Posted by Tina
It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity. – Alexander Hamilton, speech in New York, urging ratification of the U.S. Constitution (1788-06-21)
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” – The Constitution, Article IV, Section 4
Last week as mobs of violent malcontents wreaked havoc in cities across the world our governor quietly signed a document that will press this nation toward mob rule in our presidential race. Hailed as a “positive development for America” by at least one paper, this bone-headed idea seems to be gaining in popularity nationwide. Several states have already adopted the scheme and the addition of California’s 55 electoral votes brings the tally to 49% of the 270 controlling votes needed to make the transition away from the electoral college and toward one man one vote.
“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” – Lord Acton, The History of Freedom and Other Essays, Section III: Sir Erskine May’s Democracy in Europe p. 76
It’s time, once again, to remind the good citizens who read Post Scripts why the popular vote is a dumb idea and why our republican form of government is a blessing from the Founders worth preserving in spirit and in fact:
The Electoral college was established to ensure that people in small states and communities would have equal representation. Let us be ever vigilent and remain determined to repress attempts to undermine our republic, Let us be a people ever dedicated to the rule of law…and not enticed toward the rule of men!
Absolutely outstanding. Notice the ear splitting silence from the usual gang of Post Scripts critics.
Thanks kids. You are the best.
The Electoral College does not ensure equal representation. California has 55 electoral votes. Delaware 3.
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate. With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that, only 7-14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a states electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about at least 72% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and in 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. More than 85 million voters have been just spectators to the general election.
Now, policies important to the citizens of flyover states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to battleground states when it comes to governing, too.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Oklahoma 81%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, and West Virginia 81%, and Wyoming 69%.
Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.
Under National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored.
kohler: “The Electoral College does not ensure equal representation. California has 55 electoral votes. Delaware 3.”
It ensures equal representation of the states.
“The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.”
This is apparently true…however how it will play out in practice is less certain.
“It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.”
It doesn’t assure every vote is equal. It is at best an alternative counting method. If the popular vote in the next election puts a GOP contender in the WH, blue Californians will not be happy that their votes did not count! Guess what would follow?
Consider a hypothetical: The New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Phillies meet in a seven-game World Series. The Yankees win three games, 5-3, 6-1, and 3-2 and the Phillies win four, 5-2, 6-5, 5-4, and 2-1. The Phillies win the Championshipbut under NPV the Yankees should be declared World Champions because they scored 26 runs in the seven games while the Phillies scored only 24.
Im not a Constitutional Scholar and Im certainly not an expert on voting trends so I decided to seek some professional advice. I have to admit I found surprising proponents among Republicans, Fred Thompson, for instance. But I also found some well reasoned arguments against this idea:
The argument that screams the loudest there is that this would nationalize disputes. Think Florida 2000 on steroids:
(all emphasis mine) This might just turn out to be a bipartisan bad idea whose time came…and went.
The Electoral College is a pet peeve of mine. I would like do away with it and here’s why:
We can have a direct vote now, there’s no physical or logistical reason why we can’t.
I don’t want some unknown person to act as my surrogate casting my vote for president or worse, not voting the way he was supposed too! I want to vote directly because then I am sure my vote will be counted.
States don’t all have the same rules for how the electoral vote is cast. That makes it messy and confusing.
Nothing wrong with the most vote getter winning. Its the way we normally do things from Congress to council elections.
Currently, 74 percent of Americans think the arcane Electoral College we use to elect our President should be abolished. Thats the finding of a poll by Penn Schoen Berland about what Americans think of the Constitution. From Mark Penn:
“74 percent agree it is time to abolish the Electoral College and have direct popular vote for the president. The public also favors by 49 to 41 holding national referenda for constitutional amendments.”
Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the states electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections.
Despite you repeating your claim, The fact is the Electoral College does NOT ensure equal representation of the states. As examples, California has 55 electoral votes, Delaware 3.
There’s no disputing that when every vote counts as one person, one vote, and is added to the total votes, and the winner with the most votes is guaranteed to win, then every vote is equal, just like other elections in the U.S.
Come the end of voting on Election Day, most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system does not reliably confer an illusory mandate or legitimacy on an incoming President. There is certainly no historical evidence that the Congress, the public, the media, or anyone else has been more deferential to an incoming President after an election in which he received a larger percentage of the electoral vote than his percentage of the popular vote. As a recent example, Bill Clinton did not receive such deference when he came into office with an eye-catching 370 electoral votes but only 43% of the popular vote in 1992.
&&&&
2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters ignored. They will benefit from the change to National Popular Vote.
