So far, four states have voted to award their electoral votes to the Presidential candidate who wins the most total popular votes nationally, rather than who wins the state itself. For example, if Texas had adopted this plan for the 2008 election, the 34 Texas electoral votes would have gone to Obama (the national vote winner) rather than McCain (the Texas vote leader). This is part of a national movement trying to go around, and functionally eliminate, the electoral college and make the winner of the national popular vote the winner of the Presidential election. The system only goes into effect though if states totaling at least 270 electoral votes - a majority - agree to it. The four states that have already approved are Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii - a total of 50 electoral votes.Whatever you think about the electoral college as a mechanism for electing the President, from a practical partisan standpoint this appears to be bad for the Democratic party. So far, its all reliably blue states that have approved the national popular vote plan. If the vast majority of an eventual 270 votes worth of states in this system are blue states it would basically give the GOP one extra way to win a Presidential contest. A GOP candidate could win by:
1) getting the most electoral votes, like now, or by
2) getting the most popular votes (since 270 or so blue state electoral votes would be required to vote for the Republican national vote winner, even if all those states voted Democrat).
A Democrat could only win in this system by winning the popular vote. If a Democrat won 300 electoral votes, but lost the national popular vote 65,000,000 to 64,999,999 then about 270 of those 300 electoral votes would have to switch to the Republican national vote winner. But the same wouldn't be true in reverse if the pattern of only blue states approving this plan continues.
Or am I just misreading this? Always a real possibility.
You don't understand the National Popular Vote compact. It doesn't matter whether the states that approve the compact are red, blue, or purple. The compact takes effect when states having a majority of the electoral votes enact it. Then, whoever gets the most popular vote in all 50 states (and DC) wins all the electoral votes (270 or more) from the states that enacted the compact. The White House goes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteThe major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
ReplyDeleteTwo-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill is currently endorsed by 1,512 state legislators in 48 states.
ReplyDeleteIn Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 26 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes -- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
John Koza - Yes, I know it doesn't matter if the states are blue states or red states, and the whole issue is just to get to 270 so the national popular vote winner is always President.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that if it continues the way it is now - with only blue states actually agreeing to it - it will be a big disadvantage for Democrats.