Spokane7
61°
May 3, 2009 in City
Law casts new light on Electoral College
John Koza of National Popular Vote lobbied legislators to change how Electoral College votes would be awarded.
(Full-size photo)
How would you feel if you and 99 percent of Washington voted for Barack Obama last year, but the state’s Electoral College votes went for John McCain?
OK, you Republicans out there, stop rubbing your hands gleefully. What would you say if the state’s voters went 99 percent for McCain, but its electoral votes went for Obama?
Those are far-fetched, but conceivable, scenarios for a future election under a law Gov. Chris Gregoire signed last week.
If enough other states pass similar laws, Washington’s Electoral College votes will be awarded to the presidential ticket that gets the most votes nationwide, regardless of the vote in Washington. (Until states with a total of 270 electoral votes pass such laws, we operate under the same system we’ve always had: All the state’s Electoral College votes go to the candidate who wins Washington.)
Progressive groups say the change is a great thing, because it means the leader of the nation may someday be elected by the majority of the nation’s voters, not through a system that concentrates most of the campaigning on a few states where the races are close.
Right now, presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time after their national conventions in just a handful of “battleground” states where the Electoral College votes are up for grabs, said John Koza of California-based National Popular Vote, the organization behind this change. Because the races weren’t close in 2008, Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Montana got no visits after the conventions. Because Washington is reliably Democratic, Republican presidential campaigns regularly pull up stakes a month before the election.
“Your votes don’t matter,” Koza contends. “A Republican (presidential) vote in Washington is utterly worthless.”
But David Anderson, a Shaw Island resident who helped give Washington its top-two primary system, thinks it’s such a bad idea he filed for a referendum to repeal it. If he can get 121,000 valid signatures by July 25, voters will decide whether to keep the plan.
Anderson said he’s passionate about having competitive elections, with presidential candidates paying attention to regional issues such as Hanford cleanup and the protection of Puget Sound, but this ain’t the way to get there. If the majority of the national vote is what matters, candidates will spend time in the most populous and fastest-growing states; Washington is neither, he said.
“It’s designed to create a train wreck around the Electoral College,” he said of the law. “It’s like having both our state’s senators always voting with the majority of the Senate.”
Progressive States Now contends the law could lead to better voter turnout. It would shift the emphasis from a few battleground states to states like Washington, which it calls a “spectator state.”
Christian Smith-Socaris, the group’s election reform policy specialist, said if the popular vote for president is close nationally, turnout could go up even in states where the race isn’t close.
The flip side could be that when a national election isn’t close – something on the level of Ronald Reagan’s blowout of Walter Mondale in 1984 – there’d be lower turnout. Even if the race is thought to be close in Washington, some people inclined to vote for the state’s winner could stay home if it seemed the candidate was going to lose big, nationally.
What’s really behind this change is the ongoing dissatisfaction with the Electoral College. It surfaces every four years, when the presidential election gets Americans thinking about the system the Founding Fathers devised because, let’s face it, they didn’t really trust the masses to pick the country’s leader.
One way to change that is with a constitutional amendment. Proposals for that also surface about every four years, but get nowhere. Koza says the new Washington law is a way to change things state by state, without an amendment. It could lead to a constitutional amendment, much the way some states allowing women to vote led to the 19th Amendment, he believes.
That’s possible, but it seems as though the proponents are really using secondary arguments – it’ll boost turnout, it’ll get us more attention from the presidential campaigns – when what they really want is a national plebiscite.
The public seems to agree with the idea of a national winner-take-all system. Last December, Koza’s group asked 800 folks in Washington whether the president should be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the one chosen by the current Electoral College system, and 77 percent went with the first option.
But using that to support the new law seems misleading. What would folks have said if asked whether they’d support a system that awarded Washington’s electoral votes to the person with the most votes nationally, even if that candidate had a minority of votes in Washington? And would the support have gone down if respondents were told that some other states could still give their electoral votes to the candidate with the majority of votes in their state?
Because that’s what this new law does.
Spin Control is a weekly political column by Jim Camden, who can be reached at (509) 459-5461 or jimc@spokesman.com. Spin Control is also a blog with daily posts and videos at www.spokesman.com/blogs/ spincontrol.
Romney/Paul split weighing on county GOP 
mvymvy on May 04 at 9:25 a.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 May 04 at 9:26 a.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 May 04 at 9:27 a.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 http://www.NationalPopularVote.com