National Popular Vote would change unfair dynamic

Despite John E. Sununu’s recent observations to the contrary (“Even better than the popular vote,” Op-ed, Nov. 5), our current system of electing the president is not equitable. The recent election clearly illustrated that candidates for president continually ignore the vast majority of states and citizens to focus their time, energy, and money on a small number of so-called swing states to get the magic 270 electoral votes required to secure the election.

Adoption of the National Popular Vote would change that dynamic for the betterment of society. The measure is extremely straightforward: States agree that their electors would vote for the candidate who receives the majority of votes nationally rather than vote for the candidate who prevails in their particular state. The result? The person who gets the most votes wins. How is that a bad outcome?


Sununu’s suggestion that Beacon Hill is lazy because the Legislature passed, and Governor Patrick subsequently signed, the National Popular Vote is off base.

Charles A. Murphy

State representative

21st Middlesex District


The writer is former majority whip and chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, and was the primary sponsor of the National Popular Vote bill in Massachusetts.

Loading comments...
Real journalists. Real journalism. Subscribe to The Boston Globe today.
We hope you've enjoyed your free articles.
Continue reading by subscribing to Globe.com for just 99¢.
 Already a member? Log in Home
Subscriber Log In

We hope you've enjoyed your 5 free articles'

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com