by Jack Lee
(Washington approved of individuals voting, but cared little about partisan politics, .i.e, power brokers)
The term one man, one vote, has been used to describe the essence of our republic. It implies sovereignty over one’s destiny and all the freedom and responsibility that comes with it. The only people who should fear this are despots and power brokers.
Why is it then that we’re so afraid of having a national popular vote for president? The NPV movement has been slowly gaining traction since it became apparent that we can safely and accurately count large voter turnouts, thus eliminating the one of the original key reasons for an electoral college. The days of horse carried balloting is long gone, it’s just some of us haven’t quite accepted it yet.
California is a winner take all state with 55 electoral votes out of the total of 538 national electors.
Our 55 electoral votes represent the sum of our 17.2 million registered voters. Of that number 44% are registered as democrat and a minority of 30.9% are registered as republican. The simple voter demographics tell us, if you are voting republican in a presidential election then your vote is essentially worthless. The majority party (democrats) will get all 55 electoral votes every time because they have the numbers. What reason would a republican candidate for the presidency have for spending campaign money to turnout GOP voters in California? [None] would be the correct answer. And that my dear friends explains why the McCain campaign spent a whopping $29,000 here, despite the over $68 million raised from California donors.
The electoral college makes 5.3 million California voters irrelevant.
Let’s be honest, is this your idea of how democracy should work? Does this reflect the American idealism founded in one man, one vote? Does this help us (conservatives) challenge the liberal establishment in California? Across the board it’s no, no and a big fat huge NO!
Instead of challenging the democrats, republicans in California have acquiesced to fighting each other. Given the current party demographics, I can’t say as I blame them. At least by fighting each other they will win 50% of the battles, which is better than losing 100% fighting democrats. I submit we can do better than playing intramural fratricide year after year and a true popular vote is a start in the [right] direction, pun intended.
Having every citizen’s vote be worth going after in a Presidential election is the kind of idea that you’d think we could all support.
Unfortunately, the first reaction of many Republicans is to suspect that it’s a big conspiracy to reverse the outcome of the 2000 election. Well, that’s baloney and we need to get passed the conspiracy mode and into reality mode. It’s time we elect a president based on the popular vote because that would make every vote in this state and every other state count. It’s the fair and right thing to do.
What empowers the individual vote is good, what detracts from it is bad – period.
You would not trade an ounce of freedom for pound of security and isn’t that really what we’re talking about here – freedom? Casting a vote is by far the most free thing we can do, so why would we want to turn that over to a delegate (an elector) to cast it for us and maybe even cast it wrongly? What possible good can come from having an electoral college that has on occasion elected a president that did not win the popular vote? Where is the security in that?
The NPV bill was passed in California and signed into law this year and to date, seven states (Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington and Vermont) and the District of Columbia–comprising 77 electoral college votes altogether–have adopted the plan. California’s 55 electoral college votes make the tally 132 votes and that would be almost half of the 270 needed for the NPV bill to become effective. Unfortunately, the NPV bill here was passed without any republican support, showing once again how the partisan hacks in the CA GOP have managed not to be on the right side of history. I resent that and I’m sick and tired of having my presidential vote be worthless. How about you?
Is this a popularity contest or is it a contest of ideas represented by those running for the highest office in the land?
Our founders may not have cared about partisan politics but they created the electoral college for a distinct reason and it had nothing to do with carrying votes by horseback.
Your concern for your Republican (conservative) California vote is unbderstandable but shows little concern for the voters of small population states or the preservation of liberty.
Do you suppose that the states of Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Louisianna, and North Dakota, to name a few, might have interests with respect to the EPA and energy policy that are a great deal different that those of NYC, LA, Chicago, SF/Jan Jose?
The president should represent all of the people not the big metropolitan filled areas that are almost all, if not all, liberal progressive.
How many of the states that have signed on to this idea are concervative:
Hawaii…nope
Illinois…nope
Maryland…nope
Massachusetts…nope
New Jersey…nope
Washington…nope (Except for areas of the lower populated east side)
Vermont…nope
District of Columbia….nope
Once we change the presidential vote by eliminating the EC, how long before a proposal to eliminate the “outdated” and unnecessary congress is suggested in like manner for like reasons. We have the internet…we can just vote directly on legislation proposed by anyone, right?
Mob rule is what we are ultimately talking about.
