Yes, some state legislators and governors will indeed need to be convinced...;)
The NPV legislation has already been introduced in CA, MO, IL, LA, NY, and CO, in some cases with bipartisan sponsors. It has passed the CO Senate and the CA Assembly. The CA Senate will vote on it in a few weeks, and it could be on Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk by Labor Day. Sponsors have been lined up for another dozen states, and there should be bills in nearly all 50 states, many with bipartisan cosponsors, by January 2007. So it's moving.
Gallup polls since the 1940s have ALL shown majority support for direct election of the president. It's what the people want. And, governors surely know that being a "battleground" state is often fleeting: In 1960, there were 23 or so battleground states; today there are about a dozen, and different ones, too.
Here's a little thought experiment. Let's say we have no office of president in the United States, and a law is passed that says we'll now have a president who will be elected by an Electoral College system that gives some voters more power than others -- that rejects the "one person, one vote" principle that is a bedrock of modern democracy. Who would we assign more voting power to, and who would get less? People who live in cities? Farmers? Rich people? Poor people?
You see where this is going -- it's just preposterous for the United States of America to have a presidential election system in which not every vote is equal. No doubt someone has already posted the classic example, that each Wyoming elector is worth about 170,000 votes, but each California elector is equal to about 600,000 votes. Is it fair for a Wyoming voter to have that much more voting power than a Californian, simply based on where he or she lives? It's just silly, and arguments in defense of the Electoral College always overlook or downplay the inarguable fact that not every vote is equal.
It's long past time to remedy that undemocratic defect, either via the National Popular Vote plan or a constitutional amendment.
Thanks for the thoughts.
--B
First, the so-called "small-state bonus" -- that is, small states somehow benefit from the Electoral College system -- is entirely illusory. In 2004, 12 of the 13 smallest states (those with 3 or 4 electoral votes) were absolutely, entirely ignored by the candidates and their campaigns. Why? Because they are "safe" for one party or the other. Of those, six went for Kerry, six went for Bush, and just New Hampshire was "in play" and got attention. Why? ONLY because it was closely divided.
Second, the populations within each state are diverse: Urban, rural, rich, poor, etc. As noted in several other posts, the interests of everyone in Maine or everyone in Ohio are not the same. If they were, the vote would be 100% for a particular candidate who best protected the interests of their unified state interest. Obviously, that's not how it happens.
Third, the Electoral College was created not based on any political theory, but only because it was a compromise that would help ensure ratification of the Constitution. In fact, it wasn't until 1876 -- nearly 100 years after the Constitution was drafted -- that every state held a popular election for presidential electors and awarded them in the "winner-take-all" method we're familiar with (except for Nebraska and Maine, which award some electors by congressional district results). Initially, electors were appointed by state legislatures, were awarded in special elector districts, or by other means. The Consitution says nothing about popular election for electors and leaves their allocation up to the states. The National Popular Vote plan calls out state legislators to accept the responsibility given to them by the Constitution -- if they're not modifying the system to make sure their constituents (in the three dozen "spectator states" in particular) have a meaningful say in electing the president, they're not doing their job.
Fourth, there's far more likelihood of a recount when a few hundred or few thousand votes in one state can secure a bunch of electoral votes and tip an election (like Florida 2000). that's also a recipe for fraud and electoral shenanigans. With a national popular vote, we have one pool of 120+ million votes, rather than 51 separate pools. The likelihood of an election close enough for a recount is very, very small. Regardless, should we not have a fair, democratic election for president just because it may, from time to time, be close?
The reasons for the EC no longer exist, and the bottom line is this: Every vote should be equal in choosing the president, just as every vote is equal in every other election we have in the United States. It's the democratic norm, and it's long overdue in our presidential elections. Otherwise, with this state-based system, voters in about three dozen states will continue to be entirely ignored -- anyone who thinks the Electoral College forces candidates to campaign everywhere across the country isn't paying attention to the shrinking number of states that matter and where campaigns spend their money and time.
Also, voter turnout suffers under the current system, particularly among young people. In 2004, in the 10 most competitive states, voter turnout among those under 30 was an impressive 64%. In the remaining 40 states and DC, it was just 47%. When they know their vote matters, people pay attention and participate.
With a national popular vote, every vote would matter, and campaigns would change accordingly. A new kind of modern campaign would unfold, where anyone, anywhere could cast a meaningful vote, as well as organize in their town, suburb or city to get out the vote for their candidate of choice. It would reinvigorate our politics at a time when our politics desperately needs reinvigorating. Campaigns and political debate would be where the people are, not where the candidate is or goes.
