Associated Press
Virginia State Senator Charles "Bill" Carrico Sr. (R)
We talked last week about Republican officials in Pennsylvania who want to change the way the state allocates electoral votes in presidential elections -- instead of a winner-take-all system, used by nearly every state, GOP officials in the Keystone State would apportion electoral votes by congressional district.
It's a horrible idea, crafted by partisans who want to rig elections in Republicans' favor, and apparently, it's spreading. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) wants this on the table in the Buckeye State, and it's been raised in Virginia, too.
Virginia State Senator Charles "Bill" Carrico Sr. (R) has become the latest swing state-Republican to propose a scheme to rig presidential elections for future Republican candidates. Blue Virginia reports his proposed SB 723 would award the state's electors based on which candidate gets the majority of votes in each gerrymandered Congressional district -- rather than based on who gets the most votes statewide. [...]
With a Republican-controlled redistricting passed earlier this year, Virginia Democrats were heavily packed into three districts. Under these maps, Obama won Virginia by almost a 4 point margin, yet he carried just four Virginia Congressional Districts. Were Carrico's scheme in place, Mitt Romney would have received seven of Virginia's 11 electoral votes despite receiving just 47.28% of the vote statewide.
Others, including John Putnam and Jonathan Bernstein, have explained in detail why the approach is so deeply flawed, but there's another angle to this that stands out for me: Republicans must be really worried about Virginia's partisan future.
Let's put it this way: at least in Pennsylvania the GOP scheme is understandable. It's historically been a competitive swing state, but in six of the last six elections, the Democratic presidential candidate has won, usually pretty easily. With this in mind, it stands to reason that Keystone State Republicans would conclude, "Our candidate probably isn't going to win statewide anytime soon, but if we rig electoral-vote allocation, we can still help our guy win the election."
But Virginia is a very different political environment. In the last 60 years, only two Democratic presidential candidates have won the commonwealth: LBJ in his 1964 landslide and Barack Obama. That's it. Even Bill Clinton lost the state twice, and he was very competitive throughout the South in both of his races.
If you're a Virginia Republican official who believes the state will soon revert to form and start voting GOP again, changing the way Virginia distributes electoral votes doesn't make sense -- it creates a huge risk of helping the other side. Indeed, had this idea been in place in the commonwealth in recent elections, Virginia would have awarded plenty of electoral votes to Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore, instead of none.
The only reason Virginia Republicans would even consider an idea like this is if they assume the state is slowly slipping away from them, and it won't revert to form. By putting this idea on the table, folks like state Sen. Carrico are suggesting they expect Democrats to be in a position to win the state for the indefinite future.
Leave a Comment:
I really don't know why the idea of changing the electoral college voting system is bad. What's so great about the electoral college? Seems like a crazy system in some ways. We could go strictly by popular vote, but I think that disenfranchises rural areas in states that a have a few large cities. What candidate would ever pay any attention to rural concerns? Making candidates win congressional districts seems to have a lot of merit. I'm a Democrat and I know that Democrats traditionally do better with urban voters and Republicans with rural voters; but that doesn't mean the electoral college system as it is now designed is good for democracy.
The problem is not that Republicans want to change the electoral college system, it's that they only want to change it in states where it would be favorable to them.
Do you see any of the 'Red' State legislators taking up the mantle of change to redistribute electoral votes from urban areas in their states to the democratic candidate?
If there are changes that would tip an election, then maybe a more uniformly systematic change should be examined so that the votes are not simply taken from the D column and given to the R column.
You make a good point. Thanks.
We seriously need a nonpartisan third party to run our electoral processes, from local to federal.
That one half of our political system cannot be trusted to operate fair unbiased elections should be blatantly obvious by now, as is the fact that they continue to find fresh ways of disrupting free elections. And this is at the federal level. What is the national exposure on the level of corruption at local and state levels? Very little.
How many times and to what degree of cheating the system will it take before this foundational national right gains the proper level of protection?
Tom -- the other problem is that it makes the Electoral College subject to gerrymandering, which it isn't if electoral votes are awarded statewide. Republicans control the House despite having gotten a minority of votes in congressional elections because of gerrymandering, and this kind of scheme would make the same thing more likely in presidential elections.
"Nonpartisan third party"? In no universe do those words make sense together. If you have parties, then you have partisanship. That's not the problem.
