General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Weds., June 8, 2011
We’re a tiny step closer to the popular election of the President of the United States today. The House mustered up 21 votes to pass HB 55 (D. E. Williams), which would establish a state compact that would provide for the popular vote nationally to determine the disposition of state’s electoral votes. The debate in the House centered on whether Delaware would have more or less influence on the the presidential race under HB 55. This was essentially a debate on whether Delaware would have “Once in a Blue Moon” influence or “No Chance in Hell” influence. I don’t know (neither does any legislator) and I don’t care b/c I think that’s the wrong debate to have.
The real issue is that I believe that the person who gets the most votes nationally for President should be President. It eliminates state fixing of presidential elections by the likes of Katherine Harris. For those not paying attention, stealing elections is the fastest growing package in the Rethug playbook. Well, that and voter suppression. Plus, unlike, say, Wyoming, Delaware is in the middle of a populous region, and would still be an attractive location for campaign events that could reach TV markets from Bucks County to Baltimore. Plus, unless I missed this in history class, the switching of Delaware’s electoral votes would never have changed the course of presidential history. I’m not optimistic about the fate that awaits it in the Senate, but progress is sometimes measured in little increments.
Before we delve any deeper, here’s the entire legislative record for yesterday.
The House also unanimously passed HB 69 (D. Short), legislation that should and would have been passed long ago were it not for the human rain delay known as (now Former) Sen. Nancy Cook. It’s long past time for the Senate to follow course and include the basic information that HB 69 calls for in any and all fiscal notes.
The needle exchange program, which has empirically proven to be effective, will now be made permanent following House passage of SB 13 yesterday. There were 12 no votes, you can check out the miscreants here. All Rethugs, except, of course, for that former law-abiding citizen from Millsboro. Haven’t heard much from him his ‘friend’ lately, hmmmm, wonder why.
The Senate, as you know, inexplicably delays the posting of roll calls until the ‘changing of the legislative day’, so we don’t know which senators voted no or ‘took a walk’ on HB 46 (Rep. D. P. Williams), but it looks like the NRA gave some of their puppets permission to cross the line on this piece of the Markell gun control package. The bill goes to the Governor, and I’ll be naming names tomorrow.
There’s a brief Senate agenda for today, but it includes John Kowalko’s bill banning trans-fats from school meals and Bethany Hall-Long’s bill banning bisphenol-A from certain children’s products.
Big committee day today. Senate highlights include:
*Consideration of the nomination of Shailen Bhatt to be the new DELDOT Secretary. I would hope and expect that there are a lot of germane questions posed during the hearing in today’s Executive Committee meeting. By germane, I mean something other than ‘gotcha’ questions. If I were a senator, I’d be weighing whether the nominee has the potential and ability to address the myriad of challenges facing DELDOT, and my questions would be geared to trying to suss that out. I don’t give a bleep if he doesn’t yet know where Bridgeville is.
*Consideration of a bill to enable community firearms recovery programs to be funded through community transportation funds (CTF). While I like the concept of firearms recovery programs, I’m not sure how the use of capital funds generally used for the CTF can be shifted to this program. I’m not sure that anyone else is either, which could prove to be the bill’s fatal flaw. In today’s Senate Finance Committee.
*Legislation to change Delaware’s presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in April will be considered in the Senate Administrative Services/Elections Committee. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Delaware’s early Presidential primary in 2008 redound to our benefit? Not one, but two huge Obama rallies downtown, and Jack Markell and John Carney virtually simultaneously endorsing Obama? Changing this date will significantly lessen Delaware’s impact in the presidential process far more than HB 55, IMHO. But then, who ever really looks for consistency of logic from our elected officials? Or, admittedly, me, for that matter?
*Sen. Michael Katz proposes a 12-year term limit for legislators in legislation to be considered in today’s Senate Judiciary Committee. It ain’t goin’ anywhere, and frankly, I don’t think it should go anywhere. Yes, we have more than our share of legislative Methuselahs, but ultimately the voters should make these decisions, IMHO.
The House is at least equally busy today. Here’s the entire House Committee meeting schedule. Highlights include:
*State legislators would be barred from holding other state employment while serving in the General Assembly if HB 75 (Schwartzkopf), being considered in today’s House Administration Committee meeting, is enacted. Of course, those currently holding two jobs are exempted. My guess is that someone will discover some ‘technical difficulties’ with the bill, and that it will get bogged down, but I honestly don’t know the ultimate fate of this bill. I’m all for it.
*Yet another Hail Mary bill to legalize two new casinos will be considered in the House Gaming & Parimutuels Committee today. The bill has only two sponsors, Rep. Dennis E. Williams and Sen. Henry, which is, to put it mildly, not an encouraging sign if you support the bill.
