Proposal would split state’s electoral votes

BOISE – Despite a high-interest presidential election this year, state House Minority Leader Wendy Jaquet said many Idaho voters complained to her that they felt like their votes didn’t count.

That’s because Idaho’s four electoral votes were virtually guaranteed to go to the Republican candidate, just as they have every election but one for the past 50 years. The outcome was so certain that despite his high level of support here, President Bush never paid Idaho a single campaign visit.

“I actually heard it all over the state,” said Jaquet, D-Ketchum. “I heard it from Republicans, too, because they’d like to know where people stand on the issues.”

That’s why Jaquet is having a bill drafted to propose to the Legislature in January to divide Idaho’s electoral votes proportionally, according to the popular vote.

Had that been in place this year, Bush, who got 68 percent of Idaho’s vote, would have gotten three of the four electoral votes, while Sen. John Kerry, who polled 30 percent, would have nabbed one.

“We could have more people feeling like they have ownership, like their vote meant something,” Jaquet said.

Plus, she said, in a close election year, it might inspire the candidates to pay more attention to making their case to Idaho voters and addressing the issues that matter here.

“It could get the issues talked about by the candidates and do some good for our state,” Jaquet said.

Colorado voters considered a similar idea this year, in the form of a voter initiative. But the initiative failed, with 65.4 percent of Colorado voters rejecting it.

Tim Storey, a senior fellow with the National Conference of State Legislatures, said opponents of the measure argued that Colorado’s election results almost certainly would split its electoral votes 5-4 one way or the other, leaving just one vote up for grabs instead of nine.

That would make candidates more likely to ignore the state, rather than less.

“That was the argument against it, which seemed to resonate with voters,” Storey said.

Each state gets electoral votes based on its representation in Congress, so there is one for each of the state’s two senators, and one for each member of the House of Representatives. That’s why Idaho has four.

But states can determine their own rules for how they allocate their electoral votes, and two, Nebraska and Maine, currently allow them to be divided on a limited basis.

In those states, the statewide winner still gets the two votes for the states’ senators. But the remaining votes are allocated by congressional district, to the candidate who wins each district.

This year, Storey said, many observers thought Bush might carry one of Maine’s congressional districts and Kerry the other; Kerry ended up winning both.

Neither Maine nor Nebraska has ever divided its electoral votes, though Nebraska has had the system since 1976 and Maine since 1985.

Mike Nugent, supervisor of research and legislation for the Idaho Legislature, said under the Maine/Nebraska system, Idaho’s four electoral votes this year still would all have gone to Bush.

Nugent said Idaho could change its rules simply by passing a new law, and without any need to amend the state’s constitution.

“The presidential electors are just a creature of statute here,” he said.

Traditionally, small states have treasured the winner-take-all Electoral College system because it gives them more of a voice.

Idaho has four votes out of 537 in the Electoral College, which is a much greater percentage than its share of the nation’s popular vote.

Rep. George Sayler, D-Coeur d’Alene, is a high school government teacher who’s had lots of talks with students and others over the years about the Electoral College.

“Definitely it gives small states a little more clout,” he said. “It’s almost twice the ratio.”

However, he said, “I do think the winner-take-all system discourages people from voting sometimes. I’ve heard that comment, ‘My vote doesn’t count.’ “

Sayler said Idaho could maintain its small-state clout through a change like that proposed by Jaquet, because it still would have four votes.

“It would give some feeling of representation … to a lot of people who probably feel pretty disenfranchised right now,” he said.

Sayler said he wouldn’t go so far as to back replacing the Electoral College with a straight popular vote, however. “We are much better off with the electoral vote. I don’t want to see it gone.”

Rep. George Eskridge, R-Dover, said he’d oppose Jaquet’s proposal.

“Idaho would be a real loser,” he said. “In order to have any influence in the national scheme at all, we’ve got to keep those four electoral votes intact, whether they’re Democrat or Republican.”

Eskridge said, “I used to think popular vote would be a good way to go, until I saw how a small state like us struggles to have any influence over natural resources and things like that that really impact us.”

Jaquet sees the same problem, but the opposite answer. Presidential candidates, she said, “don’t really talk about the Rocky Mountain West much – public lands issues, water, nuclear waste storage. Those are uniquely Rocky Mountain West issues, so it’d be nice to have them (the candidates) here.”

Jaquet said she also would like to see more high-profile presidential primary elections in Idaho and neighboring states, to direct candidates’ attention to the region’s issues.

Senate President Pro-tem Robert Geddes, R-Soda Springs, said he opposes dividing Idaho’s electoral votes.

Idaho’s ability to attract attention from presidential candidates isn’t likely to increase, even if the votes were divided, Geddes said. “Any time you divide a small number, that number becomes even smaller.”

Jaquet argued that in a close election year, when every electoral vote counts, Idaho actually might have more clout with a vote or two in play, rather than all decided in advance.

Storey said the best way to attract candidates to a small state is for the electorate to be closely divided and the outcome in doubt.

“New Hampshire is a great example,” he said. “They have four electoral votes, just like Idaho. … Kerry won it by a very narrow margin, and they did get candidate stops in New Hampshire.”

“If your goal is to attract attention in the campaign, reallocating those Electoral College votes may have limited success,” Storey said.

“But it’s hard to say, because we don’t know – there’s no model for it. … Perhaps if it’s so close, a candidate might say, ‘It’s important to go out there.’ “