States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. 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, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
State election laws are not identical now nor is there anything in the National Popular Vote compact that would force them to become identical. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution permits states to conduct elections in varied ways. The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President.
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each. The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
A nationwide recount would not happen. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and recount. The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years under the National Popular Vote approach. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nations 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes), no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their “final determination” six days before the Electoral College meets.
&&&&
The bill says: “Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a Presidents term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”
Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action
The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.
There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.
In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.
In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.
In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
A compact is, after all, a contract.
The important point is that an interstate compact is not a mere handshake agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.
Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
&&&&&&&&
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Oklahoma 81%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, and West Virginia 81%, and Wyoming 69%.
Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
And, the main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
I agree with kohler and Jack, though I could not have expressed my opinion nearly as well as they have. Abolish the electoral college.
“2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters ignored. They will benefit from the change to National Popular Vote.”
You don’t think people will feel disenfranchised when their state changes from it’s popular support for a candidate because the total in the country produced a different result?
I think they will….and I think lawsuits will spring up like daisies in the spring. It will create worse havoc than Gore created in Florida in 2000 for the incoming administration. I see nationwide lawsuits as CATO suggested, as a distinct possibility. I see candidates still avoiding certain sections of the country. I see states (California) backing out when they don’t like the result. I also see this as a gateway to the popular vote concept bleeding into other areas.
We are a republic…if we can keep it. Popular vote is democracy…something our founders rejected.
When the results are in, no state will “change” from it’s popular support for a candidate if the total in the country produced a different result.
The campaigns will be run under the new system in place with the goal to gain the most votes in all 50 states, because that will determine who wins the presidency. That is how everyone will know the race is won, upfront. It won’t be a last minute surprise/switch to voters in enacting states when their state awards all of their electoral votes to the winner of the most votes in all 50 states.
In state polls of 800 voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state’s winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.
Question 1: “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”
Question 2: “Do you think it more important that a state’s electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?”
Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota — 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
see http://tinyurl.com/3jdkx7x
Connecticut — 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2.
see http://tinyurl.com/3nv8djt
Utah — 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2.
see http://tinyurl.com/3vrfxyh
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The U.S. Constitution, existing federal statutes, and independent state statutes guarantee “finality” in presidential elections long before the inauguration day in January.
National Popular Vote, is not pure/direct democracy. The candidate with the majority of state electoral votes will win.
The electoral college is just a method of the attempt to balance between problems of a pure democracy and the equally valid notion of state representation. Compare Senators to Representatives. It is a similar balance. Think of the hegemony of a populous state versus a state without that population. Should the members of one state bow to the members of another based on population alone?
We are the United States Of America. States count, not just population. That is what the founding fathers had in mind. It is part of the check and balances.
If you don’t like it then change it. Frankly I prefer the way it is.
kohler or Jack, after more reading I find myself less turned off but with a question. One of the arguments in favor of this idea is that small states (and states that are definitely red or blue) don’t get much attention from candidates and the popular vote would change that.
If the focus changes from electoral vote totals to individual vote totals why wouldn’t candidates still concentrate all of their efforts in only the highly populated areas of certain states (still ignoring the smaller or less poulated states and areas)?
According to the 2010 census per wikipedia: “The nine most populous states contain slightly more than half of the total population. The 25 least populous states contain less than one-sixth of the total population. (I couldn’t find registered voter totals; who knows what percentage would vote, maybe more would under this system).
California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, & Georgia, would get a lot of attention based on population totals…states like Wyoming, Vermont, or Delaware, not so much. Will the people in those states think the presidential candidates are interested in their votes or issues any more than they do now? Won’t it be just as apparent, or maybe more so, that their votes don’t matter to the candidates?
I can’t see that this would make “every vote (is) equal” or cause campaigns to “be run in every part of the country.” And I still see divisions and maps.
State size is not the issue now, and would not be the issue.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since 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.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
As the lone battleground state among the smallest states in 2008, New Hampshire, with 4 electoral votes, got 12 events. The others, none.
Re: “The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.”
Baloney. The the state-by-state winner-take-all method is because states count. Rarely has the electoral college significantly ever gone against the popular vote.
Non issue.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote is equal.
Winning states would not be the goal.
Under the current system, the 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, and a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
With National Popular Vote, big states that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates’ attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split — five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. 8 small western states, with less than a third of Californias population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Oklahoma 81%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, and West Virginia 81%, and Wyoming 69%.
Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
And, the main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
Garnering votes would be the goal. At least half would be the immediate goal. States with the most people in them would still get more attention because they have the most possible votes to deliver. Sparsley populated states like Wyoming and Delaware wouldn’t deliver many votes. Even if the candidaes or parties decided TV was the medium to use wouldn’t the candidates still pander to states with bigger populations? Wouldn’t they still do polling and pander to undecided voters in the states that could deliver them the most votes?