The problem is that one party, the Republicans, have become thoroughly reactionary and totalitarian. Legitimate political parties do not behave this way.
So, the Republican Party has to die. When it comes to totalitarians, the only options are abject surrender or total war. It's America or the GOP. We can't have both. The Democrats are far enough to the right for any reasonable political system.
So basically the GOTP knows that they have NO:
1) Winnable platform
2) Ideas that appeal to voters
3) Hope that their side is going to win because the GOTP has become too extreme for moderates and independents
So now that we all realize, this can we all agree that the GOTP have poor sportsmanship and are undemocratic! What they want is a theocracy or Oligarchy, probably a combination of the two! GOTP wrong for America, bad for working Americans!!
VOTE THEM OUT OF PUBLIC OFFICE IN 2014!!!
Can someone riddle me this?
Is this an approach that would turn the electoral college into a closer representation of the actual popular vote?
If so, is that a good thing? If not, is that a good thing?
tx
Well there is this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Helena,
Notice that in this bill, they are not taking the votes of an entire state and apportioning them to the winner and loser, they are modifying the votes to make it such that a Presidential candidate would have to win each Congressional district.
What this does is allow gerrymandering in a state to swing elections.
This is a variation of what Republicans have tried to do before. They moved in blue states to have electoral college votes apportioned to the candidates by the number of votes that they got. The Republicans moved to keep the red states as a winner take all vote.
My personal opinion is that the election of a President should simply be based on the total popular vote. The Republicans would never go for this because they have an ever shrinking base. They need elections decided on anything other than straight numbers.
Just the opposite. It's a way to apportion Electoral College votes by gerrymandered districts. I seriously doubt that doing that for the two "senate" votes would pass "one man, one vote" scrutiny -- although in the Roberts Court I could easily be wrong.
There are many more rural districts than urban districts in the US. By apportioning electoral college votes by district, it would insure that rural areas would control elections and these areas tend to be Republican. The impact is to allow a minority of voters to dictate the results of the election. We would see more elections where the candidate with the most popular votes would lose the election in the electoral college. But if Republicans push this scheme, it will likely result in a push to abolish the electoral college by amendment. Once Dems have enough votes to push through the amendment in Congress it would be sent to the states for approval. Republican dominated legislatures would oppose the amendment. But there would be intense lobbying by public interest groups if the popular candidate lost elections which is likely to happen. Every red and purple state would become a battleground to pass the amendment. If Dems push this amendment then they need to omit the usual 7 year period for an amendment to be approved by the states which would leave the amendment pending for a long time.
Gerrymandering, check.
Voter suppression, check.
Electoral vote redistribution, check.
The Republicans clearly know that the only chance in hell they have of holding political power is to change the rules in favor of minority rule.
We've all seen the results of over-arching minority rule in the Senate - nothing get done. That's the most optimistic view of what will happen.A more extreme example is the old Soviet Politburo. Eventually, they took a whole country down the tubes with them.
And since the Gerrymandering defines the congressional districts, they would basically be choosing how many electoral votes the candidate will get. That's why Democrats overall got more votes for the house, but Republicans are still in control.
What kind of country will we be living in if it's run by people who cheat and steal to get into power...This is our nation's most fundamental and worst problem and luckily, we have been given 4 more years to solve it. That might be all we're given...
Accepting the results of a fair voter system causes a lot less national strife than swallowing the results of an unfair system, no matter which party wins.
The only reason they're changing anything is to move the balance in their favor, that's cheating and lieing. That's corrupt. If it wasn't broke in the first place why are we trying to fix it, The Reppublicans are the ones who broke it, something else we have to go back to now and fix, instead of dealing with issues by prioritizing, they're conjuring up ways to cheat and win. They really should throw in their cards and finally say what we want to hear for a change, that they have folded their hands... they're out!!! Either that or they're praying, too late for that, just kidding.
So, they want to rig the election in THEIR favor. Also known as CHEATING!
All the money in the world cannot give you a soul. Class. Morals. Being fair.
As a citizen of the USA... it is the right of EVERYONE to be able to vote.
Suppression. Voter Fraud. Rigging the electoral. The list just goes on.
So, what they want... the poor, the old, the sick, the middle class, etc. to just roll over and act like they don't matter. Nor cared about or for.
They have no soul. And, anyone who is with this PARTISAN idea can rot in HELL!
