Wait a minute on that election change

15 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  mvymvy on April 30 at 12:56 p.m.

  The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Washington is not one. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
  Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

  Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

  In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

• 

  mvymvy on April 30 at 12:57 p.m.

  The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

  Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

  The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

  The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

  The bill is currently endorsed by 1,659 state legislators — 763 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 896 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

  In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado— 68%, Iowa —75%, Michigan— 73%, Missouri— 70%, New Hampshire— 69%, Nevada— 72%, New Mexico— 76%, North Carolina— 74%, Ohio— 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware —75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire —69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas —80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi —77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.

  The National Popular Vote bill has passed 27 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

  See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

• 

  mvymvy on April 30 at 12:58 p.m.

  77% OF WASHINGTON VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL

  A survey of 800 Washington state voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

  Support was 77% among independents, 85% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.

  By age, support was 80% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.

  By gender, support was 84% among women and 69% among men.

  By race, support was 78% among whites (representing 87% of respondents), 57% among African-Americans (representing 4% of respondents), 60% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 78% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).

  see www.NationalPopularVote.com

• 

  Gary D Rhodes on April 30 at 4:40 p.m.

  We are a collection of 50 independent states. That is how we were formed, and in the past, this is how we operated.

  The President was chosen to head a small and limited federal government, that had certain enumerated powers, the rest of the governing authority went to the states, where the real power was.

  This popular vote is just another nail in the coffin of our once great Republic.

• 

  anonymous456 on April 30 at 5:52 p.m.

  Even if you ignore the issue of federalism and separation of powers between the states, this interstate compact is still a horrible idea. This would work fine if there’s a clear majority in the popular vote. However, even under the current system when there’s a clear majority in the popular vote it is extremely unlikely for the popular vote winner to be a different person than the Electoral College winner.

  This system is being spun as a way to ensure that the “will of the people” gets upheld when the votes are *close* and the Electoral College result might not match up with the popular vote result. But that’s exactly the problem: this interstate compact will only make a difference when the election is close.

  What happens when only a few thousand votes separate two candidates in a national popular vote? A national recount would be needed to determine the national winner. However, this compact does nothing to change the fact that the Constitution allows each state to conduct its own elections according to its own rules (for the most part). If Washington signs up for this compact but Oregon doesn’t, for example, Oregon would have no reason to go to the expense of recounting its votes. It already decided who its electors would be on Election Day.

  So you would have a situation where part of the country would recount its votes and part wouldn’t, each state would have its own standards for performing the recount (if they do it at all), and the non-uniformity of the process would give the losing side as much ammunition to dispute the results under this system as the Democrats had to dispute Florida in 2000.

• 

  anonymous456 on April 30 at 6:02 p.m.

  Also this system does not normalize for different voter turnouts in different states. The current system guarantees equal say to states with equal populations, regardless of how many people in that state showed up to the polls. Under the proposed interstate compact system, I can see state legislatures pulling all sorts of shenanigans meant to increase voter turnout.

  Certain states could implement a system of mandatory voting (similar to Australia) within their states to get more of a say in the elections, or lower the voting age to 12, or allow convicted felons to vote, or give out free ice cream at the polls to get more people to show up, or whatever. Flawed as the current system may be, it does a decently good job of making sure that each state is fairly represented in the final total.

• 

  mvymvy on May 01 at 6:35 p.m.

  The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.

• 

  mvymvy on May 01 at 6:35 p.m.

  National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a “republican” form of government or is a “democracy.”

  A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a “republican” form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

  If a “republican” form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a “democratic” method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.

« Back to Spin Control