Since 1999, MassVOTE has helped bring out thousands of voters in low-income communities and communities of color. We have also worked hard to promote voting rights, and this year we are working to improve poll worker training and to bring Election Day Registration to Massachusetts. It’s strategic planning time for our small non-profit, and we are interested in finding out what you think.
Can you take a minute to tell us how we’re doing?
We’re running a short survey. Thank you,
-Avi, Atiya, and David
MassVOTE
Monday, February 26, 2007
www.massvote.org
Please share widely!
Take the survey, yo.
I can’t remember where I read or heard this, but finding liberal/progressive people and registering them to vote is almost 10x more effective than switching votes during an election with ads.
Just registering them turns unregistered nonvoters into registered nonvoters. You have to do a lot more to get them to show up at the polls.
<
p>
MassVOTE and other organizations try to do that and have varying degrees of success — not because they’re not good at it but because it’s damn hard. It’s absolutely critical though, and good for them for reaching out for feedback.
<
p>
The 10x more effective thing, however, is just not true.
When folks are scrambling to GOTV in the last 2 weeks before the election, they might get a registered nonvoter to vote, but they can’t get a non-registered nonvoter to vote because in Massachusetts you’ve got to be registered 20 days before the election.
<
p>
So, registering voters ahead of time is the first step in getting new voters, and it’s got to be done in MA 20 days before the election. Reducing that 20 days (to 0 if possible) helps increase the chances of unlikely voters actually voting, which is a good thing I think.
But I’m pretty sure what I read took that into consideration. If I have the time later, I’ll try to find it again, but I’m not sure if I’ll be able to.
<
p>
One of the key things is that once you get someone to vote once, they’re much more likely to get people to vote again. If you get them to vote again and again, you pretty much have a voter for life.
<
p>
For this reason, I’ve always been a proponent of a) having a semester-long basic civics class at some point during everyone’s freshman year of high school and b) allowing people to vote at the age of 16. If they vote at 16, when we could create a system allowing them to vote directly in their school, they’re that much more likely to vote for the rest of their lives. The average 18 year old who does vote during their very first election are voters for life. I’m pretty sure Britian enacted this very same proposal for the very same reasons. I can’t fathom any severe differences between a 18 and 16 year old that could convince me an 18 year old should be allowed to vote and a 16 year old shouldn’t. If someone can be behind the wheels, they can be behind a curtains in the booth too.
“If someone can be behind the wheels, they can be behind a curtains in the booth too.”
<
p>
And if someone can vote us into war, they can be called to serve on the front lines, too.
<
p>
If we make the voting age younger, we’ll be giving people a voice in many issues wherein they do not have responsibility for two years. Do you think that’s a good idea?
let’s draft 80 and 90 year olds too, because – after all – they vote. let’s also draft women (that’s actually a serious suggestion, if there’s ever a draft).
<
p>
Why should 18, 19 and 20 year olds be able to vote when we’re “giving [them] a voice in many issues wherein they do not have responsibility for” either?
<
p>
Elders are ecstatic about making decisions for kids in public schools, despite the fact they’re wholly removed from the process and don’t know much about today’s public education…. I think 16 and 17 year olds deserve the ability to have a voice in decisions that effect them too. After all, we don’t just vote about war (and it doesn’t seem like leaving that decision to adults is doing us a great favor anyway, based on current examples).
<
p>
Lastly, please answer for me what seperates a 16 and 17 year old from an 18 year old… why should someone who’s 17 – especially when they’ve had something few Americans could boast (a civic’s class during their freshman year) – not be able to vote when their 18 year old friend can? What’s the big difference? How is the sky going to fall?
and I like your idea. But one example:
<
p>
16 year olds are minors. In many legal settings, they have limited free will. Therefore, they’re subject to many whims of their parents.
<
p>
Is it possible that a parent will overly influence his child to vote a certain way, or prohibit the child from voting since he’ll vote the “wrong” way. You betcha. Your vote is secret, but that you voted is public record.
<
p>
That 16 year olds are minors puts them in a very different class of citizens than those who are 18+.
In any potential change of the law. In fact, you could make the same argument for any number of issues when it comes to minors, such as free speech. 16 and 17 year olds are still afforded free speech, with several small exceptions (ie there are limits in a school environment).
