Only a handful of people showed up at the Emporia Public Library on Wednesday evening, but the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of enacting a popular vote in place of the Electoral College was lively.
Diana Solis of the League of Women Voters talked about the proposal for a national popular vote during Wednesday evening’s presentation. She read from a study that asserted that every vote should be counted and be equally important — no matter which state voters live in. The League of Women Voters is studying the issue and discussing it with the public.
Popular-vote advocates that the presidential candidate with the most popular votes should win the election. There are several organizations that support this movement including Common Cause, NAACP, Public Citizen, National Latino Congress, National Black Caucus of State Legislatures, Asian Action Fund, Sierra Club, the New York Times and Every Vote Equal.
The U.S. Constitution states that a presidential and vice-presidential election must be held every four years, electoral votes are allocated to the states and a majority of Electoral College votes are required to win the election.
Historians believe there were several reasons for establishing the electoral system. The framers of the Constitution, who were dealing with a very different society, distrusted democracy. They wanted the primary power to elect a president to be lodged in the states — not a mass electorate of individual voters.
However, polls have shown that more than 70 percent of the United States population now favors a direct election, 20 percent favors the current system and 10 percent is undecided.
There are two ways the electoral system could be changed — either through a constitutional amendment or an interstate compact. States also can determine on their own how they award electoral votes. Nebraska and Maine award electoral votes by congressional district and four states have enacted NPV: Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii.
“It doesn’t have to be a constitutional amendment,” Solis said. “In the Constitution it leaves it to the states how the electoral votes are determined.”
A few states using national popular vote still are up against the electoral system.
“Just one state by itself cannot make a difference,” Solis said. “It’s got to be 50 states voting.”
Wednesday evening’s group expressed mixed opinions. In the past 100 years, only one election would have been changed by a switch to popular vote — the 2000 presidential election, in which Al Gore won the popular vote but George Bush won a majority of the electoral votes.
Some audience members said one time is too many.
mvymvy (anonymous) says...
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. 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.
March 12, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mvymvy (anonymous) says...
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
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.
The 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.
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 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 23 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, 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
March 12, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
March 12, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
evil_conservative (anonymous) says...
The major shortcoming of the national popular vote system is that the areas with the largest populations -- the coastal areas, not the midwest -- will determine the outcome of the election. If you think it is bad that candidates only campaign in a few key battleground states under the current system, wait till you see what it will be like under a national popular vote system.
Do you think under a new system, that all of the sudden candidates will start spending more time in rural states like Kansas? That's ridiculous. They will only spend their time in highly populated areas.
The authors of the Constitution foresaw this problem and hence devised the current electoral system. All states are guaranteed a minimum number of electoral votes, regardless of population, and additional electoral votes are alloted according to the state's population thereafter. Because of this, the current system actually favors rural states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and yes--- even Kansas. It ensures that the voices of people in rural states are not squelched by those in highly populated ones.
March 12, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Thank you evil_conservative! Your username makes me smile as I too am an "evil conservative". I think the reason people want a popular vote system is because it sounds good and the don't understand what a republic is.
March 12, 2009 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1469 (anonymous) says...
Is it right that a few overide the majority ?? I think NOT WAKE UP PEOPLE it's time to malk a Change.
March 12, 2009 at 7:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
admireed (anonymous) says...
What we have now has worked for quite a long time. Do not change what is working.
Side bar. If the League of Women Voters is for it, I am against it. Here is a group that has never opposed a bond issue in their lives!
March 12, 2009 at 9:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
1469
"Is it right that a few overide the majority ?? "
If the majority is wrong, then yes it is right for a few to overide the majority.
Watch the video I posted a link to. It explains things very well. Just because some slick poitician used the word CHANGE in some speaches and won a race doesn't mean that mindless CHANGE is a good idea.
March 12, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mvymvy (anonymous) says...
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
If a "republican" form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a "democratic" method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.
March 13, 2009 at 12:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mvymvy (anonymous) says...
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run can be found by examining the way presidential candidates currently campaign inside battleground states. Inside Ohio or Florida, the big cities do not receive all the attention. And, the cities of Ohio and Florida certainly do not control the outcome in those states. 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 knows--namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from national advertisers who seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. A national advertiser does not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because a competitor makes more sales in those particular states. Moreover, a national advertiser enjoying an edge over its competitors in Indiana or Illinois does not stop trying to make additional sales in those states. National advertisers go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located.
March 13, 2009 at 12:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mvymvy (anonymous) says...
Keep in mind that 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.
For example, in California, 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 the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still 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 voters in Ohio.
March 13, 2009 at 12:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
That all sounds fine and dandy, mvymvy, but tell me what you would do in the following scenario:
You're a politician, its the last week before the election, you have limited resources, time, money left. You need to pick up about 5 million votes, so you need to concentrate your efforts where you will get the most bang for your buck. Which are you going to do? Spread your campaign across the combined states of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, and Montana, or will you concentrate your efforts on just winning a little over 50% of the vote in NY City, since they both add up to about the same?
Or maybe you're a lesser-known or 3rd party candidate who doesn't have the bucks to throw around that any of the big boys do from the get-go. What is your campaign strategy? Spend your week criss-crossing the countryside stopping at small towns trying to pick up a few hundred votes here, on the road for hours, then a few hundred votes there, or are you going to try to be where you could rally tens of thousands in one setting in much less time with much less campaign $$ spent?
Just curious as to what you as a politician would do.
March 13, 2009 at 1:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
While trying to verify your "cost per impression" statement, mvymvy (or may I call you Susan? Since it appears you blog these very same statements about everywhere) - it appears you are the only one making that claim......
Just curious......
March 13, 2009 at 1:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
So now Bush assassinated JFK. That's a new one. I knew Bush caused hurricane Katrina but I didn't know about the JFK link. You learn something new everyday. lol
March 13, 2009 at 9:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks, I think what iAmerican was trying to say above, other than "Everyone look at me, I'm a nut", was that we live in a country under the rule of law, BUT, in the case that breaking the law will help YOUR candidate get elected, then we can "fix it instead", and break the law (regarding the Florida court attempt to break their own state law, which, by the way, was put into place by a majority Democratic legislature), and the Supreme Court needed "fixing" to allow laws to be broken of the left's picking and choosing.
i-Idiot forgot to throw in "racist"........ LOL
March 13, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"Everyone look at me, I'm a nut"
That is classic! LOL
open_eyes I missed you on these forums, welcome back.
March 13, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
iAmerican (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
March 13, 2009 at 8:27 a.m. ( permalink )
evil_conservative (anonymous) says...
Regardless of the physical location where a candidate campaigns, the point is that he/she will give more attention to big city issues rather than rural issues.
March 14, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
admireed (anonymous) says...
If the League of Women Voters is for it, I am against it. Ultra Liberal pro high tax group.
March 14, 2009 at 9:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I run the other way whenever League of Women Voters get involved with anything, including candidates they have a tendency to promote.
March 15, 2009 at 7:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
create:
That is precisely what my Grandma says---she also includes any names that have ever been affiliated with it and any of their current causes around town. You want to see and hear something amusing? Be at her house over the noon news hour and hear those names on it. WOOOOOEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!
She is a wise woman.
March 15, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )