BOSTON (AP) - As they prepared to cast their Electoral College votes for Hillary Clinton, several Massachusetts presidential electors acknowledged frustration with a system that twice in recent history produced a split in the popular and electoral votes.
But the Democratic electors were far from unanimous about how the system might be changed, and some questioned the relative wisdom of undertaking an effort that could well be doomed to failure from the start.
Massachusetts has 11 electoral votes out of 538 to be cast nationwide on Monday. No state law forces them to vote for the candidate who won the state, but the nine who participated in an Associated Press survey said they intended to honor their pledge to Clinton without hesitation.
Electors reported receiving unsolicited suggestions that they consider an alliance with Republican electors wary of Donald Trump to pick a “compromise” GOP president, with Ohio Gov. John Kasich the name most frequently mentioned. But none gave it serious consideration and were highly skeptical that any scheme to deny Trump the presidency could succeed.
MaryGail Cokkinias, an elector from Longmeadow, said she understood why the founding fathers established the Electoral College - in part to protect smaller states in the union - but added that its abolition may now be justified.
“This is the second time in 16 years that a popular vote has gone one way and the electoral vote another way,” she said.
Clinton has a lead of more than 2.6 million popular votes nationally, but Trump leads comfortably among pledged electors.
Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but Republican George W. Bush became president.
Eliminating the Electoral College would be a monumental task, requiring an act of Congress and ratification by at least 38 states.
Some Massachusetts electors suggested the system could be changed from within, for example by having more states award electoral votes proportionately rather than by winner take all. Only Maine and Nebraska do so now.
Another possibility: States in unison could agree to bind their electors to the U.S. popular vote winner, assuring that the candidate with the most votes nationally becomes president.
“I think that’s a good idea,” said Parwez Wahid, of Framingham. “My candidate may or may not get elected depending on the circumstances, but it would be more acceptable to have a president who is elected by the popular vote.”
Eleven states including Massachusetts have backed a proposed compact that would pledge their electors to the U.S. popular vote winner. The agreement would be triggered only if the number of committed states totaled at least 270 electoral votes, the magic number needed under the current system.
Yet several electors cautioned that change could bring unintended consequences.
Stronger voting rights laws and campaign finance reform must be in place before a popular vote system was adopted, Jason Palitsch said. The cost of candidates waging a general election campaign over 50 states, rather than focusing largely on so-called “battleground” states, would be dangerously prohibitive, the Shrewsbury resident said.
Nazda Alam, of Weston, warned that choosing a president by popular vote might well lead to more voter repression. A Muslim who emigrated to the U.S. from Bangladesh, Alam would lean toward an Electoral College that apportions votes solely on the basis of population, rather than by the number of seats a state holds in Congress.
Other Massachusetts electors chosen by the Democratic State Committee include state Sen. Marc Pacheco of Taunton, Cheryl Cumings of Boston, Curtis LeMay of Lowell, Donna Smith of Stoughton, Marie Turley of Boston, Paul Yorkis of Medway and Dori Dean of Holyoke.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.