<
p>
The law can include a provision giving 16 and 17 year olds protection from having to divulge any information if you think it would be a big problem. I still don’t see how that makes it any different from an 18 year old, though, because the vast majority of 18 year olds are still dependent on their parents and could easily be effected by the same influences. If a 17 year old would allow their parents to have that much influence over them, I somehow doubt they’ll be magically different when they’re 18. My parents never had that much control over me (then again, I’ve always been the type to buck authority).
I agree, somre of your suggestions are serious. Women should be eligible for the draft (we’re not drafting…yet). And Prop 2.5 is great proof of what happens when people who don’t care about education vote on education funding.
<
p>
Eighty- and ninety-year olds can be drafted, but aren’t for obvious reasons. That is a military decision. The decision to extend the franchise to 16-year olds is a political decision. We shouldn’t confuse them.
<
p>
Rye, we need to draw the line somewhere, unless you’re willing to have a “citizenship entrance exam”. What separates a 19-year old from an 18-yo? Or a twenty-year old? Why not move the voting age up to a demographic that takes it seriously enough to exercise it in large numbers?
<
p>
The largest separation in our society is moving away from home — whether for work or college. That matures somebody and forces them into new, challenging situations. Because the legal obstacles to this decline significantly at 18, most folks first move from home at around 18 (not all, most). That is the main dividing line at 18 — not the somewhat arbitrary legal lines, but the different experiences that turning 18 makes available and sometimes necessary.
in becoming an adult. It’s one where you add a little responsibility as you go along. You don’t just give someone the keys, before they’ve had any training.
<
p>
Yet, you advocate just that. Toss them out of the house and then they’ll learn! In fact, we know that’s not the case. American knowledge of the political system is, quite frankly, appalling. I urge a process that teaches everyone a little more, then invites them in the process so that what they learn has actual real-life consequences. When we force students to learn things, yet don’t show them why it’s important to know about it, then they won’t value it and nothing will stick. That’s why the average American probably couldn’t tell you when Napoleon was in power or what year America became an actual country.
<
p>
Furthermore, your slippery-slope argument is, well, amusing. For starters, I’m arguing for more inclusivity, yet you’re trying to slam me for the opposite. You say, “why not move the voting age up to a demographic that takes it seriously enough to exercise it in large numbers?”
<
p>
Well, that’s exactly what I’m doing, yet I don’t see “age” to be a worthy determining demographic. Too many people don’t take it seriously at any age. Why? They never learned to, they were never taught to, hence people voting for an alcoholic because they thought he’d be fun to drink a beer with. It is for these very reasons I suggest we create a system that empowers people with the knowledge they need to cast an intelligent vote at a relatively young age, while fostering a seriousness the matter deserves. Hence, the class to be accompanied with the added rights – which, statistically, has been shown to increase participation as students age (the younger people start to vote, the more likely they are to vote in the future).
<
p>
Lastly, two things: 80 year olds can’t be drafted, despite your truthiness. Official policies and laws would have to change to make that happen. Furthermore, a citizen entrance exam already exists, but our wise founding fathers deemed it unnecessary for people naturalized in the United States at birth.
That was some great easy criticism with a healthy mix of intentional misunderstanding of what I said.
<
p>
You asked what the main difference is between 18-year olds and younger. I told you. You didn’t like it, so pretended I was promoting the idea to “toss people out of the house.” I don’t remember meeting one person who went away to college because they were tossed out. If we have to pick a year to divide, 18 makes sense. But you don’t want a year — you want something more subjective. You say:
<
p>
“It is for these very reasons I suggest we create a system that empowers people with the knowledge they need to cast an intelligent vote at a relatively young age, while fostering a seriousness the matter deserves.”
<
p>
How do you graduate from this class? Is it simply attendance, or does the instructor get to decide who is “ready” to vote? Do we have an exam written by a company contracted by the government (which has done such a great job with MCAS) or is it based on the teacher’s particular foibles? And this class happens when? Not during school hours, there’s no time for a decent lunch with today’s schedule.
<
p>
In summary, you’re advocating a subjective criteria to extend the franchise that will necessarily benefit middle- and upper-class white English-native youth. Just what we need.
<
p>
Playing cute and dumb about the “citizenship entrance exam” should be beneath you — you know exactly what I meant. Oh, and I said not drafting 80-year olds was a “military decision”, which is very different than saying it’s a decision made by the military. Civilians control the military in this coutnry Ryan — something that should be taught in your extension of privilege classes.
