Lawmakers Seek To Change Presidential Elections
by Hugh McQuaid | Feb 2, 2011 2:05pm
(13) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2012, State Capitol
A winner-take-all rule has permitted a candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote in four out of 56 elections. Sen. Gary LeBeau, D-East Hartford, wants to stop that trend by implementing something called the National Popular Vote.
If enacted, Electoral College delegates from the state would be mandated to cast their votes for whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.
“It’s simple,” LeBeau said Wednesday, “the person who’s elected president becomes the president.”
The goal is to restore voter confidence in the electoral system, LeBeau said. His own confidence was shaken after the 2000 presidential elections when President George W. Bush won the election despite losing the national popular vote to candidate and former-Vice President Al Gore, he said.
But LeBeau said that the measure should be appealing to both Democrats and Republicans. During the 2004 elections, Bush could have lost despite winning the popular vote if Ohio had flipped for Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry, he said.
State Rep. Andrew Fleischmann, D-West Hartford, agreed the measure should be a non-partisan issue.
“The idea that the person who gains the White House is not the person that receives the most votes feels so fundamentally unfair and undemocratic to any regular American citizen that you always get protest and outrage when you have that sort of difference,” he said.
Fleischmann said that historically when the candidate elected did not win the national popular vote, the consequences for the country have been bad.
In 1876, when the race between candidates Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden came down to one electoral vote, the election was decided by the House of Representatives, he said. Eventually a deal was cut where Hayes was made the winner in exchange for post-Civil War reconstruction measures trending more favorably for Southern states who opposed Hayes, he said.
“One could argue that the total disenfranchisement and repression of African Americans throughout the end of the 19th century was largely enabled by the dysfunction of the Electoral College,” he said.
He also pointed to another election in 1824, where John Quincy Adams was elected over popular vote winner Andrew Jackson, as another example of electoral dysfunction. The decision, again made in the House, led to outrage and incredibly divisive national politics for the next for years, he said.
“That precedes the existence of the Democratic and Republican parties,” he said.
But opponents of the National Popular Vote, like Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury, said earlier this week that it’s not what the Founding Fathers intended. He said he is a firm believer in the Electoral College.
Ryan O’Donnell, regional organizer for the National Popular Vote coalition, said it preserves the Electoral College votes by awarding them to the states. He said the problem isn’t with the Electoral College system, it’s the fact that all the votes go to one candidate, and there is no second place.
But aside from the politics of elections, O’Donnell said there are far reaching implications for states. This is a case where “politics influences policy,” he said. The states that receive the most funding once someone is elected are often swing states like Florida and Ohio.
The current system also has a distorting effect on national politics, Fleischmann said. During campaign season presidential candidates spend all of their time and resources in battleground states, he said. In 2010, sixteen states got about 98 percent of all the resources used by the two major presidential campaigns, he said.
“And other states like California and New York and Connecticut get entirely ignored,” he said.
The distortions continue after the election is over and the winner takes office, he said. The amount of federal dollars directed towards swing states like Ohio and Florida is disproportionate to their populations but representative of their electoral importance, he said.
Fleischmann said it’s important for people to understand that the measure does not conflict with anything in the U.S. Constitution. Each state is given the right to apportion its electoral votes however its state legislation sees fit, he said.
“So it is completely in line with the Constitution for Connecticut and other states to say we’d like our electors to vote the way the majority of Americans voted, that’s our right as a state,” he said.
A similar bill failed to come to a vote in the state Senate in 2009 after barely passing in the House of Representatives, but LeBeau said the fate of the bill’s predecessors doesn’t concern him.
“People send me ideas and I call through them and see what makes sense,” he said, adding that this is the first time he has raised such a bill. “This just makes sense.”
Currently six states and the District of Columbia have joined the interstate compact for the national popular vote. They amount to 74 electoral votes of the 270 needed to make the compact effective. If the bill were to be signed into law, Connecticut would add its seven electoral votes to the compact.
Tags: presidential, elections, popular
(13) Comments
posted by: Luther Weeks | February 2, 2011 2:51pm
While I understand the good arguments for the National Popular Vote and would support it, except there are some extreme risks to the Compact which attempts to force fit it onto our inaccurate state by state voting system.
There is no official national popular vote number complied and certified nationally that can be used to officially and accurately determine the winner in any reasonably close election.
There is no national recount available for close elections to establish an accurate number. Only in some individual states with close numbers in those states would there ever be a recount.
Currently the Electoral College limits the damage to states with close votes. With the national popular vote errors, voter suppression, and fraud in all states would count against the national totals.
With stronger election laws, national uniformity, enforceable and enforced laws in place I would favor the NPV.
For more see: http://www.ctvoterscount.org/the-case-against-“the-agreement-among-the-states-to-elect-the-president-by-national-popular-vote”/
posted by: Tessa Marquis | February 2, 2011 4:21pm
Last night’s informational event in Orange on this issue was postponed due to weather issues. For those interested in getting info when it is rescheduled, please contact Kim Hynes at Common Cause in Connecticut: KHynes@CommonCause.org
860) 549-1220
posted by: ... | February 2, 2011 5:10pm
If they really want to reform ‘Winner Take All’ Presidential Election rules, we should follow The Congressional District Method (currently used by Maine and Nebraska).
