The National Popular Vote Plan bill has a hearing in the Maine joint Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee on Wednesday, January 28, at 1 pm in Room 437 of the State House. The bill is LD 56.
The National Popular Vote Plan bill has a hearing in the Maine joint Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee on Wednesday, January 28, at 1 pm in Room 437 of the State House. The bill is LD 56.
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 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.
The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.
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 Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, 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
The fact is:
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A POPULAR VOTE HELD FOR THE ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES.
What we have are state by state votes which allocate each individual state’s electoral votes. In states where there is no contest, there is no need for voters to vote at all. Hence, the vote is greatly supressed. It is simple minded beyond the pale to suggest that aggregating such vote totals constitutes a national popular vote total. It is stupid beyond belief.
It makes no more sense to aggregate such vote totals than it would to include the votes from other places that don’t count, such as Canada or New Zealand.
We can in no way know what the outcome would have been if there had been an actual popular vote just as we can not know what the outcome would have been if suffrage had been granted to deprived groups, such as women and African Americans, in elections where they have been restricted or denied. We can be sure of one thing however:
THE CANDIDATES SELECTED, THE PARTIES RUNNING CANDIDATES, AND THE VOTE TOTALS, WOULD HAVE BEEN VASTLY DIFFERENT.
To deny this truth is to deny reality.
If we were to go back to any election year, we would find such states.
What would the vote total be in Wyoming if the votes actually counted? Since the votes only determine the distribution of 3 electoral votes, and since the outcome is assured, people have no reason to vote.
Since this is basically a one party state, if the election were based on popular vote, hundreds of thousands of additional votes would be cast. We would likely see vote totals in one party areas near or in excess of 100%.
It would be in the interest of the dominant party in such one party states to make registration simple or even automatic and allow vote collectors to round up the ballots well in advance of the election, of those who might be unable or just too lazy to come to the polls. The number of dead people and mental patients voting would skyrocket.
There are already areas of the US where one party dominates, and where such intrastate vote fraud is rampant. I have seen party workers go into homes for the mentally incompetent and the aged and emerge with hundreds of ballots marked 100% for the dominant party, to be cast in advance as absentee ballots, unquestioned (actually, encouraged and abetted) by the officials charged with supervising the vote.
In some areas where one party dominates, the dominant party takes control of the other party’s local party apparatus. Then, when the voting takes place and when the ballots are counted, the dominant party is able to send its own members as the poll watchers representing BOTH parties. It becomes a one party free for all on election night. Known voters supporting the minority party will find themselves unable to vote or their ballots not counted for the slightest reason. Having personally witnessed exactly such a vote count, I would never countenance the adoption of an electoral system designed to magnify such electoral fraud.
Supporters of a real National Popular Vote for President and VP of the United States need to wake up to the fact that there has never been such a vote. This fact does not diminsh their argument. It only takes away the stupid assertion that in some past elections the losing candidate would have been elected under such a system. Such claims constitute foolish sophistry discernable by those with even a modicum of intelligence.
However, a national Popular Vote system will cause runaway electoral fraud to such a degree that the very fabric of the democratic system will be undermined. Millions of fraudulent votes will be cast. Massive challenges, violence and nationwide recounts will ensue.
The result will be the end of Liberty in the US – at least until a more indirect and less vulnerable system could be recreated.
Of course, we already have such a system. We only need to end the winner take all aspect, by expanding the Maine/Nebraska system to all 50 states (and maybe a regional allocation within states with a single House member) and by expanding the number of total Electoral Votes by increasing the size of the US House of Representatives.
So you’re saying the reason the electoral college is good, is because it prevents fraud by disenfranchising voters that happen to be surrounded by people who disagree with them, so the people surrounding them don’t care enough to cheat.
That’s an amazing level of reasoning. How about the fact that the vote itself is moot if the vote is meaningless? I mean, we could just randomly select a president, and that would be fraud-proof as well. But that doesn’t make it better.
What we NEED is to make vote fraud treason (because it is), and enforce it. It would not take many occurrences to keep fraud in check. You obviously would be a witness to several occurrences and so there would be others.
Coming back-Your thesis seems to be that voting is suppressed in states where the race was considered to be one-sided.
Here is the turnout data by state from the 2008 Presidential election. I don’t really see a pattern where competitive states necessarily had a higher turnout than non-competitive states
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
You are correct that the party strategies might be different and the vote totals different in a national popular vote, but so what? The main benefit would be the elimination of the perception of illegitimacy for a candidate who lost the popular vote, but won the electoral vote. As for fraud, there is little reason to think it would be globally more or less. It might be higehr in areas that were solidly on one side or the other and lower in swing areas, since the effect of shifting a few vote in Florida or Ohio would be diminished.