It’s a slippery slope I do not wish to consider, at least not in these volotile times. Supplemental reading:
http://mises.org/daily/545#ArticleTab
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.747/article_detail.asp
We have compromised the original vision enough already!
We Americans have lost heart because our leadership has failed us time and again. But to place the blame on process is to abdicate our own responsibilities to be informed, to inform and to ho9ld accountable those who represent us. Further changing the system that was originally designed to preserve liberty will not provide a salve to our discontetments. One man one vote won’t eliminate scroundrels or the propensity of man in this day and age to compromise on his principles, in fact, it would likely encourage more of it.
I can’t see that that sense of voter worthlessness would improve for anyone and after observing OWS, this idea might just be another cog in the wheel meant to crush America (liberty) from within.
I agree, and I’ll bet the democrats in Texas feel the same way!
These are all good questions and points. Personally, I support the idea of the popular vote, one person, one vote, but I have some reservations because of what I believe the framers had in mind may actually be a good thing.
My studies of history suggest that the reason there is an electoral college is the same reason there is a Senate. States count, not just numbers. It is one of the balances built in. The college is also from a time when states gathered like minded people. I believe the intent was that the electoral college would tend to balance out a hegemony of populous states of like minded people over a less a populous states of differently minded people. In other words, states are important too.
Today states still attract like minded people (for whatever social or political reasons) but they are far more heterogeneous today than they once were.
As such, a large segment of Californians are effectively disenfranchised because of the electoral college.
A popular vote would have put Al Gore into office. Had Gore been elected President I believe that Democrats would have completely self destructed, the economy would have collapsed much sooner, and the Republican Party would have been to a large extent purged of RINO, fat cat, working the system Republicans who are little more than Democrat-Lites.
Does anyone see a viable one-person-one-vote movement on the horizon? I don’t.
Pie, you’ve done your homework, certainly an element in the reason for an electoral college was to keep a renegade state with crooked balloting from skewing the election. The electoral college was a check and balance for this, so you’re right and also right about heavily populated states having too much clout. However, if the later were really true, then why don’t we assign an electoral college for cities in CA? LA has too much influence! Too many voters. And yes, we do suffer from this up North, but we deal with it, as I suspect we could with big populations in other states. I don’t see it as that significant.
The founders considered letting the Senate elect the president, but decided at the last moment this was not a real good idea.
As for the crooked voting…few of us would disagree that stuffing the ballot box can still occur, but it is easily discovered and it’s effect minimized. In fact the more ballots cast the harder it is for anyone to cheat with cemetery voters. One of the last bastions of such voting is Chicago and even there they’re finding it hard to do. I think we’ll do fine with a direct vote. There’s more positive than negative, and it is the essence of our democratic idealism – if we’re going to talk the talk, we better walk the walk.
Jack: “…why don’t we assign an electoral college for cities in CA…”
I’d sooner support this idea! It preserves intent of the founders at the state level. The Constitution left it to the states to decide how delegates would be chosen. Why not, especially in a state with the population and diversity of California?
“LA has too much influence! Too many voters. And yes, we do suffer from this up North, but we deal with it…”
Huh? On the one hand you argue that you feel disenfranchised because you’ve been deprived of “one man one vote” and then turn around and claim the it would create a similar problem (nationwide) and those effected would just have to “deal with it”?
You often surprise me with your opinions, Jack. Liberty, not democracy, has always been at the core of most of your arguments.
Tina, as usual you pose good arguments, although I expected most of them because most are the very talking points of the opposition from which I come…the republican party. And I grant you, they are not without merit, but….
If you want talk check and balance, what guarantee do we have that a delegate will vote they way they are supposed too? They’ve been known to cast votes other than the way they were supposed too and that wasn’t just one vote, it represented tens of thousands of votes! That’s terrible.
I hear this argument about the dangers of direct democracy, that its like mob rule, but I think its a false argument, because direct voting is what do all the time and nobody calls it mob rule then.
A mob acts on the spur of the moment, without deliberation, without care or concern for all the facts. However, a vote is a very deliberate task, it is scheduled event at a date far in the future. In a way you might say, an election date serves the same purpose as a waiting period to buy a new firearm. It’s a period of deliberation. Pre-election, we have all the time we need to educate ourselves, listen to our candidates and think thru the issues and then at some point we will all go to the polls and vote. There’s no mob action in that – its a red herring.
