BOSTON — The Electoral College has outlived its usefulness, according to local state representatives who want the popular vote to decide presidential elections.
The state House of Representatives last week voted, 119-36, in favor of a measure that would award the state's electors to the presidential candidate who captures the popular vote nationwide, not the candidate who wins Massachusetts. The vote is part of a national push to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes wins.
"It makes a lot of sense," said Rep. John Keenan, D-Salem. "It's how I was elected, it's how the governor was elected, most people are elected that way except the president."
The change isn't driven by party politics, said Rep. Lori Ehrlich, a Democrat from Marblehead.
"It's not about electing a Democratic president," Ehrlich said. "It's about electing a president democratically."
Supporters, including Ehrlich and Keenan, argue that candidates devote a disproportionate amount of time to swing states under the current system.
"All the focus and money is going to swing states," Ehrlich said. "Smaller states or states that are presumed to go one way or another (including Massachusetts) are ignored."
In the 2004 presidential election, 75 percent of the campaign money spent was directed toward two states, Ohio and Florida, Ehrlich said. Ninety-nine percent of the money was spent in 12 states, she said.
The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by the popular vote. A candidate, as has happened four times in the country's history and most recently in 2000, can win the popular vote but lose the election.
"That's against every principle we stand for," said Rep. Ted Speliotis, a Democrat from Danvers.
The state Senate is expected to debate the bill this week. If it is approved and then signed by the governor, Massachusetts will be the fifth state to enact it. When enough states support the measure and add up to a majority (270) of the electoral votes (538), the Electoral College will become obsolete.
Rep. Brad Hill, a Republican from Ipswich, acknowledged that the system could be flawed, but disagreed with the way the bill is attempting to change it. He said it is an "end run around the Constitution."
"That is very worrisome to me," Hill said.
He said a constitutional amendment, approved by both houses of Congress and then three-quarters of the states, is the appropriate process.
"It's a long process, I understand that," Hill said. "But if it's something the country wants to do then obviously going through the process is worth it."
Ehrlich and Keenan counter that the Constitution gives states the authority to determine how their electoral votes are distributed.
Hill pointed out that eliminating the Electoral College potentially devalues the state's preference. It means all Massachusetts' electors could be lined up behind a candidate that Massachusetts voters don't support.
In Massachusetts, the bill is being championed by the political watchdog group Common Cause and former Gov. Michael Dukakis. Its passage would not affect the 2008 election.
Man Killed in Courthouse Shootout
Video of Ga. Man Who Killed Girl Released
Air Force Airlines: Leaders Get Polished Service
Ga Girl Fights Off Kidnapper at Walmart
Nevada Highway Patrol, City Settle Beating Case
White House Attacks Romney on Birth Control
Homs Bombardment Continues, Global Outcry Grows
Mo. Teen Gets Life Sentence for Killing Girl, 9
Lower-hassle Screening to Be Tested at Airports
Raw Video: Dog Rescued From Icy Colo. Water
Helmet Camera Captures Calif. Fire Rescue
Worker Tells 911: Powell 'exploded the House'
Triple Win: Santorum Takes Minn., Mo., Colo.
Injured Marine Inspired by Homecoming
No Rape Charges Against Son of NYPD Commissioner
Egypt's Ruling Generals Play Risky Game With US
Former Komen Exec Defends Funding Cut
Skip the Coffee Cup and Inhale Your Caffeine Fix
Calif. Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
Jury Selection for Ex-UVa Athlete Enters 2nd Day