Toss wasn’t meant to suggest that kids were actually kicked out of their house, just that there was a very sudden departure. I wasn’t intentionally misunderstanding anything. Furthermore, you didn’t say much in regards to the difference… you just created a new parameter for the measurements. Seriously, what are the cognitive differences between a 17 and 18 year old that are so great that the 17 year old shouldn’t be able to vote?
<
p>
To address your actual concerns, you don’t “graduate” from that class at all. It would be a graded class, just like any other. It wouldn’t be tied to being able to vote at all, just a required course. After all, there’s no rule saying that only intelligent people could vote. Voting tests were truly tossed out – in that sense of the word you were originally thinking – during the 60s. The class would absolutely be during the day as it’s an essential class every American should take, perhaps more important than any singular year of history, math, science or english.
<
p>
I take umbrage to the fact that you say this would benefit a certain class of people. The obvious intention, as I’ve said again and again, is to open the doors of voting to everyone – while trying to give people more tools to have at their disposal. There is no test one takes to vote; I wouldn’t impliment it now. It would probably be tossed as unconstitutional even if one wanted to have such an exam. Everyone would benefit from such a policy change – especially young students, who would finally have a say in important matters that go on in their school.
<
p>
If you don’t think students deserve that opportunity, you certainly belittle their intelligence and do no service to their eventual competency as voting citizens. Obviously, many people in Massachusetts think 17 and 18 year olds can be competent enough to make matters of crucial importance. In fact, there’s a full-voting student member on the Massachusetts Board of Education. I’ve personally known two of them in my life, having lost an election during my Senior year of High School to hold that position myself. The student member of that board even cast the deciding vote in selecting David Driscoll to head up our state’s k-12 educational system. I’ve personally made recommendations to the MCAS process, when I was on the State Student Advisory Council to the Board of Education, that were enacted (a review process that superintendents were required to submit to the DoE for students who failed the exam). So, when you give students responsibility, they can indeed make competent decisions that will have a lasting effect in their ability to engage in the civic process throughout the course of their lives.
Okay, you’re talking a required course. There’s no testing, which frankly makes the grading far more subjective (what are you talking about — journaling? Homework?). Fine.
<
p>
So I’ll ask: does the collective student body of those who pass the MCAS or graduate high school reflect society? No. It’s richer and whiter. That is what I expect would happen in the course you describe. There’s so much potential for abuse, that I don’t want to subject the right to vote to them.
<
p>
And I’m afraid your reading into what I wrote whyn you say that I belittle students of a certain age. I have given out information to my 12- and 13-yr old students about how to vounteer politically. It doesn’t take a genius to realize how valuable and aware teenage volunteers are — it takes someone who’s been on a campaign.
You have the amazing ability to take people’s words out of context. I’m sensing they’re not just coincidences, but whatever. The courses are graded, but passing the class isn’t required to actually vote. I’m quite convinced that would be unconstitutional. But even a person who would flunk the course would probably learn something.
<
p>
What the hell does the MCAS have to do with this? I don’t know how I can make this any clearer: passing the class would not be dependent on being able to vote. Should I repeat it five times?
<
p>
So, it’s okay to ask for a teenager’s slave labor during a cmapaign – but not let them vote? Yikes. However, your ideas and concepts are belittling, whether you like it or not. You’re saying a 17 year old isn’t somehow capable of making a rational decision, at least as rational as an 18 year old – who, I’ll remind you, often make voting decisions before ever leaving the home. I was an elected member of town meeting during my last few weeks in high school.
Okay, I’ll admit to my mistakes; someone has to be the grown-up here. I didn’t realize that you didn’t have to pass the class to vote. You just have to sit there and remain conscious. Got it. So I agree that the failures of MCAS are not germane to this discussion. The failure of this class to meet any standard is.
<
p>
My other points stand — do you think it’s “belittling” that I don’t think 17 year olds should be allowed in the draft? Or they shouldn’t be allowed to purchase alcohol? No — you’re on a crusade here, and you’ll insult anyone who stands in your way. (Frankly, many people of all ages are incapable of making rational decisions at the ballot box. That is not a prima facie reason to include or exclude someone).
Oh yes, I’m a crusader all right. Let me go march on D.C. so 17 year olds can vote… because writing a few posts online is so indicative that one would be obsessed over an issue.