Yes, we state citizens may have different issues and different needs because we live in far flung parts of this big country and our population density varies widely. But, isn’t that exactly why we have state’s rights? I believe it is. State government’s are supposed to address those issues unique to their state, not the president. The people in those areas know best how to rule themselves – not Washington. Home rule, grass roots this what state and local governments are all about.
But, as a voter for our nations president, the most powerful position in the world, we have this common bond that says we’re all American’s and we vote for who is best for America. It should not be for who will do the most for one state over another.
The Constitution makes it quite clear what the limits of the president are and what the limits of federal government should be… and our founders said the federal gov. should stay the heck out of states business. We don’t want the feds for anything except for their Constitutional mandated duty and brother that’s plenty. The rest is up to the states.
I would like somebody to tell me precisely when in our history has the Electoral College acted as a check and balance and saved us? I don’t know either, but I do know the EC has skewed a few elections and the person who won by the most votes failed to be elected – but, even so, we still survived. So, in the grand scheme of things even the EC is of very little consequence, except for the fact it deletes our CA vote and it can be an injustice. Yes, it causes our tiny, yet significant, fractional vote contribution to be a big fat zero under the EC system and I’m kinda offended by that, aren’t you?
We need to be closer to our government – we don’t need a go-between, let me cast my own dang vote.
One man (woman) – one vote! There’s your best check and balance.
Tina, you said, “On the one hand you argue that you feel disenfranchised because you’ve been deprived of “one man one vote” and then turn around and claim the it would create a similar problem (nationwide) and those effected would just have to “deal with it”? You often surprise me with your opinions, Jack. Liberty, not democracy, has always been at the core of most of your arguments.” No Tina, I really don’t think I said that, but maybe I failed to convey my message in proper context?
I was being sarcastic about the LA comparision. Would rather we were separated into two states, but thats another issue.
Please read my previous comment just behind this one for clarification, I think I said it right and in my mind I’m being very consistent…especially in defense of liberty, not democracy. This is what the value of a direct vote means to me..it’s about our soveriegn right and our freedom to vote for the candidate of our choice, not be told we need a representative to a cast our vote because the masses can’t be trusted to vote right, not enough intelligence…uh, yeah, I know. lol But, it’s a risk worth taking. When we start assigning people to cast a vote for people this in itself could lead us to trouble and in this day and age we just don’t need it. We’ve got our representatives in Congress…that good enough.
Heck, maybe some day every 100k voters will be assigned a deligate because we can’t trust a voting block of 100,000? It just seems like a bad deal and the nation would be better off with a popular vote.
From Jason Roe-R on Andrew Breitbarts blog….
As a movement conservative, constitutionalist, and believer in the First Amendment, I do believe that Tara Ross and others are entitled to opinions related to the current effort surrounding the National Popular Vote, a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College. They are not, however, entitled to their own set of the facts. Id like to set the record straight.
First the idea that National Popular Vote abolishes, attacks, neuters or subverts the Electoral College, the Constitution or intent of the founders, is simply not true.
National Popular Vote preserves the Electoral College and the intent of the Constitution, that is to say, that the states continue to have the right to determine how they award their electoral votes. This effort is an appropriate approach to reforming the way we elect our President under Article II of the Constitution.
It allows states to replace current winner-take-all rules, the current method of awarding all Electors to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in a given state. Forty-eight states currently use winner-take-all rules, relegating two-thirds of Americans irrelevant when electing their president because they live in a fly-over state where the Republican or Democrat candidate for President is comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind.
Our Founding Fathers did not oppose or support a national popular vote or any other method of electing our president, instead leaving it to the states to award electors in a manner that is in the best interest of the people that they serve. They certainly did not favor the current state-by-state, winner-take-all system we currently use to elect the President, nor would they bless a system that relegated 11 of the 13 original states to fly-over status during the 2008 Presidential campaign.
When more than two-thirds of the states are ignored under the current system, the Founders would expect states to execute the state-right to strengthen the voice of their citizens and their states when electing the President. National Popular Vote will do that.
Next is the flawed idea that National Popular Vote is trying to fly under the radar or a shroud of secrecy. National Popular Vote has been enacted in five states, passed by thirty legislative chambers, earned the support of more than 1900 legislators and generated thousands of media items. The idea that legislators are being hoodwinked is both offensive and demeaning to the leaders our Founders bestowed this decision.