I should note that all other countries that elect Presidents do so by national popular vote. I don’t think it has decreased or increased liberty to have the President elected nationally, rather than by state or region.
Electoral fraud is rampant the world over. It tends to grow worse when the stakes are higher. By breaking up the voting into districts of some kind, we can reduce the levels of fraud and reduce the magnitude of recounts when they occur.
Imagine the consequences of a close nationwide Presidential election when the entire nation has to be recounted. Every vote in every voting ward and district in every city, village and town in every state nationwide. And this will come whenever the vote total is within 0.5%. Imagine the 2000 Florida recount times 50. How many lawyers would it take to monitor every voting precinct as the votes are recounted. Imagine the fraud, a few votes here and there, in the areas that inevitably would be unmonitored.
Chicago, West Virginia and the State of Maine have long, notorious histories of unchecked, massive fraud. Now, you want to unleash that nationwide.
Yes, the Electoral College system is good because it reduces fraud.
The Electoral College also balances the interests of individuals by states as well as by population – just like the House and Senate – which disperses power and helps to insure liberty. It would be another mistake to take away this balance.
Going to direct election would give way too much power to an already Imperial President. It makes it just that much easier for a complete totalitarian takeover.
We need to reduce power not increase it.
We need to strengthen the Electoral College system as I’ve already outlined.
#5 “The main benefit would be the elimination of the perception of illegitimacy for a candidate who lost the popular vote, but won the electoral vote.”
This “perception” only exists in the eyes of those uneducated in the realities of the electoral system. It is exacerbated by the spread of misinformation by sore losers and the ignorant.
The fact is, there has never been a popular vote for President, so the tabulation of the aggregate of state votes should not be construed as such.
#5 “I don’t really see a pattern where competitive states necessarily had a higher turnout than non-competitive states.”
You would be unlikely to detect such a pattern by just looking since each state has unique characteristics and the number of states is too small for simple statistical analysis. There are just too many other variables for you to eyeball the differences.
#5 “I should note that all other countries that elect Presidents do so by national popular vote.”
This is a silly comment. Think of all the countries where this does not apply, for example, where there is no President and the national leader is a Prime Minister chosen by the national legislative body. No direct election at all.
These countries should set up an Electoral College to elect a national leader as well. Most countries of the world have fallen under a dicatorship at some point in their history, or are more evil and more socialistic than the US.
Our goal is to preserve and increase our liberty. Keeping the Federal Government as weak as possible will help us attain that goal. The Electoral College is an essential element in keeping the balance of power from shifting even more to the White House.
The Electoral College system is more fair and a better democratic institution than direct election. We must strengthen and reform this great system, as I have outlined above.
The Imperial Presidency is a function of the fact that Presidents have grabbed power and supine Congresses, over many years, have acquiesed. I don’t see that election by state vs nationally determines Presidential power.
As for fraud, I could argue that the value of a single vote in a close state is greater than in a national count, so the inducement to fraud is greater under the current systemn. The problems in US elections are largely a function of the fact that they are controlled by partisan local and state officials. If the US did what Canada did long ago and establish a body of non-partisan career civil servants to run elections under a nuiform set of rules, this would be much less of an issue.
“I don’t see that election by state vs nationally determines Presidential power.”
It doesn’t determine it. It limits it. Direct election would vastly increase Presidential power.
“I could argue that the value of a single vote in a close state is greater than in a national count”
I could argue that the sun is green.
The facts are otherwise.
“If the US did what Canada did long ago and establish a body of non-partisan career civil servants to run elections under a nuiform set of rules, this would be much less of an issue.”
Canada compares in size to the State of California. They are more socialistic than the US and their national health care system would fail without the US next door to prop them up.
But your argument would be wrong, while mine is correct.
A single vote in a close state will only tip that state and only if they have the winner take all system. It is unlikely to tip the whole election, especially under the Maine/Nebrasks system.
Under the Maine/Nebraska system the single vote would likely only change one electoral vote and would rarely change the outcome.
But, if the single vote is being counted and recounted in a nationwide popular vote, it will tip the entire nation.
In fact, a nationwide popular vote is just one giagantic winner take all election. Winner take all is what makes the current system bad. It is in fact what Susan’s purported poll of the people says they object to. We need to go in the opposite direction:
1. electoral votes won by Congressional District
2. expand the size of the House and, thereby, the number of districts
“If the US did what Canada did long ago and establish a body of non-partisan career civil servants to run elections under a nuiform set of rules, this would be much less of an issue.â€
Canada compares in size to the State of California. They are more
s o c i a l i s t i c
than the US and their national health care system would fail without the US next door to prop them up.
