Bypassing the Electoral College

This is apparently a leftover from the 2000 presidential race:

The state Legislature is poised to give final approval this week to a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

Both the House and Senate have approved the National Popular Vote bill. Final enactment votes are needed in both chambers, however, before the bill goes to the governor's desk, the Globe reported last week.

Governor Deval Patrick's press office didn't immediately return a message this morning seeking comment on whether he would sign the bill, if it makes its way to his desk.
Under the proposed law, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Supporters are waging a state-by-state campaign to try to get such bills enacted. Once states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already adopted the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website.

Supporters of the change say that the current Electoral College system is confusing and causes candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states.

Critics say the current system is not broken. They also point to the disturbing scenario that Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state's 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.

What this really is is an effort to marginalize the red states while maximizing the effect of the heavily populated urban areas in the blue states. Candidates will end up concentrating their efforts in the big cities and large populated counties while ignoring much of the rest of the country. That's where the ad money will be spent too.

Does anyone really think that if a Republican wins the national majority vote but loses badly in Massachusetts that Massachusetts will cast their electoral votes for the Republican?  They change election laws in that state to suit the situation and I guarantee there will be a sudden loss of enthusiasm for that law should that scenario play out.