*HB 163 (Heffernan) would eliminate the sunset provision on Brownfields legislation. In today’s House Natural Resources Committee. Paging Tommywonk…
Here’s a bill that may have the best of intentions, but which has the stench of Law of Unintended Consequences emanating from it. HB 140(Carson) would “prohibit slower moving vehicles from driving in the left lane and blocking traffic, which commonly leads to road rage and has motivated several other states to adopt “left lane” laws. This bill provides that vehicles may overtake slower moving vehicles on the left, but otherwise shall not drive in the left lane, which is intended to serve as the passing lane.” All I can say is, first, good luck enforcing it and, second, when it isn’t enforced, please explain to me how this will lead to fewer, and not more, incidents of road rage. Rhetorical question. It won’t. In today’s House Homeland Security Committee meeting. BTW, have you ever noticed how many of the slowpokes in the left lane are leaning against the door and chatting on their cellphones?? Enforce that law and you might not need this one.
Seeya tomorrow! And please tune in tomorrow to the Al Mascitti Show from 9 am to noon. I’ll be on at 10! A double shot of my baby’s love(click on this link, you may or may not be sorry) dose of El Somnambulo, who could ask for more?
So I guess this would mean in 2004 when John Kerry won Delaware, the 3 electoral college votes would have gone to George Bush because he won the popular vote in the election?
I would rather Kerry got our 3 votes because he won Delaware, but thats just me.
Winning an individual state wouldn’t matter per se, winning the nationwide popular vote would. Whoever wins the popular vote becomes President, simple as that.
What El Somnambulo says is not necessarily correct. The Bill would become law and in effect when more than half the states pass similar legislation. That would mean a double standard with some states giving electoral votes to nationwide popular vote winner and some not. The intent of subverting the constitutional requirement would only work if all states operated under nationwide winner takes all.
Additionally, the proposed law does not define “winner”. In a three way race a “winner” could have less than 50%.
Finally, what if it is 1960 type race, where the popular vote is so close and the valdity of some states’ votes so in question that you end upwith a NATIONWIDE recount and court challenge.
Joe Thomson named to continue Sussex Tech hegemony on DIAA Board. Heavyweight hireling Joe Booth to usher nomination to the goal line.
Which is why the work ought to be in getting rid of the Electoral College and have a straight ahead nationwide popular vote. His comment about the law not defining a winner is why I support a nationwide popular vote with IRV. Invoke the bill as it is currently (ill) thought out and you might as well tell Delawareans that they should stay at home and just watch the returns come in from the big states. Why come out to vote if everyone else gets to choose?
I agree, Cassandra. The right way to do this is with a constitutional amendment.
Belinsky: This has been under my radar. What’s going on with DIAA and Sussex Tech?
constitutional amendment is, effectively, a delay tactic (I am not accusing any proponent of the amendment process of striving for a delay, just identifying that this is a consequent of that strategy).
the electoral college is an anachronism. a national popular vote via constitutional amendment is good, but not achievable for many, many years. In the meantime, the bill would accomplish this once enough states join in.
to the ‘if this passes then DE can just stay home and let the big cities decide,’ my answer is sure, sort of. That is the nature of a popular vote. However votes have been decided by very slim margins (ask Al Franken), which compels everyone, whether in a big city or rural area, to become informed and vote.
“the electoral college is an anachronism. a national popular vote via constitutional amendment is good, but not achievable for many, many years. In the meantime, the bill would accomplish this once enough states join in.”
That’s swell, if end runs around the Constitution are what you’re looking for.
It is a “delay tactic” that unequivocally removes the anachronism of the Electoral College. It is the right way to get rid of the EC so that we aren’t left with a mix of voting schemes.
Vote with very slim margins aren’t a problem, except the bill that the House passed specifically disincentivizes people from smaller states from voting. If your EC votes are dictated by the popular vote, then why vote if you are from a state with few votes in play? If Delaware votes for Barack Obama in 2012 and the popular vote in 2012 is for Herman Cain (insert your preferred whackjob R here), Delaware’s electors go on record as voting for Cain who is then voted in by the EC unanimously. This is OK with you?
This doesn’t eliminate the strategy of playing for the big pots of votes — it intensifies it. Because the smaller pots will be brought along anyway — since you just need the majority of the popular vote to get all of the EC votes.
The real problem with this strategy is its amazing short-sightedness. You circumvent the power of the EC this way, but you certainly haven’t made any long-term change that gets you to a genuine popular vote. A popular vote that keeps everyone incentivized to vote.
I am no constitutional scholar, but it is my legal opinion that state laws that give their electoral votes to a candidate who did not win that state are unconstitutional. Electors are voted upon when a voter selects a particular presidential candidate on election day. Those electors are picked by the candidate. They are also free to vote for whom they want when the Electoral College meets. That is why candidates are careful who they pick. A law that binds an elector to vote for a specific candidate is not constitutional, in my opinion.
There is no disincentive to discourage Delawareans from voting. Their votes mean every but as much as anybody else’s. Are Californians or Texans discouraged from voting b/c their states are either bright red or blue? Not under this system.
To me, having the popular vote winner elected president is by far the most equitable–and least complicated–way to elect a president. I see all the rest as white noise.
