Mass and fled to NH
bulking up the Conservative base up there now

[Eva]

What you are proposing would defeat the purpose of the electoral system, allowing a tyranny of the majority over the minority. Think about it, the Democrats would win a majority of the electoral votes on shear percentage of population, because cities in fly over country still contain a higher percentage of Democrats. If you don't like being disenfranchised, move to a red state.

[ClearCase_guy]

Something to keep in mind: Every once in a while, someone starts a grassroots effort in MA to do something. They gets lots of signatures. They get a Referendum Question on the ballot. The people vote on it. The grassroots effort easily wins -- perhaps 60% of the MA population indicate that they want this to happen.

And the MA Legislature laughs and laughs and laughs.

[Publius]

The present method of winner-take-all in the Electoral College dates from the 1828 presidential campaign when the two-party system as we know it came into being. Before that, it was rather chaotic, differing by state. In some states, the legislature chose electors, and in others the voters made the choice.

After the close call in 1968, two Republican senators, Everett Dirksen of Illinois and Karl Mundt of South Dakota, proposed a constitutional amendment that would allocate electors uniformly by the following formula:

• Each congressional district would get one electoral vote.
• Each state would get two electoral votes.

In the Seventies, after both Dirksen and Mundt were called to their eternal rewards, there was a brief boomlet for direct popular election of presidents, something suggested by James Wilson of Pennsylvania at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and by Andrew Jackson himself in 1829.

But the Dirksen-Mundt idea survived in a states' rights version. Maine went to the Dirksen-Mundt formula, followed by Nebraska. There was a brief discussion of the idea in North Carolina before it was dismissed.

States have the right to partition electoral votes any way they please. Even your formula is valid.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

I have a friend who is a conservative in MA and he votes for Nader in the general election, so Nader will keep running and thus destroy the dems choices. When I lived in Boston, I proudly cast my vote for the big R. Granted, a MA R is like a conservative democrat in most cases. It amazes me that Elder Romney won governor. What the heck does that mean for the political future of MA?

I am not a big fan of the Elder for many reasons, but mostly because his attacked my uncle in the local papers.

[Cicero]

Very bad idea. What might help in Massachusetts would hurt overall. The Democrats would LOVE to see a constitutional amendment getting rid of the present electoral college.

[ladtx]

I think he just wants to change the system in MA not the entire US.

[birdsman]

If every state done this, imagine how many recounts we would have to deal with in close elections.

[joedownthestreet]

I am not sure I understand your position. Right now, conservatives, as the minority in Massachusetts have zero voice when it comes to presidential elections. Also, a system which divides the electoral votes in a state is not a new or untested concept it occurs in Maine and in other states in our great union. What i am proposing gives us at least our percentage voice in the process if nothing more and that is all I am looking to accomplish. Nothing more, and nothing less.

[Eva]

But can't change the system for a federal election in one state. By definition, it's a federal issue.

[Publius]

But can't change the system for a federal election in one state. By definition, it's a federal issue.

Yes, you can. Read Post #7.

[ladtx]

It's the system they use in Nebraska and Maine.

[IYAS9YAS]

Not true, the states determine how the electoral votes are cast. A couple use the winner of the district gets that district. The majority use winner take all. It does leave the minority (even if 49.999%) out. I like the idea of the winner in each district getting that district's vote.

[Eva]

Thanks, I didn't know that.

[2banana]

Take a lesson from the democrats and vote at least 6 times in each election...

[joedownthestreet]

No, I am definately not advocating the elimination of the electoral system. God knows, the last presidential election showed us why that should never change.

What I am looking for is a system in Massachusetts that at least gives conservatives a voice in the election. As it is now, the dems get ALL our votes, regardless of what we do.

Though, the Nader thing is not a bad idea :-)

[IYAS9YAS]

No I don't want to see a direct popular vote, but I do think the winner of the district should get the electoral vote for that district.