There's a debate over at Hot Air on the value of going to the "national popular vote" idea, and why it would be good for a conservative candidate.
The National Popular Vote Bill is not a Democrat or Republican bill. It is not even a liberal or conservative bill. The National Popular Vote Bill is a bill for Americans interested in both preserving our Electoral College and reforming the shortcomings of our current “winner-take-all” system that awards all the electors of one state to the candidate who wins in that particular state and which has led to a concentration of efforts in few states at the expense of many.
Unfortunately, there are some problems with the NPV idea... even though the Constitution allows to appoint it's delegates in whatever way it sees fit.
What the NPV people seem to ignore (or claim is not worth pointing to), is that despite the 'appearance' of appealing to the flyover states, it would make the flyover states even LESS appealing than normal.... let's take the states of California and Mississippi (just two states with vastly different populations),
The argument is that the difference in voters in California will be made up by the voters of MIssissippi.
The population of Mississippi : 2.951 million
The population of California: 36.45 million
Let's just assume that California splits their voting for the Democrat Candidate 60/40. And Mississippi actually goes 90/10 for the Republican candidate.
California Democrat: 21.87 million Republican: 14.58 million
Mississippi Democrat .29 million Republican: 2.6559 Million
That means that the democrat gets 22.16 MIllion votes, the republican, 17.13 million. By this vote, All Mississippi EC delegates thereby go to the Democratic candidate, despite being outvoted 9-1. Therefore, as a Presidential candidate why should I visit podunk little Mississippi, when even a 100% voting rate won't make any difference, if I can still get just over half of California's voters?
In other words, Mississippi electors have NO say in the matter of what their state's residents believe... Because all their votes are going to the individual that didn't win their state. That's really "representation of the people", isn't it?
As a candidate, why would I make any promises or make any visits to any state outside of the top 12 states of the union. Wyoming and Montana? Yeah, we know you're important ,we really do, but you're not going to get us elected, so we're not going to stop by...
Basically the NPV takes the vote out of the hands of the public and puts it in the hands of the larger states.. and that's not a good thing for the country, no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise.
A Conservative Point of View from a transplanted Mississippian of British and American parents, who's now settled in Missouri.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote would be counted for and assist the candidate for whom it was cast - just as votes from every county are equal and important when a vote is cast in a Governor's race. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas.
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 bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or 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. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in 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): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, 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 -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
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 counted and mattered to their candidate.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and 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.
ReplyDeleteThe political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree 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 , hardly overwhelming, 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 "wasted" 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 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
Your numbers are way out of whack because you are looking at population as opposed to actual ballots cast.
ReplyDeleteUnder a national popular vote, every vote would be equal. A vote in Mississippi would be as important as a vote in California. Now obviously there are more voters in California. However on a per voter basis, why would a candidate spend more effort getting someone to vote for him in California (where it is VERY expensive to campagin) when he/she could be 2, 3, or 4 voters for the same amount of resources by campaigning in Mississippi. Yes, candidates will spend more total money in California than any other state, but not on a per voter basis.