Having done Electoral College math for a living, the idea that the current system results in candidates who appeal to the broadest coalitions is perhaps Ms. Ross most naive.
The current system encourages candidates to focus on the needs of one state, over another; to glorify special interests that can deliver a small group of swing voters in swing states; and, to make any promise necessary to win critical battleground states based on where they fit in their path to the presidency. Two-thirds of the country are mere spectators when selecting their president (because of winner-take-all rules) and that is fundamentally wrong.
The idea that National Popular Vote is flawed because it was born of a progressive (i.e., Dr. John Koza), is shortsighted and childish. A good idea is a good idea, no matter where it comes from as witnessed by school choice, the flat tax, or freeing the slaves from bondage all ideas born out of progressives.
Then there is the false charge floating around the blogosphere and in some circles that the National Popular Vote will favor big-city liberals and the Democrats. Knowing a bit about political demography, I disagree. America is a center-right country and I am not afraid of our conservative ideas and believe this effort would in fact, energize otherwise ignored conservative voters in flyover states. It will encourage Republicans to compete for urban votes that are far more gettable for conservatives than rural, exurban, and Southern voters are for liberals.
New York conservatives apparently agree, as twenty of the twenty-four state Senators endorsed by the New York Conservative Party voted for the National Popular Vote bill.
The idea that a candidate will win with 15-percent of the vote is silly. The accusation that recounts will be likely and messy is distracting. Both could happen and are indeed more likely in the current system of winner-take-all rules.
I understand the need to sell books, experience twenty minutes of fame, and engage in philosophical parlor games so I get where Ms. Ross and the smattering of opponents are coming from. But, thoughtful citizens and legislators on the right, center and left need to continue to explore, think about and study these questions.
Do you think states should exercise their constitutional right to allocate electors in a way that ensures the persistent relevance of their citizens?
Do you believe the presidency should be guaranteed to the candidate who wins the most votes in all fifty states?
Do you believe that a vote in one state should be courted as much as a vote in another?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, Id urge you to consider the National Popular Vote.
Jack: “as usual you pose good arguments, although I expected most of them because most are the very talking points of the opposition from which I come…the republican party.”
The CATO Institute and Mises are not the Republican Party, elites or otherwise. Heritage’s ties are a bit closer.
“But, isn’t that exactly why we have state’s rights? I believe it is. State government’s are supposed to address those issues unique to their state, not the president.”
Ahhh…that explains the Obama energy policy. It is crippling a number of oil and coal industry companies in some of those states, not to mention the impact on locals that would normally have jobs in those companies were it not for federal involvement. Madated healthcare is another example of intervention. STATES control the issues unique to the states? NOT! Not with the size of the federal government in 2011 and the fingers it has in every state pie. (No offense Pie)
And it was the states that created the federal government not the other way around. The individual states chose to join to become the United States of America. History over the past 100 years should tell us we need all the checks and balances we can preserve.
If this were a nation of principled conservatives I might be tempted to consider this idea. Right now, in particular, it is the kind of change I’d sooner do without.
“…we have this common bond that says we’re all American’s and we vote for who is best for America. It should not be for who will do the most for one state over another.”
We HAD this common bond. What we have now is a divided country with one group, I’m certain you’ve noticed, bent on destroying capitalism and freedom and replacing it with some form of Marxist, fascist, socialist crap of shared sacrifice and shared largess. (Not to mention some of the international threats out there that the left seem to be increasingly sympathetic toward, ie Hamas)
” Yes, it causes our tiny, yet significant, fractional vote contribution to be a big fat zero under the EC system and I’m kinda offended by that, aren’t you?”
In the last election the outcome would have been the same… your vote didn’t elect the person you preferred. Why would you feel differently just because your vote and those of other conservatives was counted one by one? I’ll bet that in more cases than not this would be the outcome. There have only been a few instances when the popular vote negated the electoral college decision, if memory serves.
RE: Huh? You are correct. I was mistaken.
There is one way to put all of this aside. A resounding win like Reagan had would do the trick nicely for me. How I’d love to see America in that place so we can put people back to work and begin to repair the incredible damage that’s been done…without all of the crazy shenanigans.
