New Yorker Political columnist Hendrik Hertzberg writes about the National Popular Vote plan.
The National Popular Vote plan is the state compact that, if enacted by enough states, would have member states award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Essentially, the plan is a constitutional way of creating a national popular vote without the difficulties of amending the U.S. Constitution. The National Popular Vote plan has been championed by Dr. John R. Koza, who is Chairman of National Popular Vote Inc.
Hertzberg looks at Koza’s research into the “wrong winner” problem, in which the winner of the electoral college vote loses the popular vote (like happened in 2000). Koza uses national head-to-head general election polls and compares them to state head-to-head polls. Hertzberg writes:
A 2000-style disaster for democracy could easily befall us again this year, as Koza has just written an interesting analysis to show.
By compiling state-by-state polling data, Darryl Holman, a University of Washington social scientist, has run eight mock general-election pair-ups between Democratic and Republican candidates, showing who would win and who would lose in the Electoral College if the election were held today. What Koza has done is to compare Holman’s findings with a calculation of what the national popular vote would be, using national polls taken in the same time periods.
Koza’s startling finding: In three out of Holman’s eight head-to-head face-offs, the national popular-vote winner loses the electoral vote—and with it, of course, the mock election.
(Hey…I’m glad someone found those analyses useful!)
Hertzberg provides Koza’s entire analysis.
It is hard to argue in favor of our current system of electing our Presidents via the winner-take-all Electoral College approach. (Well…ignoring the “It’s how we’ve always done it!” argument, anyway.) Two hundred years ago the system might have made some sense, but today we really should be electing the President through a popular vote.
One thing is certain though…the Electoral College is not going to go away anytime soon. But since the Constitution give the states control over how electors are selected, the National Popular Vote compact (if enacted by enough states to control the majority of the Electoral College votes) would effectively and legally create a popular vote for President. And with no need to amend the U.S. Constitution.
Think of the advantages to this system…. First, candidates will no longer spend the vast majority of their time pandering to a few important swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Right now, a voter in Ohio has far more influence in electing the President than you have. It just shouldn’t be so. In an ideal democracy, every person’s vote should carry the same weight.
A popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign more broadly so as to reach as many voters as possible. It would mean that candidates visiting Washington for fundraising would actually engage in this activity called campaigning. Imagine that…Washington state no longer being treated like an ATM machine!
Finally, a popular vote gets rid of the embarrassing (albeit rare) situation—like we saw in 2000—where the loser of the popular vote ends up being President.
The Washington state legislature is about to take up work on a National Popular Vote bill:
The 10 legislative sponsors of the National Popular Vote bill in Washington State include Representatives Joe McDermott, Shirley Hankins, Mark Miloscia, Mike Armstrong, Fred Jarrett, and Tom Campbell and Senators Eric Oemig, Darlene Fairley, Craig Pridemore, and Jeanne Kohl-Welles. The House bill is HB 1750 (Status of HB 1750), and the Senate bill is SB 5628 (Status of SB 5628).
If you like the idea of Washington state participating in the compact, contact your Washington state Senator and Representatives. Here is a good place to start.
To learn more about the progress of the compact in other states, visit the National Popular Vote web site.
(Cross-posted at Hominid Views.)
“Two hundred years ago the system might have made some sense, but today we really should be electing the President through a popular vote.”
If by that you mean there was a rational motivation behind it, yes — the electoral college was on of several mechanisms written into the Constitution to appease the southern colonies by protecting slavery so they would join the union.
Today, and for the last 143 years, the electoral college has been the American political system’s appendix — it has no useful function, but can make you very sick, and the best thing to do is remove the damn thing.
was one of
Naturally, all eyes are on the presidential campaigns right now, but let’s not lose sight of something almost as important as winning the White House: Replacing Pelosi and Reid. They are the appendix of our congressional majority, and Congress is badly in need of an appendectomy. With the expected strengthened Democratic majorities in Congress next year, and hopefully (and likely) with a Democratic president in the White House, we’ll have the opportunity to get some pressing business done — if we replace the existing congressional leadership with progressives who will actually lead.
“One thing is certain though…the Electoral College is not going to go away anytime soon.”
Say it isn’t so! Senator Hillary Cruella Dennis Rodman Clinton, agent of change, distinctly and shrilly said that she would abolish the Electoral College.
Are you trying to tell us that nothing has changed?
The College still performs the useful function of giving small red states a small piece of the action. Faux populist Democrats, who used to champion the unempowered, now want to cut them out of the equation.
4 That’s like Huckabee’s rap on replacing the income tax. It sounds good to whatever audience you’re addressing, but it’s something everybody knows has not a snowball’s chance in hell of being accomplished.
