According to an article in SunThisweek, a bipartisan team of local lawmakers are joining a national trend to alter the way electoral votes are awarded in presidential elections. Currently due to the laws in place, presidential elections are centered around the states which provide the most electoral votes to a candidate. With that in mind, during the 2012 election only 12 states received any real attention and nearly $1 billion in advertising dollars while the remaining states in the union received nothing or next to nothing. This bill hopes to change that.
From the article:
The National Popular Vote bill would award Minnesota’s 10 electoral votes to the candidate for president who wins the most popular votes in all 50 states. The agreement takes effect when states totaling 270 or more electoral votes pass the National Popular Vote bill. Currently, the bill model has passed 31 legislative chambers and passed eight states amounting to 132 electoral votes.
[...]
“The idea of using the popular vote is one whose time has come,” said Rest. “Every single vote is valued the same as every other vote.”
With so many members of the American public completely baffled by the way the United States’ electoral college works and already believing the popular vote should dictate election winners, perhaps this is the way to go. While the original plans were to avoid large states from completely dominating the election winners, it appears that’s what is happening anyway. But should we really be changing to the popular vote just because people seem to think it should work that way anyway?
What do you think about this one? Should we move to popular vote elections for president? Do you see any downsides with this move? Do you think the distribution in election campaign spending would shift at all if the electoral college was eliminated? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
December 19th, 2012 at 8:13 am
Terrible idea. Spending, at least in the presidential election, does not correlate to the number of electoral votes. Look at how little money is spent in CA, TX and NY. It does correlate to how much influence the state has that year. OH was on the fence, so money was spent there.
This bill would make MN reflect the sentiment of the entire nation. That would make voting in MN basically useless. It would abdicate our electoral votes to the 49 other states. Also, presidential candidate would be justified in passing the state by knowing that their efforts in other states would influence our results.
An alternative would be to allocate electoral college votes in proportion to the state elections results. There is not reason to do the all or nothing approach.
December 19th, 2012 at 8:24 am
As I recall from civics class the electoral vote was an intentional decision to keep the running of government out of the hands of the people – something about the tyranny of the populous (i.e. the masses are asses). It seems to me that this is consistent with the rest of our government which is representational, not direct.
As a citizen I can contact my local, state or federally elected representative and express my opinion how they should vote but I myself cannot directly vote on an issue, only on a candidate.
To be honest I see no advantage of changing the current process. Since the implementation of the electoral college only four presidents, three of them in the 1800′s and the first election of George W. Bush won the electoral count but lost the popular vote. I did not especially care for W but don’t know that Gore would have done any better.
December 19th, 2012 at 10:52 am
the problem with this approach is that it’s not scalable. By requiring that electoral votes only go out if one candidate gets more than 270 electoral votes from the rest of the country. If enough states use this same formula eventually there will be no winner because the 270 can’t come to fruition.
I don’t like the idea of a popular vote either since only the metropolitan areas would get any spending.
December 19th, 2012 at 11:10 am
The knock against this that I’ve heard is that the candidates would campaign and concentrate only on population centers at the expense of rural areas and smaller cities. I’m not really clear on how that’s any different today, where the candidates largely ignore each other’s respective strongholds. What happened in 2000 is a once in a lifetime type of event.
What I’d prefer to see is an instant runoff voting system that allows for ranked choice, but that will probably never happen at the national level. The two party stranglehold sucks, in my opinion.
December 19th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Big mistake, and I’m not sure why any states would think it is a good idea. A solution looking for a problem to start with, and it and of itself could lead to further issues. I can’t imagine states that have the majority of their voters go Democrat and see their presidential power go to a Republican, or back the other way around.
December 19th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
I’ve heard Conservatives whining about this quite a bit lately. Funny how they were so qui1et about the Electoral College in 2000 and 2004. Hmmm….yes, very interesting indeed.
December 21st, 2012 at 2:04 pm
A survey of Minnesota voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 84% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 68% among others.
By age, support was 74% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 83% among women and 67% among men.
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). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
NationalPopularVote
December 21st, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Minnesota was ignored in the 2012 election.
The National Popular Vote bill ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, 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 state counts and 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. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don’t matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
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 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 a 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.
When and where voters matter, then so are the issues they care about most.
In the 2012 election, only 9 states and their voters mattered under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. 9 states determined the election. Candidates did not care about 80% 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 was 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, 200 million Americans, have been just spectators to the general election.
Now, policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states – that include 10 of the original 13 states – are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing, too.
December 21st, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
December 21st, 2012 at 2:05 pm
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
December 21st, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and 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.
December 21st, 2012 at 2:06 pm
With National Popular Vote, every vote would be equal. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% 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 far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote 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.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as 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 do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
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 knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
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.
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.
Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.
December 21st, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Most Americans 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 think it’s wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
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.
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don’t matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
In state polls of 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.
Connecticut — 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2.
Utah — 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2.
NationalPopularVote
December 21st, 2012 at 3:19 pm
December 22nd, 2012 at 9:51 am
Thumbs up this comment if you read more than 40 words of kohler’s blathering. Thumbs down if you read more.
I am with Mikeh. I must be in the minority too, I guess.
December 22nd, 2012 at 10:00 am
Yeah, let’s change how our country’s President is elected based on a “survey of Minnesota voters”. We all know political surveys aren’t worded/conducted in a way to solicit exactly the result the survey administrator wants, anyway.
And lefty, you need a third option for those that just looked at that and laughed.