I see the attraction to this system. I’m just not convinced it will be better or that much different. Who know whether it will be worse…it is, as yet, untried.
Like many things in politics I find that our state has passed this before I knew anything about it. I wonder how many others are aware of it.
Anyway…I thank you kohler, for taking the time to explain this to our readers.
Now 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That’s more than 85 million voters ignored.
Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%.
Policies important to the citizens of flyover states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to battleground states when it comes to governing.
State size doesn’t and wouldn’t matter.
Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.
New Hampshire, as the lone smallest state that is a battleground, gets attention. No other smallest state does.
And the biggest states, like California, Texas, New York, and Georgia, are not battlegrounds. So they are ignored.
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run under National Popular Vote, can be found by examining the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in Ohio and Florida already knowsnamely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states. It is certainly true that the biggest cities in those states typically vote Democratic. However, the suburbs, exurbs, small towns, and rural parts of the states often voted Republican. If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
Under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.
Kohler, thank you for your patience with me. I admit you may be right.
You just wrote a number of paragraphs to explain the political demographics of states, big cities and towns. Apparently candidates also have these statistics. They also have statistics about independent voters…and presumedly where they live. Independent voters are the “big get” for both Dems and Reps. It may be different for smaller party candidates but for the two main parties we’re told the independent voter makes the difference.
I see campaigns designed to strengthen base support and appeal to these voters wherever there are concentrations of them first. If Independents are sprinkled consistently all over the country the plan may be to put most campaign dollars in television, newspaper and internet ads and vids and your theory will probably be proven to work.
One way or another, campaigns will go wherever they think votes can be won. It remains to be seen whether the people in states you claim have been ignored will get any more attention than they have under the current system.
Wyoming and North Dakota voters probably won’t get a visit from a Democrat candidate unless he’s there to assure them they can continue to “drill baby drill” and given the response in the states to green regulation under this administration I’d say the green party candidate would discount his chances in Wyoming and ND as well. (Ah, maybe Casper for a quick trip.)
“National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located.”
National advertizers are selling products every day of every year. Candidates are selling themselves for a few months (for some voters only a couple of weeks) and voters purchase only on a single day. Candidates only get one shot. There’s a difference in how you would work to maximize gains given the minimum time, money and effort avalable.
I do look forward to seeing how this turns out.
Yes…I’m a scrapper 😉
Kohler you said exactly what needed to be said. This is what I believe is true. I’m sorry I didn’t have the time to write up what you have said in an article for PS, but I doubt that I could have said it any more perfectly than you. If you don’t mind, I’m going to move your article to the front page so readers won’t miss it. It deserves full attention. Thank you sir, good job! Jack Lee, editor PS
It takes a lot of money to run a Presidential campaign. Why would anyone focus that money in an area they have locked up or don’t have a chance?
There will always be political battlegrounds, but because one state may get more press and political attention than another, does that really make a difference?
Presidential campaigns draw national attention no matter what state the campaign may be focused on. People in the these states that folks like kohler think are being marginalized get national news. And now we have the internet.
States count. We are The United States. Giving balance between the crowd rule of a pure democracy and the balance of a lawful republic is what the founders had in mind.
Maybe they didn’t do so well? I was no fan of George Bush, but Al Gore?
Now 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That’s more than 85 million voters ignored.
Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%.
Policies important to the citizens of flyover states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to battleground states when it comes to governing.
State size doesn’t and wouldn’t matter.
Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.
New Hampshire, as the lone smallest state that is a battleground, gets attention. No other smallest state does.
And the biggest states, like California, Texas, New York, and Georgia, are not battlegrounds. So they are ignored.
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run under National Popular Vote, can be found by examining the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in Ohio and Florida already knowsnamely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states. It is certainly true that the biggest cities in those states typically vote Democratic. However, the suburbs, exurbs, small towns, and rural parts of the states often voted Republican. If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
Under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.
Your argument judges the National Popular Vote, a new election system, by the expectations of the current system.
The whole point of the National Popular Vote bill is that the state-by-state outcome would no longer determine the Presidency, but, instead, the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states (and DC), would become President.
Under the National Popular Vote plan, the focus of the campaigns and media in the months prior to the presidential elections will be on polls of the national popular vote, not on state-by-state polls from the current handful of closely divided battleground states. There will be no red states and no blue states, no handful of decisive battleground/swing states, only the United States.
