Massachusetts is one of several Democrat-controlled states that have adopted the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). What does this mean? When fully enacted, Massachusetts will have given up its right to award its Electoral College votes based on how the voters of the commonwealth have voted. Instead, the will of the national voters would dictate who our Electoral College votes are awarded to. For 2024, it would be Donald J. Trump!
[Editor’s note: The NPVIC is an agreement to award a state’s Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.]As the chair of the town’s Republican Town Committee, you might think that I would be in favor of this. However, as a fierce defender of the U.S. Constitution, I believe in the letter and spirit of the Electoral College, which ensures that no sub-group of Americans can control the outcome of the presidential election.
Another example: Although I wasn’t old enough to vote, I do remember the 1972 presidential election won by Richard Nixon. I also remember the Massachusetts bumper stickers stating, “Don’t blame us, we voted for McGovern.” Again, our Electoral College votes would have been stripped from the voters of Massachusetts, and we would have added our Electoral College votes to Richard Nixon.
Maybe this fall’s election motivates Democrats — and as importantly — independents to write to their state senators and representatives and ask them to repeal the state’s involvement in the NPVIC. Don’t the voters of the commonwealth deserve to have their voices heard and not be lumped in with the masses of the rest of the country?
By the way, for all fact checkers out there: Gov. Deval Patrick signed the NPVIC bill on Aug. 4, 2010, after the State Senate passed it with a vote of 28-9 and the State House passed it with a vote of 113-35, mainly along party lines.
— Jim Mirabile, Hopkinton Republican Town Committee chair
Editor’s note: The opinions and comments expressed in letters to the editor are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the Independent. Submissions should be no more than 400 words and must include the writer’s name and contact information for verification. Letters should be relevant and not primarily for the purpose of promoting an organization or event or thanking sponsors or volunteers. Letters may be edited by the Independent staff for space, errors or clarification, and the Independent offers no guarantee that every letter will be published. For a schedule of deadlines for letters and other submissions for the print edition, click here.
The NPVIC makes no sense. Each state has a right to select the candidate the majority of people vote for. Why would we want our vote to be changed by people outside of our state?
“the Electoral College, which ensures that no sub-group of Americans can control the outcome of the presidential election.”
In that case, the Electoral College has failed. Time and time again, we see presidential elections determined by a handful of swing states, i.e., that sub-group of Americans who happen to live in a state that’s split close to 50-50.
As it stands, neither Democrats nor Republicans have an incentive to campaign in states like Oklahoma, Montana, or Delaware: whether or not they listen to voters’ concerns in those states, whether they promise changes that will benefit people in those states makes no difference at all. And so one party takes them for granted and the other writes them off.
When’s the last time a candidate visited Oregon? Or Alabama? Or Utah?
Gubernatorial candidates campaign in all parts of their states, because a vote in a small town is worth the same as a vote in a big city. The NPVIC would encourage presidential candidates to campaign the same way, reaching out to all Americans, not just those in swing states.
“Democrat-controlled”
I think that this far-right “Republic” should be well versed enough to know the name of the Democratic party.
The wonderous product of MAGA!