Replies

"If you're born a Republican in Massachusetts you could die without your one vote ever meaning anything," said Maryland Democratic state Sen. Jamin Raskin. "Every democracy in the world elects its president by popular vote."

First of all, nobody's "one vote" has ever meant anything in any presidential election--no state's popular vote has ever been decided by one vote. That's not why people vote.

Second, what's this crap about "every democracy in the world"? Not ever democracy in the world has a president, and those that do tend to have it as just a ceremonial position (e.g., Germany). There are lots of very democratic (small d) countries like Canada, Germany, the UK, etc., who elect their heads of government the way we do, by aggregating the votes in smaller subdivisions, so that the leader is often chosen despite lacking a majority, or even a plurality, of the popular vote.

How many of these “Democracies” are Representative Republics, like our’s? Also, states entering into these kind of compacts is very unconstitutional.

“If you’re born a Republican in Massachusetts you could die without your one vote ever meaning anything”

What that idiot doesn’t realize is that if Massachusetts begins to allocate its 12 electoral votes (11 come 2012) by giving them to the presidential candidate who won a majority or plurality of the national popular vote, then, and only then, will voters in Massachusetts see their votes become almost worthless. Massachusetts voters are around 2% of voters nationwide, and they would go from having a 100% say on how to allocate their state’s electoral votes (under the system that has served us well since the 1820s) to having a negligible 2% say on how their state’s electoral votes are allocated. It would be the biggest disenfranchisement since before women got the right to vote.