<
p>
Misdirection. That’s what you do. I’m talking about voting, but since you can’t come up with one good reason why an 18 year old should be able to vote but not a 17 year old, you switch the conversation to why a 17 year old should be allowed to be drafted. Interesting.
<
p>
You then speak as if this class would be meaningless, as if the vast majority of students would flunk it. How many students flunk a particular high school class? 1 in 15 or 20? So, because it wouldn’t be useful for that one or two people, suddenly it’s a terrible idea.
<
p>
Your logic is excellent. Clearly, you’re a brilliant person. In fact, we should vote you in office or something… that way we can change the voting age to demographics that will vote, that way we can treat 17 year olds like little kids incapable of dealing with decisions and that way, as soon as they decide to leave the house, they’ll be perectly cabable adults magically! Wootness!
…but you might not care for some of my answers.
<
p>
No matter. I believe in the full participation of entitled citizens to vote, and will work towards that goal.
care to indulge us? Inquiring minds want to know!
I do not support public funding, but greter transparancy. We should have weekly, not annual/monthly, on-line OCPF reports, during campaign season. Every candidate juggles donations and expenditure to create false impressions under the current system.
<
p>
I do NOT support same day registration, until we tie it into a social security marker, to show if you are registered elsewhere. Likewise, town clerks should ‘unregister’ people who have registered elsewhere. Until we have unregistration requirements, I cannot support same day registration and voting. Likewise, a person should be able to demonstrate citizenship for same day registration, and eligibility to vote. Not just sign an affadavit and hope not to get caught, but actual proof. Until that can be done, we need the 20 day wait.
<
p>
I was annoyed by several of the questions about poor and minority people. In my experience, the poor are more likely to vote – esp. in local elections – than rich people who take off for Cancun and Florida and only vote presidential.
<
p>
AND – while this was not an option on the quiz – I think we should have a national holiday on the day of the presidential election. It’s a leap year anyway, so there would be no loss of productivity due to losing a day – thee would still be 365 days to work.
and disagree (although not really strongly necessarily) with other bits.
<
p>
Public funding? I like it. Maybe not in its current implementation, but I do like it. Personally, instead of the gov’t paying candidates, I’d like to see the gov’t require that those media who are using public property donate media space. Public airwaves television? Gotta give time, and in bigger than 30 second increments please. Got honor boxes on the streets selling papers? You’ve got to give some adspace/column inches away. Etc. End result: you lower the cost of elections, which reduces the need for public funding.
<
p>
Greater transparency? You betcha. I’d love to have weekly (even bi-weekly) OCPF updates, 52 weeks a year. And, there are lots of “letter sent requesting info” in the OCPF. That’s crap. If you don’t get the data required, you should have to refund the money.
<
p>
I disagree with your same day registration concern. Frankly, the penalty for violating election law (up to 5 years in jail and/or $10,000 fine) is more than sufficient to dissuade a person from voting twice. That doesn’t mean that the Sec of Commonweatlh (Galvin) and Towns Clerk shouldn’t be coordinating efforts to check for fraud, double registration, etc… but I just don’t think in-person multi-vote fraud is a significant risk, and therefore shouldn’t justify preventing people who are otherwise eligible to vote from voting. Demonstrating proof of citizenship is actually a really high standard. I couldn’t do it — my drivers license* is out-of-state (I don’t own a car, so it doesn’t matter), my passport has expired, and my social security card is kicking around a box at my parents’ house.
<
p>
Who votes more — the poor or the rich? I don’t know, but I’m sure somebody does. In my personal experience, the rich vote more — because homeowners are far more likely to vote in local elections than renters (with condo owners somewhere in the middle). My neighborhood has 60% renters, and yet occupants of single family homes make up well more than 50% of the votes cast for town elections, with condo owners and multifamily residents making up another big chunk.
<
p>
I do disagree on the national holiday, although your point about leap years is a really strong one which I had never considered. My chief concern: four day weekends. I also wonder what this does to statistically shift the likelihood of voting with respect to those who don’t get national holidays off — doctors, emergency personnel, service industry jobs, etc.
<
p>
But, I don’t think that your responses were that far outside of this site’s mainstream, to be honest.
<
p> * Arguably, Drivers License doesn’t demonstrate citizenship anyway.
I agree with a lot of what you say, particularly on the national voting holiday. This stuff is too important to try to cram in between work and the kids’ ballet lesson.