Sorry. But, I am sick to death of this crap.
I would like people to ask themselves this question:
How should we elect a president?
A. The electoral college system is fine (even it means that George Bush defeats Al Gore who got more popular votes; and even it means that 90 percent of the campaigning is devoted to a half dozen "swing" states.)
B. We should go only by popular vote (even it means that this system gives candidates no incentive campaign in small states or in rural areas).
C. A combination of the two as proposed in Pennsylvania and currently used in Nebraska and Maine I think.
And when considering your answer, leave out perceived political motivations or advantages.
I think (C) is fine, with the caveat that you have to deal with the problem of gerrymandering.
Statewide, Michigan is a blue state. Two Democratic Senators, elected Obama twice despite being Romney's birth state.
And yet, the majority of our Representatives are Republican, due to gerrymandering. The fact that we got a GOP governor is due to the GOP wave of 2010 and some fatigue with Democrats after 8 years.
What makes more sense than allocating by congressional district (unless the gerrymandering is corrected) is to allocate EVERY state's electoral votes by the percentage of the popular vote in that state.
However, this would mean that small states (with a disproportionate electoral count) would become the new battleground states.
You CAN'T leave out political motivations. Political motivations are what is driving this. Unless the actual vote count, statewide is used to apportion the EV AND all states are included in the mix, the advantage goes directly to the Republicans. You'll notice that there is no fervor for changing the way Texas gives the EV?
In addition, since all of the apportionment schemes I've seen so far give the Senatorial EV votes (every state gets 2), giving the congressional districts to the winner of the districts gives the advantage to the small population western states. Essentially, this scheme violently favors rural populations. You can see the same thing in New York and Pennsylvania where more than half the voting population is urban, but more than half the state representation is rural or small suburban.
When you throw in gerrymandering, it gets worse.
Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.
A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***
A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
&&&&
Republicans only want to split electoral votes in blue states, not red states.
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. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. Nationwide, there have been only 55 "battleground" districts that were competitive in presidential elections. 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, 88% 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.
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 are ignored.
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).
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%.
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.
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 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.
The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
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!
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, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
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 bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
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 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
they always have to cheat. always.
Nah, riky, you're exagerating.
They didn't HAVE to cheat in '72 or '88.
They DID cheat, but they didn't HAVE to
This would change the complexion of the 2016 race in ways that I'm not sure the GOP would be prepared for.
Let's suppose that the GOP rig the Electoral College so that even if Democrats win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia it's a net negative for them in the EC because the Republican candidate will net more Electoral votes from that state due to gerrymandering.
This means that the Democrats will have to make a play for states that they've written off since the turn of the century. That means going hard for Texas, the south, the high plains, and the Rocky Mountains.
And no, this isn't going to win 2016 for them; these areas are still very Red. But it will lay the groundwork for the Democrats to win them in 2020 by building the local Democratic machinery and infusing these areas with Democratic ideas. That's a long term thing -- and it may cause states that were on the fence about the National Popular Vote compact to pass it.
In the short term, this would damage the GOP's brand if they were able to game the system in this way and achieve the White House in 2016. People may not like the Electoral College, but they understand the rules -- win the state, win the state's Electoral votes. If the GOP gain the presidency by losing the popular vote nationwide but specifically losing the popular vote in Pennsylvania and Ohio while winning a plurality of those states' Electoral votes, there would be a widespread sense that the GOP didn't play by the rules. Even in 2000, there was a sense that Bush had won, albeit on a technicality. This situation, however, would strike many as cheating.
I like your point that if all states went to this system, then it would force them to campaign everywhere in all states - which would be a great thing! No longer would a candidate write off all of Texas because he or she didn't think it could win the state's popular vote. The people of Texas would be much better served. Candidates would have to run a 50-state campaign times 10. But as jcricket mentioned above, it's important that all states do this - not just some.
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. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. Nationwide, there have been only 55 "battleground" districts that were competitive in presidential elections. 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, 88% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Actually, I could see this backfiring in a big way -- much as the voter suppression tactics did. All we'd need is an election or two where the electoral college disagreed with the popular vote. How could this happen without a huge backlash?
It's never been a problem before.
Well, yes, but it's only happened once, and that wasn't the result of deliberate policies on the part of one party. I think if it became clear that it would be routine, there would be an explosion.
