THE WRONG WAY TO DO THINGS – AT 10:37 P.M. ET:  Cruising under the radar is a national campaign to change the electoral-college system of electing presidents by changing the voting laws in each state.  No great public discussion.  No national debate.  Just back-room politics.  Massachusetts in the next focus.  From the Boston Globe:

The state Legislature is poised to give final approval this week to a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

Both the House and Senate have approved the National Popular Vote bill. Final enactment votes are needed in both chambers, however, before the bill goes to the governor's desk, the Globe reported last week.

Governor Deval Patrick's press office didn't immediately return a message this morning seeking comment on whether he would sign the bill, if it makes its way to his desk.

Under the proposed law, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Supporters are waging a state-by-state campaign to try to get such bills enacted. Once states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already adopted the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website.

Supporters of the change say that the current Electoral College system is confusing and causes candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states.

Confusing?  We've been using it since the dawn of the republic, and Americans seem to have figured it out.  Who's confused?

And it doesn't focus only on a handful of states.  In fact, one of the strengths of the current system is that it forces candidates to run campaigns in small states.  A few of them, together, can make or break a presidential candidate.

Critics say the current system is not broken. They also point to the disturbing scenario that Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state's 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.

The proponents of the change don't care.  This is another attempt to weaken the state system.  Sometimes we forget that the name of the country is the United States of America.  We vote by state in presidential elections, and it's a great reminder of who we are. 

A little discussion please.  A little coverage by the mainstream media.  Is that too much to ask?

July 19, 2010