One final thought: There are 28 countries (with good human-rights records) that elect their president. Twenty-one require the winner to secure a majority of the popular
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, some state legislators and governors will indeed need to be convinced ... ;)
The NPV legislation has already been introduced in CA, MO, IL, LA, NY, and CO, in some cases with bipartisan sponsors. It has passed the CO Senate and the CA Assembly. The CA Senate will vote on it in a few weeks, and it could be on Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk by Labor Day. Sponsors have been lined up for another dozen states, and there should be bills in nearly all 50 states, many with bipartisan cosponsors, by January 2007. So it's moving.
Gallup polls since the 1940s have ALL shown majority support for direct election of the president. It's what the people want. And, governors surely know that being a "battleground" state is often fleeting: In 1960, there were 23 or so battleground states; today there are about a dozen, and different ones, too.
Here's a little thought experiment. Let's say we have no office of president in the United States, and a law is passed that says we'll now have a president who will be elected by an Electoral College system that gives some voters more power than others -- that rejects the "one person, one vote" principle that is a bedrock of modern democracy. Who would we assign more voting power to, and who would get less? People who live in cities? Farmers? Rich people? Poor people?
You see where this is going -- it's just preposterous for the United States of America to have a presidential election system in which not every vote is equal. No doubt someone has already posted the classic example, that each Wyoming elector is worth about 170,000 votes, but each California elector is equal to about 600,000 votes. Is it fair for a Wyoming voter to have that much more voting power than a Californian, simply based on where he or she lives? It's just silly, and arguments in defense of the Electoral College always overlook or downplay the inarguable fact that not every vote is equal.
It's long past time to remedy that undemocratic defect, either via the National Popular Vote plan or a constitutional amendment. Thanks for the thoughts. --B
First, the so-called "small-state bonus" -- that is, small states somehow benefit from the Electoral College system -- is entirely illusory. In 2004, 12 of the 13 smallest states (those with 3 or 4 electoral votes) were absolutely, entirely ignored by the candidates and their campaigns. Why? Because they are "safe" for one party or the other. Of those, six went for Kerry, six went for Bush, and just New Hampshire was "in play" and got attention. Why? ONLY because it was closely divided.
Second, the populations within each state are diverse: Urban, rural, rich, poor, etc. As noted in several other posts, the interests of everyone in Maine or everyone in Ohio are not the same. If they were, the vote would be 100% for a particular candidate who best protected the interests of their unified state interest. Obviously, that's not how it happens.
Third, the Electoral College was created not based on any political theory, but only because it was a compromise that would help ensure ratification of the Constitution. In fact, it wasn't until 1876 -- nearly 100 years after the Constitution was drafted -- that every state held a popular election for presidential electors and awarded them in the "winner-take-all" method we're familiar with (except for Nebraska and Maine, which award some electors by congressional district results). Initially, electors were appointed by state legislatures, were awarded in special elector districts, or by other means. The Consitution says nothing about popular election for electors and leaves their allocation up to the states. The National Popular Vote plan calls out state legislators to accept the responsibility given to them by the Constitution -- if they're not modifying the system to make sure their constituents (in the three dozen "spectator states" in particular) have a meaningful say in electing the president, they're not doing their job.
Fourth, there's far more likelihood of a recount when a few hundred or few thousand votes in one state can secure a bunch of electoral votes and tip an election (like Florida 2000). that's also a recipe for fraud and electoral shenanigans. With a national popular vote, we have one pool of 120+ million votes, rather than 51 separate pools. The likelihood of an election close enough for a recount is very, very small. Regardless, should we not have a fair, democratic election for president just because it may, from time to time, be close?
The reasons for the EC no longer exist, and the bottom line is this: Every vote should be equal in choosing the president, just as every vote is equal in every other election we have in the United States. It's the democratic norm, and it's long overdue in our presidential elections. Otherwise, with this state-based system, voters in about three dozen states will continue to be entirely ignored -- anyone who thinks the Electoral College forces candidates to campaign everywhere across the country isn't paying attention to the shrinking number of states that matter and where campaigns spend their money and time.
Also, voter turnout suffers under the current system, particularly among young people. In 2004, in the 10 most competitive states, voter turnout among those under 30 was an impressive 64%. In the remaining 40 states and DC, it was just 47%. When they know their vote matters, people pay attention and participate.
With a national popular vote, every vote would matter, and campaigns would change accordingly. A new kind of modern campaign would unfold, where anyone, anywhere could cast a meaningful vote, as well as organize in their town, suburb or city to get out the vote for their candidate of choice. It would reinvigorate our politics at a time when our politics desperately needs reinvigorating. Campaigns and political debate would be where the people are, not where the candidate is or goes.
One final thought: There are 28 countries (with good human-rights records) that elect their president. Twenty-one require the winner to secure a majority of the popular