The presidential election system we have today is NOT in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would NOT need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution — “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
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, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the MOST popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).
NationalPopularVote.com
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.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#DE_2008DEC
Most voters 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 consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
Under the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state’s electoral votes.
Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation’s 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.
Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote. – including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912, and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).
Americans do not view the absence of run-offs under the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
A nationwide recount would not happen. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and recount. The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
* Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years under the National Popular Vote approach. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
● The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
● Only about a quarter of all recounts change the outcome.
● No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their “final determination” six days before the Electoral College meets.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. 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, like Delaware. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since 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.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign,, when 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). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
2/3rds of the states and people, including Delaware, have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
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.
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 of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party’s dedicated activists.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
Senator Robert E. Dole of Kansas, the Republican nominee for President in 1996 and Republican nominee for Vice President in 1976, stated in a 1979 floor speech:
“Many persons have the impression that the electoral college benefits those persons living in small states. I feel that this is somewhat of a misconception. Through my experience with the Republican National Committee and as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1976, it became very clear that the populous states with their large blocks of electoral votes were the crucial states. It was in these states that we focused our efforts.
“Were we to switch to a system of direct election, I think we would see a resulting change in the nature of campaigning. While urban areas will still be important campaigning centers, there will be a new emphasis given to smaller states. Candidates will soon realize that all votes are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as votes from large states. That to me is one of the major attractions of direct election. Each vote carries equal importance.
“Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in States that are perceived to be single party states.
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 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. Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%;
In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
Wow. That’s a lot of verbiage to support a bill that’s nothing more than a lazy way to amend the Constitution.
The simple truth is that, for all your bluster, you DON’T know how candidates would campaign under your new system. It’s a shot in the dark, taken so far by a bunch of blue states still upset that Gore lost.
Beyond that, it’s amusing that one big “selling point” for this idea is that presidential campaigns might come to more states. Oh, boy! The circus is coming to town! That whole point presupposes, inaccurately, that having a campaign come to your town will somehow give you more participation, or a greater voice, or some such nonsense. Campaigns are dog and pony shows. I need a better reason to circumvent the Constitution than the fact that some people enjoy them.
Here’s the key thing from the poll you get from all of that verbiage:
There is no argument that there is popular support for a national popular vote. THIS poll — asking people to choose between two choices, pretty much supports the idea of eliminating the Electoral College as the effort that ought to be worked on, not this ill-thought out end run around the EC.
And let’s recap what is considered to be “white noise” here:
Additionally, the proposed law does not define “winner”. In a three way race a “winner” could have less than 50%.
Finally, what if it is 1960 type race, where the popular vote is so close and the valdity of some states’ votes so in question that you end upwith a NATIONWIDE recount and court challenge.
If your EC votes are dictated by the popular vote, then why vote if you are from a state with few votes in play? If Delaware votes for Barack Obama in 2012 and the popular vote in 2012 is for Herman Cain (insert your preferred whackjob R here), Delaware’s electors go on record as voting for Cain who is then voted in by the EC unanimously. This is OK with you?
I specifically want to hear the supporters of this thing say that they are just fine with having Delaware’s EC votes recorded for someone the majority of Delawareans did not vote for. *AND* I want to know how casting EC votes for someone that Delawareans dis not vote for is fair to *Delawareans*.
Cass: I’ll repeat what I wrote above:
“There is no disincentive to discourage Delawareans from voting. Their votes mean every but as much as anybody else’s. Are Californians or Texans discouraged from voting b/c their states are either bright red or blue? Not under this system.”
The vote of every Delawarean counts every bit as much as the vote of every Californian, Texan, or Wyomingian(?).
I think everything else simply confuses my basic point that I believe that whomever wins the popular vote should be president.
I GET the point about the Electoral College, and I’m in favor of its abolition. However, if the vehicle embodied in HB 55 enables us to get to the same place and, most likely quicker, then I’m all for it.
BTW, Cass, we’ll be debating this on Al’s show today. Please call in, you’ll get through…special dispensation ALWAYS provided for DL contributors.
If this passes, we permanently become a part of Philadelphia for presidential campaigns. Of course, it looks like the parties are moving their primaries to the same date as PA, so we’re headed that way already.
I think everything else simply confuses my basic point that I believe that whomever wins the popular vote should be president.
Which STILL bypasses some serious critique and questions on this effort. You did know that I’d notice that, right?
I’m in the office today, but in the middle of a fire drill — I can listen but not sure about calling, but will try.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Under the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state’s electoral votes.
Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote. – including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912, and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).
If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured apocalyptic outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.
Now, candidates have no reason to poll or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states, like Delaware, where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
2/3rds of the states and people, including Delaware, have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states, like Delaware, are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
“Now, candidates have no reason to poll or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states
Unless they want to win. Every votes counts now.
Oh wait, I see.. you meant “Presently, candidates have no reason to poll or care about the voter concerns…
We are on the same page.