Will The National Popular Vote Get Across the Legislative Goal Line?
by Hugh McQuaid | Feb 25, 2013 5:58pm
(15) Comments | Commenting has expired
The legislature is again considering an agreement to cast its Electoral College votes for whichever presidential candidate receives the most popular votes nationally. This year’s bill comes after an election cycle in which Connecticut was all but ignored by the candidates.
The National Popular Vote interstate compact is not a new concept to the Connecticut General Assembly. The concept is proposed on a nearly annual basis. If passed, Connecticut would join eight other states and the District of Columbia in the agreement.
The compact would become effective if enough states joined so that 270 electoral votes, or enough votes to win the election, went to the winner of the popular vote.
At a public hearing Monday in the Government Administration and Elections Committee, officials debated the agreement’s potential impact on the attention a state like Connecticut receives from presidential candidates. Increasingly, elections have been focused on handful of key swing states.
Rep. Andrew Fleischmann, a West Hartford Democrat and longtime advocate of National Popular Vote, said Connecticut was virtually ignored in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. He said he had constituents who couldn’t even get lawn signs from the campaigns.
“The campaigns hadn’t even bothered to get lawn signs out to Connecticut, so the expenditures by the Republican and Democratic parties in the last few cycles was essentially zero,” he said.
Fleischmann said that when campaigns focus their resources and energies on a few battleground states, administrations tend to focus their efforts and resources on those states as well.
Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, a Democrat, said presidential candidates currently only visit Connecticut for fundraising purposes.
“I dare say that engaging a few select people to open their checkbooks is not the same as engaging the general public on the issues facing our nation,” she said.
Merrill said it was difficult to speculate on how campaigns would change their tactics if elections were decided by popular vote. But she said candidates would need to campaign in “51 states” rather than just swing states.
“It would force all candidates to have to run everywhere, in a much different way than they do today,” she said.
Opponents of the measure like Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury, argued that the agreement serves to “sidestep” the U.S. Constitution by bypassing the Electoral College. He said the college was created as a vehicle to protect the rights of smaller states like Connecticut, and he hadn’t heard a compelling argument to convince him otherwise.
McLachlan said he didn’t believe Connecticut would play a larger role in presidential elections if it cast its votes for the popular winner.
“If you look at running a general election campaign based on population — where the vote is — Connecticut is a loser,” he said, adding that New York would be the state in the region that would get the most attention based on its concentrated population.
“The New York TV market is going to have a bonanza . . . all you’re doing is shifting one way of focusing efforts to another way of focusing efforts but now it’s all in large population centers,” he said.
Despite some debate and lobbying efforts last year in favor of the National Popular Vote, the Government Administration and Elections Committee never raised a bill. In 2011, it was voted out of committee but never raised in the House of Representatives.
According Barry Fadem, President of the National Popular Vote, the electoral college has “permitted candidates to win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide in 4 of our 57 elections — 1 in 14 times.”
The issue has been up for discussion in recent years because of the 2000 election, which saw the Bush-Cheney campaign win the White House with a 271-266 electoral vote advantage despite polling 540,520 fewer popular votes than Gore-Lieberman.
Aside from 2000, the electoral vote took precedence over the popular vote in three other elections: 1824, 1876, and 1888.
Tags: National Popular Vote, Andrew Fleischmann, denise merrill, michael mclachlan, presidential elections, Hugh McQuaid, dh
(15) Comments
posted by: Not that Michael Brown | February 25, 2013 9:43pm
Push for an amendment to the US Constitution and stop trying to fix the electoral college with a ham-fisted fix.
posted by: ASTANVET | February 26, 2013 8:01am
The legislature does not seem to understand the purpose of the electoral college - I for the life of me can’t figure out how we continue to elect these people!
posted by: ConnVoter | February 26, 2013 10:42am
Anyone who thinks that this will help to improve the visibility of candidates in Connecticut is a moron. If every state passed this law, then candidates would only campaign in megacities (but would still drop into Connecticut to pick up cash).
Michael Brown, I agree that this is a lame fix but by implementing it at the state level, it can be repealed. I’d rather it never made it into law in the first place, however.
posted by: ASTANVET | February 26, 2013 3:22pm
Folks, the reason there is an electoral system is to protect the small states - if you look at the national elections, the president won by winning the various megolopolis areas. The rest of the country voted for the other guy. Who is there to protect the rural vote? we used to be a rural state - all of those who seek to go to a popular vote are looking for a mob rule. What the heck ever happened to Federalism? republicanism? The people who don’t know what those two terms mean are the problem!
posted by: Joebigjoe | February 26, 2013 4:19pm
Simple fix. Award electoral votes by congressional district.
It is pathetic that neither Presidential candidate went to more than 10 states. That’s an issue.
posted by: GMR | February 26, 2013 10:11pm
So if we do away with the electoral college, shouldn’t we also do away with the Senate? After all, CT and CA and WY and TX all each get two senators.
posted by: mvymvy | March 1, 2013 5:14pm
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution—“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.
posted by: mvymvy | March 1, 2013 5:15pm
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.
posted by: mvymvy | March 1, 2013 5:17pm
Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.
With National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn’t be about winning a handful of battleground states.
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters, like CT, are ignored by presidential campaigns.
In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) - got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE—75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH—69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation’s votes!
posted by: mvymvy | March 1, 2013 5:18pm
74% of CT voters support the idea that the President should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Support 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.
NationalPopularVote
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 1, 2013 5:33pm
why then do some states allow for the distribution of electroal votes based on either county or congressional district? You seem to be more knowledgable about this subject than I am.
posted by: ASTANVET | March 1, 2013 9:46pm
mvymvy - spot on - my concern is that CT is apparently leading the charge for a popular vote, which ignores all the reasons to have one. You can’t fix stupid. It began with the direct election of Senators - and ends with the popular vote…
posted by: mvymvy | March 2, 2013 2:49pm
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). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
posted by: mvymvy | March 2, 2013 2:52pm
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution—“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Maine and Nebraska use a congressional district winner system.
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Nationwide, there are now only 35 “battleground” districts that were competitive in the 2012 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 92% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
posted by: mvymvy | March 2, 2013 2:57pm
The National Popular Vote bill ensures that the candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.
CT voters were asked a second question that emphasized that Connecticut’s 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 Connecticut’s 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?”
Support, 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.
Most Americans don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . 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 directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it’s wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
NationalPopularVote