NY inches toward Electoral College reform

[hrmjustin]

Jessica Alaimo

ALBANY—New York State has moved one step closer to joining an interstate compact that would decide presidential elections by popular vote.

Last week, the Senate Elections Committee approved a bipartisan bill to add the state's 29 electoral votes to the National Popular Vote compact.

States who sign onto the compact agree to grant their electors based on the national popular vote, an agreement that's triggered when the compact amasses a total of 270 electoral college votes, which would give the unified states a majority of electors.

So far, nine states and the District of Columbia have joined the compact, giving it 136 electoral votes.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2014/02/8540393/ny-inches-toward-electoral-college-reform

[Newsjock]

1. Horrible idea, a GOP/Koch ploy to neuter New York and California

It's "reform" in much the same way that shutting down polling places and requiring voter ID is "election reform."

[hrmjustin]

2. I agree. I would not pass it.

[mvymvy]

5. 79% of New York Voters Support a National Popular Vote

A survey of New York voters showed 79% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

By gender, support was 89% among women and 69% among men.

By age, support was 60% among 18-29 year olds, 74% among 30-45 year olds, 85% among 46-65 year olds, and 82% for those older than 65.

Support was 86% among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, 78% among Independence Party members (representing 8% of respondents), 50% among Conservative Party members (representing 3% of respondents), 100% among Working Families Party members (representing 2% of respondents), and 7% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).

NationalPopularVote

[hrmjustin]

6. I support it being done at the national level.

[mvymvy]

9. 50.4% of the way to going into effect

States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to decide how they award their electoral votes for president.

A constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing to amend the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It 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 Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. 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 or past 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 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, and large states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

[hrmjustin]

11. I hope your right and it works out but I have reservations about doing it this way.

[unblock]

3. you've got it backwards.

relative to their population, new york and california are underrepresented in the electoral college, while states like wyoming are overrepresented.

going by the proportional allocation in the house, wyoming is about 1/435th of the population, but 3/535ths of the electoral college.

the electoral college favors *small* states at the expense of big states.


should this come to pass, campaigns will start to shift toward major population centers. they won't avoid places like new york or texas because they're a forgone conclusion, because if the total vote is what matters, than more turnout is more turnout, so why not appeal to your base. small states and rural areas will get ignored because they won't be very cost effective in terms of campaign time and money.

[mvymvy]

7. Small states and rural areas would no longer be ignored

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.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every voter 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 voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter 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.

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.

[mvymvy]

8. Small States and Rural States Support a National Popular Vote

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).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

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 4 jurisdictions.

Now, 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%.

[unblock]

12. i agree with what you are saying as for the people and businesses of the states.

what i meant was that the state governments see the electoral college as giving their state extra clout in terms of determining the president, and therefore are loathe to give up that power. this is perhaps a disconnect between the state government and politicians on one side, and the people and businesses of the state on the other.

winner-takes-all renders obvious win or obvious loss states irrelevant in terms of campaign attention and funds, and to some extent, clout (although money always comes with influence and gets "access", even if it comes from someone in an "foregone conclusion" state.)

popular vote would change that, and yes, the calculation is more complex -- you campaign wherever you can change the most votes in a cost-effective manner.

instead of spending the last week concentrating on a couple "battleground" states like ohio and florida, campaigns would spend the final week getting out the vote in their base metro areas, e.g., nyc and dallas. earlier efforts would be on changing votes, and yes, it might be cost-effective to campaign in "anti-" areas, because getting 30% of the vote instead of 12% of the vote is a big improvement in popular vote terms.

[mvymvy]

4. Every voter will be equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election

The National Popular Vote ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates.

With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every popular vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every voter is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

When and where voters matter, then so do the issues they care about most.

[mvymvy]

10. ALEC and GOP Oppose National Popular Vote

Resolution in Opposition to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
http://alecexposed.org/w/images/d/d1/7G3-Resolution_in_Opposition_to_the_National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact_Exposed.pdf

2012 Republican Platform: Opposing National Popular Vote
http://ivn.us/2012/08/28/2012-republican-platform-opposing-national-popular-vote/