No More Electoral College in 2012?
It could happen.
The indispensible Nate Silver over at 538.com has posted this article on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. (‘Bulo aside: Anyone who loves polls and polling analysis must make 538.com essential daily reading. The Beast Who Slumbers suspects that John Tobin takes the blog into the bathroom with him, and that’s as far as ‘bulo will go. Special bonus points for Nate Silver: He was one of the creators of the Baseball Prospectus, one of the greatest ‘bathroom’ books of all-time, and ‘bulo’s favorite private-time companion.)
Anyway, the Compact:
seeks to encourage state legislatures to pass laws requiring that their electors be allocated based on the nationwide popular vote, provided that a sufficient number of other states do the same. If states totaling at least 270 electoral votes (an outright majority of the total available) sign the Compact, it would become active, and this would theoretically guarantee (provided there were no unfaithful electors) that the winner of the popular vote would also win the Electoral College.
Until states approving the compact aggregately reach the magic 270 mark, electors would be awarded the current way. So far, states totalling 50 electoral votes have signed the Compact into law. No legislator has even introduced this bill in Delaware, an oversight that ‘bulo hopes this article may rectify .
While Silver does not think that the Compact will reach critical electoral mass anytime soon, he does describe a scenario that could lead to its passage.
Please read the article and let Delaware Liberal know whether this is something that you’d like to see.
Tags: National Politics
Even in 2000, I never had a problem with the Electoral College. To me, it is a pretty ingenious way to ensure that candidates campaign in places other than large population centers.
In 2000 the problem wasn’t the electoral college winner was not the popular vote winner. It was the electoral college winner was not the electoral college winner.
Indeed, for all those who complain that Bush stole Ohio in 2004 as an argument for this Bill, take note. If Kerry actually did win Ohio, he would have won the presidency without winning the popular vote (Bush had a 2 million or more vote lead over Kerry in the popular vote).
Keep the electoral college as it is. It is a rare event for us to have a President that only a minority elected. Only three Presidents have been elected that way: President Bush, President Hayes, and President B. Harrison.
What needs revising is the party primary system which overvalues Iowa and New Hampshire.
While it worked out to Dems advantage this time – it is a bad thing for the country for such a small slice of the population (and such a narrow demographic) to have such a large say in who can become President.
Intriguing that the states that have moved out on this are Blue states.
I’m not sure yet if the Electoral College is out of date. Personally, I’d rather see a serious rethinking of the primary process before changing the Electoral College.
Why would a state want to water down its votes, by following the national vote instead of its own voters?
I believe John Q Adams also lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson.
I am for getting rid of the Electoral College. I would also like the primary system reformed as well.
Price…
That election (1824) was where none of the candidates had a majority of the electoral votes, so the House decided it. So it is not the same thing.
Bush, Hayes, Harrison….need we say more?
oh.
Lincoln received only a plurality (about 40%) of the popular vote, but a near-landslide win in the EC.
Clinton received only a plurality of the popular vote in both 1992 and 1996. In 1992, under the proposed change, Perot would have gotten 19% of the electoral votes and the election would have gone into the House of Representatives.
Nor can the state electoral vote totals be made to mimic the popular vote in many cases.
Delaware has three electoral votes. Consider the situation in both 2000 and 2004 where the popular vote is on the order of 50.5-49.5. How does Delaware split three votes without distorting the result?
Leave it the way it is.
Steve: Did you even bother to read the article? There would be no splitting of the Electoral College. Once a sufficient # of states agree to the Compact, the electors would vote for the nationwide winner of the popular vote.
Here’s why ‘bulo likes the idea: The person who gets the most votes wins.
I’m sure there is a one-man, one-vote violation in there, if not legally then at least logically.
maybe delaware needs more electoral votes….. get to humpin’ delawareians! we need to up our numbers. 1.5 million by next census would do it right?
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.
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 1,512 state legislators in 48 states.
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 25 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington, and both houses in California, Colorado, 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
75% OF DELAWARE VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL
A survey of 800 Delaware voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 79% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
By age, support was 71% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 77% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 81% among women and 69% among men.
By race, support was 77% among whites (representing 77% of respondents, 72% among African Americans (representing 20% of respondents), 67% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 66% among Others (representing 3% of respondents).
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
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, and ignored, in presidential elections. 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 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.
In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
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.