Hey, there! Log in / Register
Electoral College, Shmectoral College
By Kaz on Mon, 07/19/2010 - 1:46pm
The MA House and Senate are setting up the state to help usurp the Electoral College as part of the "National Popular Vote" campaign. Enactment votes will send the bill to Deval Patrick for his signature. The consequence of this bill will be to push all 12 of the state's electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the will of the people of MA.
If the campaigners can go state-by-state to get 270 of the 538 electoral votes to be decided in this manner, then the national popular vote winner would become the President. The 5 states that have already chosen to vote in this manner constitute 23% of the 270 votes that they need to secure their plan.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Am I missign something?
Why do it this way? Wouldn't it make more sense to just allocate your electoral votes proportionally based on how your citizens vote? I believe Maine and one or two other states already do it this way. Seems to make more sense to me...
Maine and Nebraska.
/nt
Harder way to do it
That would require every state to agree to that system.
The current attempt requires only 270 of the 538 votes adopt the method they're pushing MA and others to sign into...a far smaller hurdle than getting all 50 states on board.
In other words, the minimum they would need to adopt their "follow the national popular vote" plan would be 11 states: California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15). If these 11 states signed on, then the other 39 states wouldn't matter (as states) for this initiative as the result of the national popular vote would yield 271 electoral college votes. This is a much smaller hurdle than convincing them all to partition their votes per the state's popular vote.
Because
Currently, all Massachusetts national election votes go fairly reliably to the Democratic candidate for president. If reliable Democratic states like Massachusetts went to proportional allocation of electoral votes, and reliable Republican states kept with a winner-takes-all system, the changes would skew the electoral votes towards Republican candidates - they'd still take all the votes in, say, Utah, and then get a minority of the electoral votes from MA as well.
Moistened bints lobbing scimitars [edit]
I thought our executive officer was elected by way of a farcical aquatic ceremony.... am I missing something?
Electoral college -- pffffbbbbtt!
Shortcomings of state-by-state winner-take-all
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but now used by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). 12 of the 13 smallest states were NOT included. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
Reality
Since the mid-1800's after the changes to the Electoral College made by the 12th Amendment, there have only been 3 elections (Bush v Gore, Harrison v Cleveland 1888, and Hayes v Tilden 1876) where the popular vote did not ultimately agree with the Electoral College.
That goes either way
In the majority of elections, where the popular vote and the electoral college agree, this makes no difference at all. In the few cases they differ, this lets the popular vote win.
So "it doesn't usually matter" isn't an argument against it; if they want to pass a meaningless law, why care? The question is which one you'd want to win when it counts.
My point
It's not a meaningless law because of how it seeks to distort the process. MA should vote for MA's intended outcome, not the nation's. It's a matter of principles and sovereignty. Just because the system *can* be gamed doesn't mean it should. It's improper.
It's also the responsibility of the person requiring a change to justify the change. If the justification is "it would have better represented the will of the people in many elections up until now", then I disagree, since only 3 would have flipped based on the popular votes. It's not a compelling reason given the consistency of the results. There may be better reasons (enfranchising more voters, etc.) but this particular thread is about whether it would have made much of a difference in past elections or not to have followed the popular vote.
The best way to enfranchise more voters:
1) Eliminate the Electoral College completely - go to a true popular vote.
2) Enact One Day, One Primary - this puts all primary votes on an equal footing.
3) Eliminate the need for voters to choose a party affiliation in order to recieve a ballot - have all primary candidates on ONE ballot with the instruction "Vote for One Only" in each race.
4) Have the candidate with the highest number of primary votes automatically be that party's nominee for the office.
"Since the mid-1800's after
"Since the mid-1800's after the changes to the Electoral College made by the 12th Amendment, there have only been 3 elections (Bush v Gore, Harrison v Cleveland 1888, and Hayes v Tilden 1876) where the popular vote did not ultimately agree with the Electoral College."
One is too many.
The National Popular Vote bill
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote), including current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
One demon for another
Nonsense. The electoral college already has a population density bias (California gets more votes than Kansas). All this would do is to heighten that bias towards the cities and away from more rural areas. They wouldn't have to care about anyone outside of the high density urban centers. It's an exchange of "swing states" for "cities".
actually, there's already a rural bias
Actually, there's a distinct bias for rural voters as it is, since, in addition to the population-proportional representatives, each state gets two senators --- Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes for its 545,000 voters, while Massachusetts gets 12 for its 6.5 million voters, California's 37 million get only 55 electoral votes.
So, Massachusetts, with 12 times as many citizens as Wyoming, gets only 3 times as many votes. California, with 75 times as many citizens, gets only 18 times as many votes.
That's not "bias"
That's normalization. There are 50 states electing a president in this democratic republic. The electoral college vote distribution is still far more heavily biased towards population density than your ratios account for.
Distortions based on electoral college vote counts per state:
Distortions based on population density per state:
Sure, as you want to claim, Wyoming and Montana are about twice as big by electoral college votes than they are by population...but I hardly think that impacts California's girth much at all, now does it?
The population of the top
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down in name recognition as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all rules, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
Too much assumption
You assume things like "every vote" from a demographic going to either one candidate or another based on how they spend their time/effort/money. That *never* happens. Focusing on the urban vote is just like focusing on the swing states...enough effort pushes just enough points in the polls towards you that you win. It's a giant balance and you only hope to sway it enough towards you to win in the modern era.
Look at this post at 538.com from the 2008 election. Read the 4th conclusion they draw from their simulations of the election:
Win the electoral college and you're going to very likely win the popular vote. According to you, you will win the electoral college by focusing on swing states (or as others call them "Tipping Point States"). It sounds like fundamentally you've changed things by saying things like "1 farmer = 1 city-boy" and "everyone counts the same!"...but there's still 80 city-boys to every 20 farmers and so focusing on getting at least 50-60 of those city-boys is still more important than trying to sway any of those 20 farmers.
72% of Massachusetts voters support a national popular vote
A survey of 800 Massachusetts voters conducted on May 23-24, 2010 showed 72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked
"How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?"
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 86% among Democrats, 54% among Republicans, and 68% among others. By gender, support was 85% among women and 60% among men. By age, support was 85% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/
So what?
Next time ask them "How should MA vote in the election: Should it be for the candidate that MA wants to elect, or who the rest of the nation wants to elect?".
Let's see how popular your end-run around the electoral college fairs then. Also, where were you before 2000? I'm guessing this isn't a concern you've had ever since Rutherford B. Hayes usurped the public's opinion, eh? This is only of interest to anyone right now because Gore lost to Bush...and Bush went on to be one of the worst leaders this country has ever seen. Why use the popular vote? There are numerous other voting methods which would better accurately portray the "fairest" candidate choice instead and allow for a much better range of choices than the current two party system.
Gaming the election by having states agree to throw their votes looks both petty and unscrupulous. MA should vote how MA citizens want and NOT whatever the country has to say. If you want the COUNTRY to use the popular vote, then get the COUNTRY to use the popular vote.
Good point- a constitutional amendment
Would be a much better solution. Just get rid of the electoral college entirely.
Wow
I agree with Dan here. Get rid of this ancient and wasteful idea that we need to prevent the popular vote from electing the president.
The process for amending the
The process for amending the U.S. Constitution does not reflect the will of the people. A federal constitutional amendment favored by states containing 97% of the people of the U.S. could be blocked by states containing 3% of the people.
Operative word: "Could".
You're right! And yet we've managed to amend the constitution 17 times in ~200 years since the first Bill of Rights was ratified. Those 3% need to work on their game if they're going to impede the will of the other 97% the way you suggest they *could*.
Opponents remain stuck on a
Opponents remain stuck on a misconception that the plan would “force” states to give their electoral votes to a candidate that may not have won their state, but this misses the point entirely. The National Popular Vote plan changes the Electoral College from an obstruction of the popular will to a ratifier in that it would always elect the candidate who has won the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Rather than states throwing their votes away, the actual voters themselves are empowered, as each and every one of us would have an equal vote for president – something we are sorely lacking under the Electoral College.
http://www.fairvote.org/connecticut-house-passes-npv/
In the 3 state examples of polling 800 voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.
Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"
Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"
Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages...php#SD_2009MAY
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2.
see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages...php#CT_2009MAY
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2.
see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages...php#UT_2009MAY
Uh huh
"is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president"...
Talk about asking the question in the most beneficial light for your cause. Most people aren't going to think through the less-than-obvious consequence to your phrasing while on the phone.
Next time, ask Utah "would you have been okay with your state's electoral college reps voting for Barack Obama in 2008?" and see if you still maintain 66% favorable responses. Let me know how many threaten to hunt down your poll taker, too.
Idiocy
Under the NPV system, if Texas announced that 50 billion votes had been cast in that state for George Bush III, Massachusetts would have to instruct its electors to vote for George Bush III.
