The Bay State's First Self-Government

When most people think of rabble-rousing revolutionaries in Massachusetts, it’s usually the Boston Massacre, Paul Revere’s Ride or the Battle of Lexington that come to mind. In fact, well before all of these events, the irascible colonists of the Bay State created an extra-legal governing body called The Massachusetts Provincial Congress. Convened almost exactly 250 years ago (October 7, 1774), the Congress was a ‘poke in the eye’ to the British Crown and Parliament—which had just annulled the provincial charter of Massachusetts, ending The General Court and direct election of officials. 

When he heard of the Congress, British Provincial Governor Thomas Gage dissolved it—but the members met anyway in Salem. It was led by such luminaries as John Hancock, Samuel Adams and Paul Revere—but also dozens of common citizens like Andover’s spectacularly-named Moody Bridges.

For the entire pre-Revolutionary period, the Provincial Congress was the de facto government of the rebellious portions of the colony. It collected taxes, purchased supplies and raised militias. In fact, it was the first autonomous government established in the thirteen colonies (North Carolina talked about one earlier, but did not establish it until 1775).

During the Revolutionary War itself, the Congress moved from place to place to avoid capture by British troops. It helped fund the new Continental Army in its efforts to free Boston from British siege and fight the aforementioned Battle of Lexington. The assembly continued to meet (on and off) until the state officially adopted its constitution in 1780.

And so, the early stirrings of self-government first took place in those patriot-controlled enclaves of Suffolk, Essex, and Middlesex counties—leading to a full-scale revolution that toppled British rule in America.

Making The Electoral College Rational

One simple reform in the Electoral College can change it from a frustratingly unrepresentative process to one that more closely mirrors the true will of American voters. We have addressed this issue before, but the upcoming presidential election—which is destined to once again be extremely close—makes the need for this reform even more timely and worthy of additional discussion.

The reform is simply this: apportion electoral votes by congressional district, not by the current “winner-take-all” method. In the present system, If Donald Trump or Kamala Harris wins a state by one vote, they win all of that state’s electoral votes. This is true even if the ‘losing’ candidate carries one or more congressional districts in the state. So, up to 50% of a state’s voters can effectively be disenfranchised. It’s hard to think of any system that is more un-democratic.

Thankfully, we have a real-time example of the Congressional District Method in the great states of Maine (begun in 1972) and Nebraska (begun in 1992). These states allocate two electoral votes to the state’s popular vote winner, and one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each of their congressional districts (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). This has resulted in several “split” vote allocations over the years. In fact, there are scenarios where those single district electoral votes could decide the 2024 election for either Trump or Harris. 

Earlier this year, the Nebraska legislature threatened to revert to the ‘winner-take-all’ format, to insure a Republican candidate’s win in the deep-red state. Quickly, Maine shot back that if Nebraska changed their system, they would go back to the old system as well—likely giving all of their state’s electoral votes to a Democratic candidate.

All of this could be resolved by making the Congressional District Method nationwide—either with the Nebraska/Maine allocation scheme or a simpler proportional allocation scheme (that would avoid the problem of gerrymandering). Anything would be better than the current system—which robs millions of Americans of a true voice in their presidential elections.