It has is flaws, but it would reflect the individual vote better than the system used by CT, and 47 other states.
posted by: Matt W. | February 2, 2011 5:23pm
Good points Weeks. Why run the risk of poisoning the entire system if we can keep the problems contained in New Haven, Chicago, etc.
posted by: Luther Weeks | February 2, 2011 6:49pm
@Matt,
Correct the inaccuracies in Bridgeport did not change the winner here in the Governor’s race and would not have been enough to change the Electoral College. If it was closer we would have had a recanvass and presumably those errors corrected.
But with the Compact they would all have counted against one candidate toward that National Popular Vote number reported by the media or any other number calculated nationwide.
posted by: hawkeye | February 2, 2011 6:58pm
With only six states and the District of Columbia on board, with only 74 votes, of the 270 required, the National Popular Vote, is still a long-shot bet!
posted by: mvymvy | February 3, 2011 12:47pm
A survey of 800 Connecticut voters conducted on May1415, 2009 showed 74% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Voters were asked:
‘How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?
The results of the first question, by political affiliation, was 80% among Democrats, 67% among Republicans, and 71% among others. By gender, support was 81% among women and 66% among men. By age, support was 82% among 18-29 year olds, 69% among 30-45 year olds, 75% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.
Then, voters were asked a second question that emphasized that Connecticuts electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not Connecticut, vote. In this second question, 68% of Connecticut voters favored a national popular vote.
‘Do you think it more important that Connecticuts electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular vote in Connecticut, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?’
The results of the second question, by political affiliation, was 74% among Democrats, 62% among Republicans, and 63% among others. By gender, support was 75% among women and 59% among men. By age, support was 75% among 18-29 year olds, 57% among 30-45 year olds, 68% among 46-65 year olds, and 70% for those older than 65.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#CT_2009MAY
posted by: mvymvy | February 3, 2011 12:48pm
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/certificates_of_ascertainment.html
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-ascertainment.html
posted by: mvymvy | February 3, 2011 1:04pm
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
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.
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. The larger the number of voters in an election, the smaller the chance of close election results.
Recounts in presidential elections would be far less likely to occur under a national popular vote system than under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state).
Based on a recent study of 7,645 statewide elections in the 26-year period from 1980 through 2006 by FairVote:
*The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 274 votes.
*The original outcome remained unchanged in over 90% of the recounts.
*The probability of a recount is 1 in 332 elections (23 recounts in 7,645 elections), or once in 1,328 years.
no presidential election since the 19th century has been won
by fewer than 100,000 votes on a nationwide basis. The closest presidential
election since 1900 was the 1960 election in which John F. Kennedy
led Richard M. Nixon by 118,574 popular votes nationwide. A margin of
118,574 popular votes is not particularly close on a nationwide basis. Such
a margin would have been unlikely to be questioned. No margin of that size
is likely to be overturned by any recount. The 1960 election is remembered
as being close because a switch of 4,430 votes in Illinois and a switch 4,782
votes in South Carolina would have given Nixon a majority of the electoral
votes. If Nixon had carried both of those states, Kennedy still would have
been ahead nationwide by almost 110,000 popular votes, but Nixon would
have won the Presidency. The 1960 election then would have become yet
another election in which the winner of the nationwide popular vote did
not win the Presidency. In any case, the perceived closeness of the 1960
election was an illusion manufactured by the statewide winner-take-all
system used in Illinois and South Carolina—not because the nationwide
margin of 118,574 was ever likely to be overturned by any recount.
posted by: mvymvy | February 3, 2011 1:06pm
Under the current system, the national outcome can be affected by mischief in one of the closely divided battleground states (e.g., by overzealously or selectively purging voter rolls or by placing insufficient or defective voting equipment into the other party’s precincts). The accidental use of the butterfly ballot by a Democratic election official in one county in Florida cost Gore an estimated 6,000 votes ― far more than the 537 popular votes that Gore needed to carry Florida and win the White House. However, even an accident involving 6,000 votes would have been a mere footnote if a nationwide count were used (where Gore’s margin was 537,179). In the 7,645 statewide elections during the 26-year period from 1980 to 2006, the average change in the 23 statewide recounts was a mere 274 votes.
Senator Birch Bayh (D–Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, “one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes.”
Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election—and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?”
posted by: Luther Weeks | February 3, 2011 2:21pm
@mvymvy,
As usual the value of your comments and their redundancy is matched by your courage in disclosing your name.
You say: ‘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. “
I don’t understand. We have recanvasses in Connecticut. There are recounts in many states including Minnesota. For years advocates have called for recounts. The popular election of Senators is fine because there are recounts and for the most part consistency in each state.
As for all those nice statistics, surveys can be wrong if citizens are misinformed of the facts. DDT and Nuclear power would likely have gotten strong support in the 1950’s before the negative consequences were known. Even in 2002 polls would have said Iraq had WMD’s but that was not true.
posted by: ... | February 3, 2011 7:37pm
I’m sure there is plenty of interesting info in those posts, mvymvy. But I, and others probably wont take the time to read into it if you put in multiple posts and no proper paragraph breaks.
posted by: jimk022 | February 6, 2011 7:54pm
If we don’t like the Electoral College then amend the Constitution to elect the President by the popular vote.
Under the present system, the electors should represent the will of the voters of the state.
This is an attempt to subvert the intent of the Constitution and should be recognized as such.
If you want to elect the President by the popular vote then amend the Constitution. Neither party wants to do that because they have their “strategies” for winning the election and those strategies do not really include the smaller states.