Are you saying that this
Are you saying that this system encouraged election fraud?
What election?
Massachusetts has no oversight of any kind over Texas's election. None. Texas is not, to my knowledge, required to HOLD a presidential election. They're certainly not required to hold an election where everyone gets one vote. They could give everyone 10 votes, to distribute as they see fit amongst the candidates.
I don't have a problem with having a national popular vote determine the presidency. But this bill is not a rational way to go about implementing it.
The potential for political
The potential for political fraud and mischief is not uniquely associated with either the current system or a national popular vote. In fact, the current system magnifies the incentive for fraud and mischief in closely divided battleground states because all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state.
Under the current system, the national outcome can be affected by mischief in one of the closely divided battleground states (e.g., by overzealously or selectively purging voter rolls or by placing insufficient or defective voting equipment into the other party's precincts). The accidental use of the butterfly ballot by a Democratic election official in one county in Florida cost Gore an estimated 6,000 votes ? far more than the 537 popular votes that Gore needed to carry Florida and win the White House. However, even an accident involving 6,000 votes would have been a mere footnote if a nationwide count were used (where Gore's margin was 537,179). In the 7,645 statewide elections during the 26-year period from 1980 to 2006, the average change in the 23 statewide recounts was a mere 274 votes.
Senator Birch Bayh (D–Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, "one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes."
That's precisely the problem
That "the current system magnifies the incentive for fraud and mischief in closely divided battleground states" is an advantage of the present system, not a bug. Given a choice, it's better that opportunities for fraud be focused on hotly-contested battleground states, where there are two strong political establishments that can try to police fraud. NPV, on the other hand, creates opportunities for fraud everywhere. If there is Republican voter fraud in Oklahoma (for example), no one is going to blow the whistle.
Kaz, you seem to be ________
Kaz, you seem to be ________ but don't share much to refudiate this plan (which places election results closer to the hands of voters). Curious why you think this is _______.
Pretty clear
I have misunderestimated the ability for a few people to quietly wee-wee'd up our voting system.
Changes to EC
I am ok with changing the Electoral College, but not this plan. In 1972 Massachusetts was proud of not voting for Nixon, under this plan, that would not have mattered.
Break it up: One EC vote per congressional district, and 2 winner take all per state for the 2 senate seats.
But eliminating the EC will lead to a tyranny worse than the Shrub.
The irony here is that, for
The irony here is that, for the supposed greater good, this means that Mass. electors are NOT required to follow the Mass. electorate. And 1972 is a good example... with this law McGovern's Mass. victory wouldn't have been reflected in the electoral college... and Nixon's Vietnam policy would have been more strongly endorsed in the election results.
Tyranny worse than the shrub
You're right - we could end up with a president who continues the same practices as the shrub - oh wait - we got that WITH the EC. :-)
I once thought getting rid of the EC might be a good idea but someone explained to me that the origins were precisely to PREVENT the election of the president by the popular vote (which would probably still happen with a split system). As I believe Kaz points out above, 11 large states could theoretically control the election of the president. The whole point of the EC is to give the smaller states an "equalizer" with their two senatorial based votes so that New England, northern plains states and a few other smaller states don't get completely marginalized.
There's no perfect system - but eliminating it will ultimately hurt Mass as our proportion of the population and representation in congress shrinks. Won't happen tomorrow - but someday we may be politically diverse enough to be a battleground state and our vote might really matter in a national election on an issue that is important to us (like jobs in the rust belt in the last election). With a dozen electoral votes, we could easily swing a close election. Get rid of the EC and we (and any other smaller than average state) are forever irrelevant and subject to the will of NY, CA, TX and a few other states. If tyranny of the majority bothers you - the EC is an imperfect but workable solution.
tyrrany of texas
Texas has already compromised textbooks for the entire country, making the electorate dumber. Letting Texas decide the election is simply a more direct route to the same end.
Even in extremely Republican
Even in extremely Republican Texas, the actual percentage of people who vote Republican in the Presidential elections is around 63%- and that is the most lopsided division of any state. A candidate wouldn't be able to win the national vote with only the 11 biggest states because that math is based on assuming he or she gets 100% of the votes there... And when even Texas and Massachusetts are still so closely divided, with about 40% favoring the minority party, that is absolutely impossible. And state size doesn't matter right now- the states being disenfranchised are the 35 states that are solidly predetermined for one camp or another. They get almost literally no attention from candidates. 98% of campaign visits and spending in 2008, from both candidates, was in only 15 "swing" states. That is an unbalanced system in which people in the other 35 states, and the minority voters in the 15, had no impact on who their next President would be. That's not exactly one man, one vote.