I have no objection to #1
As far as #2, how much? At what point does the House become unmanageable as a forum to debate issues? Not to mention the cost of supporting more members, with staffs.
The solution to fraud lies not in how the votes are counted, but in who counts them. Partisan local officials will find ways to cheat no matter how you arrange things. That’s why elections need to be turned over to career civil servants.
You are completely wrong about the Canadian health care system. I have personal experience with it. It costs 30-40% less, yet life expectancy is higher and infant mortality is lower. The number of Canadians who seek care in the US is miniscule.
But that is not a topic for this board.
#10. Canada has two sets of election officials, one federal and the other provincial. Voters have to register twice. At the federal level, they maintain a system of rotten ridings. How can that be considered uniform at all?
#19
1. Voters in Canada don’t register; they are automatically enrolled, based on tax and other data. Each voter can check his local list on-line and if he/she was left off (which is rare) can then demand to be added.
2. There are separate federal and provincial officials. I have no problem with states running state elections under their own rules as long as they are reasonable. The problem is federal elections with 50 different sets of rules.
3. I don’t know what you mean by rotten ridings. Ridings have equal population adjusted to the latest census. The only exceptions are the Northern territories which get 1 MP despite their small populations. This is no different from giving South Dakota a house seat, despite its population being under the threshhold.
#20
The maritime and prairie provinces are overrepresented. South Dakota in actual fact is under-represented by about 15% in the House of Representatives.
Most provinces and Canada itself have given up on pre-election enumeration, and instead attempt to keep a permanent voting roll. Due to the infrequency and irregularity of election timing, voters may be unaware that they are not registered. And in many provinces, voters may not vote unless they have been resident for over half a year.
#21
My argument is not that the Canadian system is perfect or that every aspect of it has to be adopted without modification. I continue to believe that the US idea of allowing partisan state and local officials to run national elections is bad and needs changes. The US adopted secret ballots from Australia; perhaps there are lessons in what other countries do.
“The US adopted secret ballots from Australia; perhaps there are lessons in what other countries do.”
This was how the government took over ballot access and was able to keep parties and candidates “off the ballot,” which had been impossible before. So, yeah. We can learn a lot from other countries.
We can learn to NOT follow their stupid, failed systems.
Keep the Electoral College.
Get rid of the Australian ballot system. Back to free balloting.
No to P.R.
No to f a s c i s t – s o c i a l i s t health care.
No to the bad European electoral ideas.
Liberty is the goal.
Limited democracy is only a means and a tool, not an end.
#22 Your claim was that Canada has uniform laws for administration of elections.
US had paper ballots before Australia even existed. An Australian ballot is one in which the government prints the names of candidates on a ballot which it distributes. In the USA, voters would simply write the name of the candidates that they wished to support on a piece of paper. Essentially all elections were by write-in. Later, political parties would print ballots, which voters might cast, perhaps with editing.
When South Australia adopted government-printed ballots, candidate petitions needed two signatures, a nominator and a seconder. When an Australian-ballot law was first passed by the New York legislature, the governor vetoed it, in part on grounds that it would eliminate the opportunity for voters to vote for whomever they wanted. Proponents argued that the standards for getting on the ballot would be so trivial it would increase the opportunity for small parties and independent candidates who would not have the expense of printing ballots for their party. In Indiana, statewide candidates had to file so much as two weeks in advance of an election in order that their name could be printed on the ballot.
Now much of the discussion on this site is about how parties work to keep would-be challengers off the government-printed ballot. Instead of days of yore where party toughs worked to keep ballots of other parties from being distributed, parties use cadres of lawyers led by the likes of Elizabeth Holtzman and Toby Moffet to keep other candidates from appearing on the ballot. President Obama began his political career by seeking to keep an opponent off the ballot when he ran for state senator in Illinois.
This story proves how politically ignorant many of our citizens are. The electoral college is designed to give EVERY STATE regardless of population a say in our federal gov’t and presidential elections. Without the electoral college the president would be elected by only the heaviest populated ares of the country. Cities like NYC and Los Angelos have more population than many smaller states. This leaves smaller states with no say in our gov’t. Los Angelos does not care about the farmers in colorado nor do most in NYC. Large American cities are almost always heavily democrat. As such, this law is nothing more than a power grab by the democrat party.
This is not even a POPULAR vote… If everybody in colorado voted for a democrat, but the nation voted republican, all of Colorado’s votes would go for the republican candidate. this leaves voters in Colorado with absolutely NO say in the presidential election. WAKE UP….PUT THE KOOLAID DOWN…AND START THINKING FOR YOURSELF.