Tuesday, July 20, 2010

I can't understand why the people of any state would want their electoral votes to go any candidate other than the candidate preferred by a majority of the voters in that state.

And yet Massachusetts and a number of other states are proposing to award their state's electoral votes to a candidate based on how well that candidate did in attracting votes in the other 49 states?

Suppose that a particular presidential candidate won 100% of the votes in Massachusetts... but according to the proposed rules, Massachusetts electors would disregard the Massachusetts vote and instead award their votes to whichever candidate had the most votes nationwide. There's nothing like telling the people of a state that their votes don't really count, right?