6: Correct. At least in the short term.
Trivia masters may recall that Bryan’s ozone campaign of 1896 made no sense in 1896, but his goofy ideas trickled down into policy between 1901 and 1941.
Ditto Goldwater in 1964.
Maggot,
The winner-take-all Electoral College system may have had the intention of giving small states population over-representation. The de facto effect has been to disenfranchise politically homogenous states, including many small states. The system places the great majority of electoral power in the hands of a few politically heterogenous (and typically large) states.
You won’t be surprised to know I like the Electoral college. I like it because it’s one of the last vestiges of true federalism we have. The semi-sovereign status of individual states makes each one a potential player in the process.
If it were simply up to the popular vote, then national candidates (we only really have two, President and Vice President) would then be encouraged to campaign only in large population centers, pandering to them.
As it is now, the Electoral College ensures that smaller states and the people in them can still be players in the game.
In short, the Electoral College provides another form of check and balance and a protection for minority rights with the minority this time being people who live in more sparsely populated areas.
The Constitution doesn’t guarantee to anyone “democracy.” In fact, I’m pretty sure the word isn’t even mentioned! What we are guaranteed, in Article V, Section 4, is:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
If we were a genuine democracy, then the entire country would vote on each of the 100 Senate and 435 House seats.
As it stands, in the Senate and House of Representatives states like Alaska and Wyoming are over represented because they get as many Senators as California and New York and they’re guaranteed at least one Member of Congress irrespective of population.
In a truly democratic United States, California, Texas, and Florida would have a half-dozen Senators and several more Members of Congress each, while other states may not have any at all!
What was it Franklin said we had when asked the results of the Constitutional Convention? “A republic, if you can keep it.”
The presidential vote of the voters of the State of Washington ought to represent the will of the voters of the State of Washington, not a California, Texas, or Florida-generated raw numerical majority. That my candidate may come out on the short end of that stick is the price I pay for living in the State of Washington.
But that cuts both ways, too.
We still have as much democracy at the local and state level as we can handle. With measures like last November’s I-25 and Tim Eyman’s forthcoming traffic congestion initiative, will have even more!
And our national representatives – Senators and Members of Congress – are democratically elected within each state.
That the only two national office holders, again President and Vice-President, are subject to this slight Constitutional quirk serves to ensure that whoever is “elected” won’t just be from or by the same large population centers.
A lot of the grief thrown the Electoral College’s way isn’t so much on account of any high falutin notions about the primacy of “democracy” as it is political sour grapes. Had 2000 gone the other way, many of the rabid partisans in favor of ditching the Electoral College would be fervent in their defense of it.
Oh…just so you’ll know…I’ve been defending the Electoral College since I was an undergraduate up at Western way back in the late 60’s.
The Piper
I parsed the big words and got your point. I think. If hetero California breaks 52/48 in favor of Democrats, all of California’s Electoral votes will go Democrat, disfranchising a large Republican majority and overwhelming a small homo red state (e.g. Wyoming) that breaks 80/20 GOP and has three GOP Electoral votes.
I was alluding to the classic argument about national campaigns. Only the disproportionate ‘power’ of three Electoral votes gives Wyoming any sway in the lead-up to election day.
Piper, as usual, beat me to the point I was ineptly trying to make.
“It would mean that candidates visiting Washington for fundraising would actually engage in this activity called campaigning. Imagine that…Washington state no longer being treated like an ATM machine!”
Why? Washington hasn’t supported a Republican Presidential candidate since 1984. In a real sense, whoever the Democratic candidate is can take Washington for granted because it’s not in play.
Population centers that are in play – where the coin is still in the air – will become the targets of candidates. Instead of individual states, population centers or regions would dictate, and states or areas where experience and polling indicate the race isn’t competitive won’t see hide nor hair of anyone.
“In an ideal democracy, every person’s vote should carry the same weight.” How Panglossian! As long as we’re dealing with people, it will never be the best of all possible worlds. There is no such thing as an “ideal democracy.” Never has been, never will be.
What you have are competing interests that occassionally clash and, if they’re serious about making progress, strive toward compromise, which is the art of politics.
This side of heaven, the human condition is not perfectable.
The Piper
Darryl, are you not mixing up the general election presidential election process with the process by which each party selects its candidate? I could get behind a popular vote in the general but we would still have the trial by chaos we have today, for selecting each parties nominee. Eliminate this filter and we are going to select duds as our party figurehead just like the GOP has with shrub.
Particle Man,
“Darryl, are you not mixing up the general election presidential election process with the process by which each party selects its candidate?”
Ahhh…no. That is an entirely separate issue.
Piper misses the whole point of a popular vote system: Campaigns would not target population centers nor states nor any other geographic grouping of people. They would target individual voters.