12 of the 13 smallest states
12 of the 13 smallest states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota),, and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. So despite the fact that these 12 states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
In the 13 smallest states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by eight state legislative chambers, including one house in Delaware and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
Most of the medium-small states (with five or six electoral votes) are similarly non-competitive in presidential elections (and therefore similarly disadvantaged). In fact, of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with three, four, five, or six electoral votes), only New Hampshire (with four electoral votes), New Mexico (five electoral votes), and Nevada (five electoral votes) have been battleground states in recent elections.
Because so few of the 22 small and medium-small states are closely divided battleground states in presidential elections, the current system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states. The New York Times reported early in 2008 (May 11, 2008) that both major political parties were already in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008 (involving only 166 of the 538 electoral votes). In other words, three-quarters of the states were ignored under the current system in the 2008 election. Michigan (17 electoral votes), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and Florida (27) contain over half of the electoral votes that mattered in 2008 (85 of the 166 electoral votes). There were only three battleground states among the 22 small and medium-small states (i.e., New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada). These three states contain only 14 of the 166 electoral votes. Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.
Riddle me this
if we had this new system - which elections would have changed candidates - i.e. - what presidents wouldn't we have had - if it comes out to Hoover, Nixon and Bush Jr's second term - you might sway me. If it comes down to say FDR, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Jr's first term - I'd be less convinced - prove to me that we would have made wiser decisions with this other formula.
The congressional district
The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. A smaller fraction of the country's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 30%) that now get overwhelming attention , while two-thirds of the states are ignored Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
I don't see how awarding a
I don't see how awarding a state's electoral votes on the basis of the national votes could survive a court challenge. Although the Constitution gives the states alot of discretion in this matter, it seems a stretch to maintain that therefore a state could establish a method which ignores the results of its' own vote entirely.
And think where this could lead. Rather than relying on a national vote, maybe a bunch of regional states could get together and agree to a pact that awards all votes based on the presidential winner in that region.
House passes it on to the Senate
DeLeo happily empowered the rest of the nation to choose MA's presidential votes should this National Popular Vote nonsense go any further in any other states. It's on the Senate to decide now before putting it in front of the Governor.
A question for the NPV anon-turfers here in the crowd: If the popular vote is so important, why did you approach the legislature instead of putting this question on the ballot as an initiative here in MA?
The Normal Process
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote), including current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
Massachusetts has exercised its power to change its system of awarding its electoral votes on 10 different occasions. In 1789, the Massachusetts legislature, in effect, chose the state’s presidential electors. In 1792, the voters were allowed to elect presidential electors in four multi-member regional districts. Then, the voters picked electors by congressional districts (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors). Shortly thereafter, the legislature took back the power to pick all the presidential electors (excluding the voters entirely). Later, the voters picked electors on a statewide basis using the winner-take-all rule. Then, the legislature again decided to pick the electors itself, followed by the voters using districts, followed by another return to legislative choice, followed again by the voters using districts, and, finally, the present-day statewide winner-take-all rule. None of these 10 changes required an amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the Founding Fathers and U.S. Constitution gave Massachusetts (and all the other states) exclusive and plenary power to award their electoral votes.
Non-answer
You didn't answer the question and just threw up a bunch of history garbage as obfuscation.
Massachusetts provides two methods for changing the laws of the state that govern even how we decide our presidential election results. 1) The electorate sends representatives to the State Legislature who vote on their behalf to effect changes through bills sent to the Governor. 2) The electorate votes directly on an initiative that is placed on the ballot and if the Popular Vote is on the side of change, then the change goes into effect as if it came from the governor's desk (see: Decriminalization of Marijuana).
Do these 2 methods seem familiar? (1) is pretty much just like the Electoral College. (2) is a Popular Vote method identical to what you bleat over.
You chose (1) instead of (2) in this state to attempt to enact your change in MA law regarding presidential elections. I'm guessing you did it because it's easier and you wouldn't have to put your initiative directly in front of a public who would soundly reject it no matter how you present your push-polled data on "citizens LOVE us!".
How...quaint...that the representative system of the State Legislature suits you in order to get your way and you didn't use your vaunted Popular Vote option through a ballot initiative.
Hypocrites.