No votes would be irrelevant, as many are under the current system. Instead, all the votes cast in every state would be added to the national total for those candidates and would contribute to the overall winner.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Under the current system:
Think ethanol. Think battleground state issue.
Think U.S. Cuban policy. Think battleground state, Florida.
Think free-trader George W. Bush and Steel Tariffs. Battleground state issue.
Now think Pacific Rim Trade policy. Huh? What presidential candidate ever talks about that? Exactly. Policies like that, important to the non-battleground states of Washington, Oregon, and California, are not discussed during presidential campaigns.
Policies important to the citizens of flyover states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to battleground states when it comes to governing.
Pie: “States count. We are The United States. Giving balance between the crowd rule of a pure democracy and the balance of a lawful republic is what the founders had in mind.”
Yes it is. One of my concerns, other than nationalized lawsuits, is that this will be the gateway measure to one man one vote at the national level…pure democracy. Will the next big idea be eliminating representative government? Now, we can say the courts would never let that happen. I’m sorry…I just don’t believe it. the courts have let Roe v Wade stand for how many years? (30+). The idea was sold as something that would occur rarely (Instances of rape, insest featured prominently)
I’ve seen too many ideas, sold as something positive and good, become something else entirely down the road. Taking care of people when they are down on their luck, the War on Poverty, has become a growing boulder hung around the necks of all working Americans. It has blossomed into a government cottage industry and an alternative lifestyle for way too many recipients.
I’m very skeptical, and not just about its being a positive change.
kohler: “Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%.
Policies important to the citizens of flyover states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to battleground states when it comes to governing.”
Battleground states are states where neither of the two major parties has definitive support. Changing the system won’t change that. these areas of the country will still be where the candidates must work harder to try to win votes.
People in “spectator states” can get more attention about their issues in terms of policy by becoming a squeeky wheel with legislators. Your argument doesn’t quite fly.
Under National Popular Vote there would no longer be spectator and battleground states.
Candidates could easily increase votes in currently “safe” states. Voter turnout in current safe states could easily rise to the same level as current battleground states, under National Popular Vote, when everyone’s vote would be equal and matter and counted in the total that determines the winner. You don’t think California Republicans would have more incentive to vote? You don’t think Texas Democrats would have more incentive to vote?
Just because you no longer think in terms of states doesn’t mean the demographics change…people won’t move as a result of this change and they won’t change their views.
I don’t know that this would matter that much to anyone who doesn’t normally vote. So many people pay attention on a surface level. Some wait till the last week or two. I don’t know about Democrats but all of the Republicans I know always vote. People who don’t follow politics much may not even know anything has changed.
Kohler, you make many good points, i.e., that even though the demographics don’t change, there are still votes to be obtained and influence to be exerted! Which is what campaigning is all about…selling yourself and collecting votes. We want candidates to come to California and campaign for our vote, but republicans won’t if they see it as a hopeless state, owned by the democrats. And why should a democrat waste too much time here when they know they have a lock on the electoral votes? This is a real bad deal for us all around.
It’s hard to turn around a blue state when it’s a republican write-off due to the old electoral college system.
A popular vote system would be very helpful to the conservatives of California. It would finally give us a chance to meet our candidate, and to be motivated and take part. And it would hopefully change the way some democrats vote because they are being reached too. This is just fantastic for Calif. and I am all for it.
This is finally a way conservatives here don’t have to feel like our vote is meaningless. California has 55 electoral votes, that’s a lot to concede. We should be counted by our individual vote.
Another reason to abandon the old system is there is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categorieselectors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties. It doesn’t always go according to plan!
Thanks for your comments, Jack Lee
I just read Tina’s comments and she makes good points too and this is not a clear cut case by any means, but this time I think I will have to respectfully disagree. I’ve thought the electoral college was outdated 30 years ago. I’m ready for a change. Jack
Tina, “Just because you no longer think in terms of states doesn’t mean the demographics change…people won’t move as a result of this change and they won’t change their views.” You’re probably right, but one can hope. I like to think there are many people sitting on the sidelines of politics who might be coached back into the game, if they could hear the message, if a truly gifted conservative candidate/speaker/writer could capture their attention and inspire them.
I’m trying really hard to be positive about the new people coming to California who immediately think they MUST vote democrat. I’m hoping that thru education and outreach we can slowly turn this around and move these newer voters to our side. If we can’t…we’re a lost cause in this state. Talk about tilted demographics…the dems have it all now.
Jack I hope you’re right about attracting voters to a more conservative association…I know we are doing what we can here on Post Scripts! (no neeed to comment Q…we get it)
I would think at some point people would begin to look for different ideas. I be happy if we just left socialism and redistribution behind so we could get people back to work!