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.
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.