<
p>
I disagree about weekly campaign finance reports, though. Those things are a beast to fill out, and most first-time campaigns struggle to get it done on a monthly basis. Campaign treasurer is almost as demanding a job as candidate, and increasing the burden I think really aides those who’ve done it before.
<
p>
One thing I would like to see is for Mass. to sign up to that law that’s making the rounds to proportionately dsitribute its electoral votes (which does not require a constitutional amendment) in presidential elections, as long as significant numbers of other states do the same.
Maine method: each congressional district is worth 1 EV, and the 2 “senatorial” EVs go to the popular vote winner.
<
p>
Nebraska method: each congressional district is worth 1 EV, and the 2 “senatorial” EVs go to the winner of at least 2 of the 3 congressional districts.
<
p>
Given that MA has 10 CDs, the Nebraska method doesn’t work out exactly well.
…but given the fact that it would have given GWB 3 Mass. electoral votes – with no campaigning – in 2006, and now both parties can write off our 12 votes as Dem and not bother with us – what chance do you think the Dem Lege and Gov will want a change?
in the sense that we won’t get any more presidential attention than we get now. There might be a few “swing” CDs within MA. You think that a candidate is going to work hard to swing 1 or 2 EVs in MA when he could be spending that time working on close states with more EVs at stake — everything from NM’s 5 to OH’s 20?
<
p>
If the goal is to get more presidential attention, I don’t really see this working. How much time did Bush or Kerry spend in Maine or Nebraska?
Mass GOP had an organized Mass-to-Maine initiative, going door to door for Bush in Maine. Naturally, since his folks live there, GWB spent time in Maine as well.
<
p>
Did Kerry campaign anywhere?
<
p>
As close as the last few elections have been, EVERY electoral vote counts – except in winner-take-all states with an overwhelming one-party legislature and political establishment, like…well….I guess just Massachusetts, as the other winner take all states are pretty competitive.
And by cronies, I mean all volunteers 😀
<
p>
<
p>
He spent nearly all his time campaigning in the presidential (not primary) race in the same places that GWB did — the swing states. GWB spent a few minutes in Maine due to his parents, and I’d bet that time was mostly spent earlier in the campaign rather than later.
<
p>
As for Mass-to-Maine, I campaigned in both ME and NH for Kerry. But, a local GOTV effort isn’t the same thing; it isn’t what I’m talking about. State parties and local groups have to stay fairly local. Presidential candidates can spend their time and money anywhere in the country. The candidates themselves allocate their resources to where they get the most buck — where their chance of winning those EVs increases to a useful level.
<
p>
Every EV counts, but you don’t see many presidents campaigning for votes in about two dozen states — it’s just not likely that they’ll be able to swing the electorate there. In the Northeast, it’s really rare to see candidates outside of NH (and now, a little bit, NJ).
<
p>
Candidates spend virtually no time in ME and NE — which are both far closer to purple than MA. If the underdog won’t try hard for those EVs, why would they try hard for those in MA, which would they try for those EVs in MA?
There is a movement to have states adopt this method, but part of the law is that it will be triggered only when a sufficient number of votes are allocated this way to erase any resultant partisan advantage.
<
p>
If Mass were to do it in concert with Ohio, Florida, Texas, New York, California, Colorado and others (for example), we could talk it over.
The chances that we’ll keep all 10 after the next census is slim to none. But, I agree with you, I prefer the Maine method.
There are lots of good comments here about Same Day Election Registration, but I want to emphasize where I see its greatest value.
<
p>
Simply put, a democracy is made weaker every time a U.S. citizen is denied the right to vote, simply because he or she did not register to vote before an arbitrary number of days before an election, or, even more likely, because a person did register to vote, but discovers on Election Day that due to a mistake or processing error that he or she cannot vote.
<
p>
The greatest practical value of Same Day Election Registration is that every citizen who did register to vote, but discovers on Election Day that they are for some reason not registered to vote, would be able to correct this oversight, and cast their constitutionally-protected right to vote. We should focus on how this common occurence truly takes away from people being part of the government that they elect.
<
p>
Given that Massachusetts has one of the most advanced and up to date central voter databases thanks to the Secretary of State, passing Same Day Election Registration in Massachusetts is entirely possible, and it will make sure that more people will vote, and equally important that fewer people won’t be turned off from participating in democracy by being denied a right on Election Day.
If they are indeed eligible to vote, then it will be counted.
