Popular vote for president
An Arkansas lawmaker wants to do away with the Electoral College system.
Arkansas would join Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland in passing the National Popular Vote bill under House Bill 1339 by Rep. Monty Davenport of Yellville. The national movement would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded. Arkansas is a winner-take-all state.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only after enough states possessing a majority of presidential electoral votes — that is to say 270 of 538 votes — enacted an identical form of the measure.
Arkansas has six electoral votes. The other states that have enacted the measure total 50 together.
This entry was posted on Monday, February 2nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 am
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Arkansas is not among them. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
80% OF ARKANSAS VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL
A survey of 800 Arkansas voters conducted on December 15-16, 2008 showed 80% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 88% among Democrats, 71% among Republicans, and 79% among independents.
By age, support was 89% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 80% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 88% among women and 71% among men.
By race, support was 81% among whites (representing 80% of respondents), 80% among African-Americans (representing 16% of respondents), and 68% among Others (representing 4% of respondents).
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 am
The National Popular Vote bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 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
February 5th, 2009 at 1:47 am
The prospect of HB 1339 being signed into law is alarming. I’ve often reflected on the pure genius of the electoral college. The framers of the Constitution were protecting individual states’ participation in the process of selecting a president. Without the electoral college, folks in low population states might as well stay home on election day. The electoral college is our only insurance against the east and west coasts and a few other states with densely populated cities choosing our president every election.
The most heavily populated states are generally “blue states.” By eliminating the electoral college, the president would almost without a doubt be “blue.” This might thrill some, but there are a number of us it would not. And, this would not be good for America. There would be no real competition of ideas–no meaningful debate.
In comments prior to mine, writers note the support of legislators from a variety of states, percentages of folks who prefer the popular vote in electing the president, and a long list of newspapers that endorse this “reform.” These numbers and lists are unimpressive. Given the way in which polling questions are worded, the lack of knowledge of those polled of the historical and practical implications of their preference, the bias of the media, and the agendas that drive the pollers, anyone reading their comments should disregard any implied importance given to this data.
Quoting Susan, “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.” I am straining to understand why this is a concern. If campaigning is all about getting your message out to voters; telling them where you stand on national issues and explaining your philosophy for running the country, television, the internet, and the print media offer more than enough information. In reality, unless you happen to be off work on the day that a candidate visits your area or unless you aren’t working for whatever reason, if candidates comes to your state you are probably not going to get to see them, shake their hand, or ask a serious question of them. For you, it would be the same as if they had not visited your state. So, Susan, “why is it so important that the candidates spend a lot of time in our state?”
In the 2008 election none of the presidential candidates spent a great deal of time in Arkansas, and I didn’t feel slighted. But then, I’m not easily impressed by stump speeches. Actually, they annoy me. Do I feel that because a candidate doesn’t frequent our state that we are being overlooked or considered unimportant? Nah, campaign schedules are mostly dictated by strategies for winning elections with funds available. If he’s my favorite candidate and he feels secure in my state’s support, then I want him going where the money will be better spent.
I mention this only because Susan used this as a rationale for supporting the popular vote for the presidency. Not a good reason. In fact, there are no good reasons.
Please resist this “majority rule” fever. We are a representative government that protects “minority rights.”
No to HB 1339. It is dangerous.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York’s use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming–both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
The National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red” states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, 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.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
● Texas (62% Republican),
● New York (59% Democratic),
● Georgia (58% Republican),
● North Carolina (56% Republican),
● Illinois (55% Democratic),
● California (55% Democratic), and
● New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
● Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
● New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
● Georgia — 544,634 Republican
● North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
● Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
● California — 1,023,560 Democratic
● New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, 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.
Under a national popular vote, every vote is equally important politically. There is nothing special about a vote cast in a big city. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties know that they must seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the state in order to win the state. A vote cast in a big city is no more valuable than a vote cast in a small town or rural area.
Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. 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 is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate won 100% of the votes in the nation’s top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.
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.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.
So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be “mob rule” in presidential elections, but whether the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. In 2004, candidates spent over two thirds of their visits and two-thirds of their money in just 6 states and 99% of their money in just 16 states, while ignoring the rest of the country.
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 who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Speaking of minorities . . .
The Asian American Action Fund, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, NAACP, National Latino Congreso, and National Black Caucus of State Legislators endorse a national popular vote for president.
The influence of minority voters has decreased tremendously as the number of battleground states dwindles. In 1976, 73% of blacks lived in battleground states. In 2004, that proportion fell to a mere 17%.
Battleground states are the only states that matter in presidential elections. Campaigns are tailored to address the issues that matter to voters in these states.
Safe red and blue states are considered a waste of time, money and energy to candidates. These “spectator” states receive no campaign attention, visits or ads. Their concerns are utterly ignored.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I did some research online and reread Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution concerning the Electoral College. Additionally, Article V states that “whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution”, etc. It is my understanding that the Founding Fathers viewed the state legislatures as being the proper venue to which the people would voice their grievances or propose legislation that would impact our government at no only the state, but the federal level as well. I was not aware that the citizens of Arkansas were concerned with doing away with the Electoral College. Actually, I wasn’t aware, until I did my homework, as to why the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College. Below are the four main reasons why they wrote Article 2, Section 1 into the US Constitution:
1) the original 13 states were jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government;
2) the 13 original States were poorly connected by transportation and communication and impeded national campaigns;
3) the Founding Fathers believed that “political parties were mischievous, if not downright evil”, and;
4) less populous states would not have the same power as more populous states in determining the outcome of a presidential election.
Below are my reasons as to why I am strongly opposed to HB1339 and feel that all Arkansas voters should be as well.
Firstly, less populous states would have no say in determining the outcome of a presidential election. A most recent historic example of where a state with few electoral votes could potentially determine the outcome of a presidential election would be the 2000 presidential election.
Add to this the original reasoning of the Founding Fathers that “political parties were mischievous, if not downright evil”, it is imperative that the process begun by the Arkansas legislature to nullify the Electoral College be stopped immediately. Considering what is transpiring in Washington, DC today with the blatant partisanship by both parties, I have absolutely no faith in either party to do the right thing for the American people. Both political parties are too influened by special interests groups. Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constituion is a safeguard that must remain in place.
The nations 5 largest cities have 20% of the US population and the top 20 metropolitan areas have 40% of the population. Meaning those 5 cities and 20 metropolitan areas would decide every election. I doubt Arkansas would even receive a campaign stop. I used to think that the popular vote was the way to go given the advances in technology until I realized that a presidential candidate could win the majority vote by focusing all of his or her attention on 5 major cities and 20 metropolitan areas none of which are in Arkansas. Additionally, a presidential candidate would not have to win the popular vote in the majority of states so long as he or she won these cities.
If the above reasons are not enough to sway opinions, allow me to make one final point. When I reviewed the voting records of all the state representatives who voted for HB1339, fifty-five were Democrats and one was from the Green Party. I view this move on the part of the Democrats in the state legislature to establish an oligarchy at the federal level by always ensuring that a Democrat is in the White House. An oligarchy is defined as a government by the few led by a titular head. Our country is a REPUBLIC. A republic is a form of government ruled by law. In this case the law of our great nation is the US Constitution. I urge all voters to rethink their position on HB1339 and most sincerely ask that you vote with the people to preserve our liberties and the Arkansas’ power to determine the outcome of future presidential elections. This is not an inconceivable reality.