...Bypassing the electoral college...

I am really, REALLY confused about this proposed bill.

The bill will essentially make it so no matter how an individual state votes, the electoral votes within that state would go towards the candidate who won the National Popular vote. In theory, if all states enacted this legislation, the winner of the National Vote gets all electoral votes in a shutout.

In theory, that's sorta cool.

But in practice, in an environment when BP and Bank of America were given the green light by our Supreme Court to spend as much money necessary and possible in order to anoint the next CEO of America, it is a dangerous thing.

First of all, you'll hear mostly the Lefties, who are in favor of this bill, talk about how this will "make every vote count" and will energize the populace - which may in fact be true. You'll hear right wingers say that that it isn't fair b/c the coasts dominate the number of people in this country, and they can dwarf a "fly over" state in the middle. New York City, for example, will go a long way in swaying the vote, and New York City is going to vote Obama for President against every McCain, Palin, Sanford or Jindal.

If you are able to remove your own political bias, and see through the myths that both sides will create, you're left with this inner conversation and list of questions:

How will this change things?

Well, the answer is we don't really know. Electoral Math is a Science - or - Electoral Science is Math. People get paid a lot of money to determine how to spend the money that dictates the outcomes of elections. If you take TV advertising as the Gold Standard, essentially someone decides, "We are going to advertise in Alabama b/c we think we can win Alabama. We are going to spend 0$ in California, however, b/c the other candidate will win there."

Why does it matter how they spend the money, they want all the votes they can get, right?

Electoral advertising isn't purely about speaking to as many people as possible, its about adding up the potential electoral votes you can get or not get. If you know you're going to lose California and its 55 electoral votes, why waste a single dime there? Find a way to make up the other 55 in a combination of 8 or 9 states - thats how you win.

But I like to look at the National Election #'s and paint a picture!

Well, tough crap. Take my example above, the population of California could be, and likely has, completely forfeited in favor of attempting to secure a collection of smaller states, whose electoral votes could be more powerful than their population #'s.

What I'm trying to say is that adding up the popular vote IN PAST ELECTIONS and using it as a point, "My guy should have won, he got more votes!" is really disingenuous. It's not telling a complete story, its an irrelevant practice using numbers to their own advantage.

So if this bill passes, won't we just cut through all that crap and elect the person we want, as a Nation?

Maybe we will, but I don't want to take that chance. I like the electoral college - there haven't been examples in which a candidate won a particular state, but didn't get the credit for it. That isn't in danger. Voters are confused by the system, but those who don't vote b/c that portion of the system confuses them are not worth pandering to - it is remarkably unfair to pander to them.

So what is your solution, mr. hotpants know it all head?

Listen, if you want to abolish the electoral college, I'll have that conversation seperately, that's NOT what this bill is. This bill is keeping the electoral college there, and then assigning the votes to the candidate who gets the National vote. In practice, if McCain/Palin had more votes than Obama, and if Obama won Massachusetts by 80/20, Massachusetts electoral college votes would go to McCain/Palin.

This would be fine if all 50 states + DC were on board, but the group steering this bill is hoping purely to get just enough of the states to add up to an electoral majority. 270 state electoral votes or so are needed in order to coup this next election. So there is some grey area, a few rounding errors away from the unthinkable.

A candidate could win MA by a landslide, win the National Popular vote by a slim margin, but still not have enough electoral votes to take the cake.

If your problem is with the electoral college system, remove the system. Don't tweak it just enough to give us a potential disaster then Deval Patrick your way out of it with a last minute vote change. Don't try to Hilary your way out of it by acting as if you care about the voice of the voters.

Its about winning, and its cynical.

What are you so worried about? What effect could it have long term?

I can tell you the effect, and I can see it playing out sooner than later. In '08, Hilary and Obama agreed that Michigan & Florida, if they moved up their primaries before NH, would not count towards the Democratic nomination, it was agreed on beforehand. Hilary didn't like the result, she demanded the MI votes count, and fought for it.

In '10, the Democrats in MA fought to allow Deval Patrick to place an appointment in as Kennedy's replacement after his death. In '04, the Democrats fought to strip Romney of that same right if Kerry had become President.

My point is, all of this hemming and hawing is a way that the Democrats see a chance to steal a few elections. Make this about NY and LA, energize the base in Miami, Chicago, Houston, etc - and there is no way that Middle America will be able to overcome the will of the traditionally lefty groups.

That's the Dems goal, and its dishonest and unfair. And that makes me sad. At some point this Law will come back to bite those who voted in favor of it, and they will want to change the rule.

This isn't a law about making the will of the people heard, its a law about being cynical enough to think you can trick voters into thinking they matter - but it's really about the math, the science and the fact that Democrats know they will win if they win battleground CITIES, not States, under this format.