Why would candidates campaign in Washington even though it hasn’t supported a Republican presidential candidate since 1984? Because Democrats would want to increase their winning margin, and Republicans would want to decrease their losing margin, because that margin would matter. Winning a few extra votes here, even if that doesn’t make a difference in who gets a majority within Washington, would help decide the majority nationwide.
Under a popular vote, geographic boundaries within the overall electoral district (in this case, the whole nation) don’t matter. Instead, candidates would target voters based on their views and issues, focusing mostly on those who are still undecided.
And one-person/one-vote is not “ideal” democracy — it is democracy, period.
This is an awful idea. State-specific votes need to be separate from national results.
Instead, states should work to divide their electoral votes by their STATE’s popular vote. If 60% of Minnesota’s population votes for ZombieBush while 40% vote for ZombieGore, rather than 10 electoral votes going to ZombieBush, he only gets 6 and ZombieGore gets 4. It’s easy. It makes sense. It doesn’t tie a STATE vote to a NATIONAL turn-out.
Even though I am sympathetic to the idea of the direct election of the President – certain reforms need to happen first.
First, the idea of a majority vote is problematic at this time. In NH, individuals can register to vote on election day (like today). In Florida, and in many other states, felons cannot vote. If there is a national popular vote, the standards for voting must be the same, across every state and across all jurisdictions. What if, for example, in a close election, voters in Washington made a last-minute turnout (after 8:00) and before midnight, changing the results of the entire election, because of our quirky permanent absentee ballot law. Similarly, what happens in voters in Indiana face a more restrictive ID requirement.
Second, the concerns of recounts, although overblown, do raise additional questions about differences in how state election officials make decisions,
Piper,
“I like it because it’s one of the last vestiges of true federalism we have.”
Ok…but as a vestige it neither serves nor reflects modern America. At one time Americans thought of themselves as a confederation of semi-independent nation-states (like, I suspect, most people in the EU feel today). We aren’t like that anymore.
“The semi-sovereign status of individual states makes each one a potential player in the process.”
Only in theory. In practice it does not.
“If it were simply up to the popular vote, then national candidates (we only really have two, President and Vice President) would then be encouraged to campaign only in large population centers, pandering to them.”
You mean…where there are more voters! That is the idea, of course. But, this would also cause political candidates to aim for positions that appeal to more Americans overall. Now, they must appeal most strongly to (pick any two) Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania. (Sure…the swing states change occasionally, but the process is the same—candidates pay undue attention to, and mold their positions to the citizens of a very small number of states).
“As it is now, the Electoral College ensures that smaller states and the people in them can still be players in the game.”
No it doesn’t.
“In short, the Electoral College provides another form of check and balance and a protection for minority rights with the minority this time being people who live in more sparsely populated areas.”
No it doesn’t.
“The Constitution doesn’t guarantee to anyone “democracy.””
So? Surprise, surprise…the idea of electing the nation’s leader by a more democratic process, and one that is more difficult to game, seems icky to a Wingnut.
“If we were a genuine democracy, then the entire country would vote on each of the 100 Senate and 435 House seats.
Ummm…no. Your statement is absurd.
“As it stands, in the Senate and House of Representatives states like Alaska and Wyoming are over represented because they get as many Senators as California and New York and they’re guaranteed at least one Member of Congress irrespective of population.”
This statement is irrelevant to the issue, which is electing the Presidential ticket via a popular vote. The compact discussed in the post achieves this without eliminating the electoral college.
‘What was it Franklin said we had when asked the results of the Constitutional Convention? “A republic, if you can keep it.”’
And this is relevant how? Or is this just more of you spewing your pseduo-intellectual bullshit?
“And our national representatives – Senators and Members of Congress – are democratically elected within each state.”
Still irrelevant to the discussion.
“That the only two national office holders, again President and Vice-President, are subject to this slight Constitutional quirk serves to ensure that whoever is “elected” won’t just be from or by the same large population centers.”
It may be designed to do so, but it fails. The practical effect is not to protect rural voters. And, in 2000, the “quirk” worked against the will of the majority of Americans.
“A lot of the grief thrown the Electoral College’s way isn’t so much on account of any high falutin notions about the primacy of “democracy” as it is political sour grapes.”
Bullshit.
“Had 2000 gone the other way, many of the rabid partisans in favor of ditching the Electoral College would be fervent in their defense of it.”
Hogwash…there have been calls to eliminate the Electoral College at least since Grover Cleveland won the EC vote but lost the popular election in 1888. It is largely a non-partisan issue, although 2000 certainly made more people aware of the flaws in and outdated nature of our presidential elections.