On the other hand, maybe we'd finally get rid of the electoral college.
I think you should check that -- it's not all that rare.
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 14 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
The Republicans want control of our nation. They want it badly enough to machine our elections.
All across the country, we've seen Republican leadership at work; they don't exactly rule with a fair hand.
How much more will the GOP take away from millions of citizens so that their personal financial nests are all comfy cosy?
They won't stop, until they are stopped...
It makes sense to me that it should not be winner take all in every state. Rural residents have a difficult time having their voices heard due to the populace cities deciding the election in their states. Rural voters are really not represented at all. Their voice is completely ignored. In some states there is no reason for rural voters to even go to the polls. What the city voters do is what happens. Allowing for the votes to be split would be more fair and a better representation of the citizens of every state. I have relation in CO who are seeking to make this idea a reality in their state. The CO electorate went for Obama with a razor thin margin, so 1/2 of the state was not represented. That doesn't seem to be a fair way to elect our officials. This should be left up to each state. And had the election gone the other way with a razor thin margin, the dems would think that was a good idea.
Rural voters have a hard time being heard because there aren't very many of them. This new vote rigging scheme is being passed off as a way to help rural voters be heard. Conveniently, rural voters skew heavily Republican (but not the kind of Republican that doesn't like ag subsidies). This scheme is an undemocratic attempt to give a minority an advantage over the majority.
That's an interesting point of view and one that I would mostly agree with. So it seems like you would prefer a straight popular vote election and get rid of the electoral college altogether. I live in Vermont, the most rural state in the country. We have about one quarter of one percent of the population. Under the electoral college scheme with our three electoral votes (one congressional district), we are grossly over-represented. We are solidly blue.
Vermont is the low population rural state in the blue column as is, questionably, New Mexico. In the red column we have Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska and Oklahoma. There are fewer people in Wyoming than there are in a single congressional district in California. Why should the people in Wyoming be more easily heard than Californians?
You see it isn't that people are fed up with republicans serving corporations rather than their constituents. No, the problem is that too many people are voting!
The logic of the right seems to have come from some mythical realm of bliss.
It's like Custer claiming he lost because the Indians fought back!
A survey of Virginia voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By age, support for a national popular vote was 82% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 75% among 46-65 year olds, and 68% for those older than 65.
By gender, support for a national popular vote was 82% among women and 65%
among men.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 79% for a national popular vote among liberal Democrats (representing 17% of respondents), 86% among moderate Democrats (representing 21% of respondents), 79% among conservative Democrats (representing 10% of
respondents), 76% among liberal Republicans (representing 4% of respondents), 63% among moderate Republicans (representing 14% of respondents), and 54% among conservative Republicans (representing 17% of respondents), and 79% among Others (representing 17% of respondents).
Obvious partisan machinations like Carrico's should add support for the National Popular Vote movement. If the party in control in each state is tempted every 2, 4, or 10 years (post-census) to consider rewriting election laws and redistrict with an eye to the likely politically beneficial effects for their party in the next presidential election, then the National Popular Vote system, in which all voters across the country are guaranteed to be politically relevant and treated equally, looks better and better.
If the electoral vote by state is going to be apportioned by popular vote, the system had better be introduced simultaneously for all states or we will have the curious business of states that vote Dem in national elections but have Republican govs/legislatures (say, PA and OH) apportioning votes while states that vote Rep in national elections (Texas, for example) will continue to be winner-take-all.
Before pursuing a national popular vote, consider the possibility that the vote is so close that a recount is demanded. National recount? The election will inevitably end up in the Supreme Court, and the national popular vote will be decided by 5 people.
The current presidential election system makes a repeat of 2000 more likely, not less likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000, a recount in Florida would not have been an issue.
The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
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 is prepared to conduct a recount.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 57 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.
If they want to play this game, I suggest we bring to the national table eliminating the electoral college all together - this is a national election. I am sick of my vote going nowhere since I live in a red state. It does not stop me from voting, or being very vocal about it but it does frustrate me. Not only do I not get to have the individuals represent me that I have any faith in at all, I know that my vote has not helped the presidential candidate I support.
We are a mobile people - lets make this national election truly national.
Had this been the case in 2000, GW Bush would not have had the chance to ruin the world in such ignoble fashion. Few things I know of cause me such regret (even though I know he got no help from me, he was supported roundly by my state).