After reading the Breitbart piece I am admittedly confused. Perhaps it is the title: “National Popular Vote” and the oft used “one man, one vote” which to me implies elimination of the EC. However, per Jason Roe at Breitbart:
Can anyone explain how the EC is preserved?
Can anyone explain how the EC is preserved?
The EC keeps the monied elite in power. If you object to this, you shouldn’t be voting Repug. If any constitutional amendment ever eradicates that institution, it’ll be at the instigation of us Dems.
But don’t hold your breath. Amazing how much monied elite votes Dem.
Al Gore received more votes than George Bush in 2000.
Thanks Princess. Yes he did and rightfully he should have been the President. I wouldn’t have like it, but he won the popular vote. However, Bush won the presidency legally thru the Electoral College, so we can’t fault Bush although everyone outside the GOP seems to be doing that.
Libby, uh, so you’re saying in effect that you share my belief that we should have a direct vote for the presidency? OMG!!!! Clever the way you replied, you came off completely ignoring our agreement – ya just can’t stand to say you agree with me, huh? Further, you made it sound like a total democrat thing, which it certainly is not. This one is about as bi-partisan as it will ever get.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. The Electoral College is the set of electors who vote for presidential candidates. The bill changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system. 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 and DC 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 and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). 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, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally 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.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
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. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered fly-over now. 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.
2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters.
Policies important to the citizens of flyover states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to battleground states when it comes to governing.
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).
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
With 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.
Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.
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 Republicans, Democrats, 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%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, 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.
In the current system, it could only take the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to 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).
With National Popular Vote, every vote is equal. Candidates would reallocate the money they raise to no longer ignore 2/3rds of the states and voters.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a big city approach would not likely win the national popular vote.
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.
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run, with every vote equal, 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.
With 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.
If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured apocalyptic outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.
Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?”
I believe my vote will be worthless in 2012. The election will be over before our polling stations are closed out here. 1980 all over again!
Pretty much.
My premise is certainly NOT that we’re too corrupt to have a direct vote.
My premise is one person, one vote. The candidate with the most votes wins.
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 and DC 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 and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). 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, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally 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.
MVYMVY-my bad, got in a hurry and misread your opening. Never mind. : )
“This one is about as bi-partisan as it will ever get.”
That’s very comradely, but you really should be kissing Q’s feet. For it’s he who’s tried to explain to you, repeatedly, that both parties are controlled by monied fellas who have no intention of handing off anything like real power … to us.
Tina is correct on this issue. The EC works for many reasons. This would have been a socialist nation years ago without the EC because the heavily populated states that are heavily new immigrants would win over the flyover states. The only representation for the flyover states is the EC. That said, no election is trustworthy until we get rid of the shadow government that is controlling everything including elections. If you don’t know what shadow government is do some heavy research from the 70’s on. We can primarily thank Cheney and Rumsfeld for their work. To help your research see “Shadow Government is at Work in Secret,” Washington Post, March 1, 2002.
Many heavily populated states are flyover states.
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system. 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. There would no longer be flyover states that are caused by the current state-by-state winner-take-all system.
Now 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.
In the current system, it could only take the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to 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.
Oh, now, this is a big giggle.
Jack, Clova says that the only institution that keeps this nation “white” is the EC, which give disproportionate electoral weight to all those sparsely populated Whitelands.
And, of course, he’s absolutely right.
So, what do you say to that?
Libby, I say the honest and fair thing to do is to honor every human being’s vote.
MVYMVY….thank you. You are a wise person. I hope you will weigh in other problems of the world that we go about solving every day here! lol
You guys are missing the founding principle, that ultimately it is all up to the states. Your states election rules are the reason your vote doesn’t count, the winner takes all rule sucks. Most California districts are democrat, however a republican candidate could win a district if that rule were repealed. Then the popular vote in your district would get your one electoral vote.the founders knew changing things in your district would be easier than changing federal law, you can make a change in your state that would drastically improve the effect of your vote. Yet for some reason everyone focuses their attention on the electoral college, the founders knew what they were doing we are the ones who are confused. Fix your state, that’s were you can have the greatest effect, that’s were our constitution gives you authority and power. Otis much easier for you to protest in Sacramento than in D.C. Thomas Jefferson knew that.
Adam I agree completely! Thanks for posting!Your comment is particularly appropriate on this Novemeber 2012 election day!