The issue is really only about electing our nation’s executive by a popular vote.
@15…Matthew…
Respectfully…I disagree.
What we’d see are new alignments based upon population. For example, think the tri-state area of PA-NJ-NY, Chicagoland, which stretches from Northern Indiana through Chicago and its suburbs proper then up to Southeastern Wisconsin. How about the megalopolis around Cincinnati? Or what locals in the SE call Georgia-Lina?
Where the race is close is where the $$$ and campaign efforts flow. That incremental numbers in a non-competitive area may change a bit isn’t sufficient to warrant taking resources away from those whose coin is still in the air. The only exception would be in a blow-out situation like 1980 or 1984.
BTW…in 1984, Washington was competitive such that Ronald Reagan campaigned here. And it was in Washington during the 1980 race that Jimmy Carter was told by campaign aides that he was going to get crushed. So, Washington can come into play.
But it will take more than dumping the Electoral College to make it genuinely competitive.
And I still like the sense of a check on so-called “pure democracy” that it provides. Under your theory, the U.S. Senate ought to be abolished way before the Electoral College since on a national level it’s the most un-democratic institution in politics.
If we were to go to “pure democracy,” then the majority would always rule. Period! And minority points of view would never be heard or accorded respect. “Pure democracy” is completely “to the winner belong the spoils,” and screw the loser!
I’m content to stay with the Electoral College, thank you!
The Piper
Chris
“This is an awful idea. State-specific votes need to be separate from national results.”
Mathematically, the compact (if enacted by a electoral majority of states) would make the Presidential election a popular vote. In other words it would be no different than a one-person, one-vote system.
How about the Maine and Nebraska plan by which electoral votes are distributed according to who wins individual congressional districts, with the state’s additional two electoral votes going to whichever candidate wins the majority of congressional districts? I don’t think either state has ever actually split its electoral votes, but the possibility is there.
Piper Scott @ 12
“Why? Washington hasn’t supported a Republican Presidential candidate since 1984.”
Because if a candidate picks up 1,000 votes in WA by actually campaigning (instead of being whisked off to a private fundraiser) than that puts the candidate 2,000 votes ahead of her/his opponent. And it doesn’t even matter if the state in question is a member of the compact or not.
“In a real sense, whoever the Democratic candidate is can take Washington for granted because it’s not in play.”
Not true. Under the compact, every voter counts for one vote.
“Population centers that are in play – where the coin is still in the air – will become the targets of candidates.”
Well…yes…but that’s because there are more voters there. Still, that is much better than the system that we have now.
“Instead of individual states, population centers or regions would dictate, and states or areas where experience and polling indicate the race isn’t competitive won’t see hide nor hair of anyone.”
Nope…with the communications options available today, every individual is in play. 1000 rural folks are worth the same amount as 1000 urban folks.
“There is no such thing as an “ideal democracy.” Never has been, never will be.”
Irrelevant. The question is making our democracy better.
“What you have are competing interests that occassionally clash and, if they’re serious about making progress, strive toward compromise, which is the art of politics.”
No…what we seem to have here are people like you defending an Electoral College on historical grounds, without (apparently) realizing that the winner-take-all system adopted by most states undermines the constitutional bonus given to smaller states. The winner-take-all system (which is not a fundamental part of the electoral college…it is the way most states have decided to allocate their electoral votes) actually disenfranchises smaller states far more than a popular vote would. The winner-take-all system is the large state’s revenge on the small states for their constitutional bonus.
Proud Leftist,
“How about the Maine and Nebraska plan by which electoral votes are distributed according to who wins individual congressional districts, with the state’s additional two electoral votes going to whichever candidate wins the majority of congressional districts?”
This is better than the winner-take-all system for being more representative of the wish of the voters. The problem is enacting this system in a rational way. A hybrid system (a bunch of states going with winner-take-all and a bunch with the M-N system greatly increases the chances that the electoral college badly misrepresents the majority of voters.
A conditional interstate compact would almost certainly be needed to implement the system without screwing up an election or two. It turns out to be much easier to go with the National Popular Vote plan, since the number of signatory states required is much lower, and the results is a popular vote (which I consider an advantage over the M-N plan).
BTW: the Republicans have tried to exploit the initiative system in CA to skew the (otherwise) winner-take-all system to increase the chance that a Republican will be elected (I wrote about it here recently). Fortunately, it died in CA last month. In fact, I’ve heard from reputable source that Rove, before the 2004 election, had targeted 5 blue states–including Washington–for such initiatives. It didn’t happen then, but you can count on the Wingnuts to attempt such semi-coups in the future.
“I don’t think either state has ever actually split its electoral votes, but the possibility is there.”
Yep…I believe you are correct.