<
p>
If they are not eligible to vote, then they should not be counted.
<
p>
If they cannot be bothered to register before that arbitrary day because they alone are special, then their opinions on laws and lawmakers may be shaky, and they can vote next time.
I register voters. Lots of ’em. Hundreds in the past few years. Since I’m detail oriented and well practiced, I pay attention.
<
p>
An amazing number don’t check off the first two parts (over 18, US Citizen). Maybe 30% of the people I solicit aren’t vote-worthy. Or, maybe the form is just bad design.
<
p>
Some folks have bad handwriting. Really bad. When I go back and check with the Town Clerk’s registration file, I’ve found people who were listed in the database with a different name, address, and DOB.
<
p>
Shaky? Give me a break. Same day registration would eliminate these types of problems. These are people who (sans-registration) are eligible to vote, but who show up to vote and are turned away. The system exists to serve us, not the other way around. In these cases, the system has failed. The people are US citizens over 18, and should be allowed to cast a vote.
…until I turned 21. Missed VERY important elections because I wasn’t old enough, and couldn’t wait to be able to.
<
p>
I have serious reservations about people who want to walk in on voting day – how DO we check on them? We let them cast provisional ballots now.
Are you really afraid of voter fraud?
<
p>
How often do you think that people are willing to fraudulently — in person, in front of a mix of volunteers, town employees, and police officers — sign a form swearing that they are eligible to vote, and thereby risk up to 5 years in the can and/or up to $10,000 in fines to cast a single vote?
<
p>
It just doesn’t sound plausible. Will it ever happen? Probably, although rarely. Will it ever change the outcome of an election? Signs point to “not a freaking chance.”
<
p>
But you know what might change the outcome of an election — the much larger number of people than in the previously discussed class who decide, for whatever reason, that they want to vote between 19 and 0 days before the election. US Citizens who are 18+, haven’t committed election fraud in the past, and live in that particular voting district. Those people could easily represent 1% or 2%. Enough to legitimately change an election outcome. Their votes should count, because they are otherwise eligible to vote. Their reasons for deciding to vote between 19 and 0 days before the election is, frankly, none of your business.
<
p>
You weren’t able to vote at 19 years old because of a decision about which classes of people were allowed to vote — not because of paperwork. The difference is really important, not not subtle.
Gore took NH for granted, had he not he might be in the White House now instead of merely getting an Oscar. Kerry’s team did not want to make the same mistake twice so when polls showed ME was close they sent volunteers there as well as to NH.
<
p>
I think having every state adopt the Maine system would be a fair compromise between a national popular vote and the current electoral college since it would prevent a mass media campaign and if anything make a district wide door to door campaign that much more crucial to a presidential campaign. It also means many states that previously did not get visits would get them and overall make the process more democratic, accessible, and interesting.
<
p>
If one where to combine that with the state by state adoption of instructing electors to vote with the popular vote regardless essentially the electoral college would become meaningless.
<
p>
Although the Maine proposal across the country would hurt Democrats more since there are more rural districts than urban districts, i.e all of the non Chicago, all of the non NYC, and all of the non SF and LA districts in reliably blue states such as IL, CA, and NY would all go red, while fairer it would hurt our chances.
<
p>
Just look at this map and see how the Maine proposal nationwide would look: http://www.princeton…
<
p>
The upside is we would get votes from the urban/black parts of the South and Texas so it might even out.
and this isn’t the first time I’ve read it…
<
p>
<
p>
Congressional districts are based on population, not geography. The only argument for this claim, and I haven’t seen the numbers, is that city CDs are “more blue” than other CDs are “red”. In other words, if it were true that urban CDs were going something like 80% blue, and rural and suburban CDs were going 55% red, this would be true.
<
p>
But, I’ve never seen evidence of this. Furthermore, given that blue currently has a 30 seat advantage in the House, it would seem that there are at least 300 CDs willing to pull the lever for blue.
Even with population loss, the Blues would rather have Mass. as a given, not something they might have to acknowledge is purple.
<
p>
Are voters well served? Not especially – as I said, GWB carried @ 1/3 of Mass. and got bupkis for electoral votes from here.
<
p>
I absolutely agree that apportioning electoral votes to match the popular vote is a good compromise between the current system and a popular vote, but I do not think it will happen as EACH side has electoral votes squirrled away under the current system that they don’t have to ‘fight’ for.