This blog post is a joint effort with Leslie Francis, former executive director of the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
As the National Popular Vote (NPV) movement steps up its effort to impose a direct election for president, attempting to enlist states with a sufficient number of electors to constitute a majority (268) and to bind them to the winner of the national popular vote, those states considering the proposal might first reflect on the nightmare aftermath of the 2000 presidential election.
Because there was a difference of less than 1,000 tabulated votes between George W. Bush and Al Gore in one state, Florida, the nation watched as 6 million votes were recounted by machine, several hundred thousand were recounted by hand in counties with differing recount standards, partisan litigators fought each other in state and federal courts, the secretary of state backed by the majority of state legislators (all Republicans) warred with the state's majority Democratic judiciary -- until 37 days after the election the U.S. Supreme Court, in a bitterly controversial 5-4 decision effectively declared Bush the winner.
That nightmare may seem like a pleasant dream if NPV has its way. For under its plan, the next time the U.S. has very close national vote, a recount would not be of six million votes in one state but of more than 130 million votes in all states and the District of Columbia, all with their own rules for conducting a recount.
The horror of a potential national recount is only one of the dangers direct presidential elections poses. Among the others:
• By its very size and scope, a national direct election will lead to nothing more than a national media campaign, which would propel the parties' media consultants to inflict upon the entire nation what has been heretofore limited to the so-called battleground states: an ever-escalating, distorted arms race of tit-for-tat unanswerable attack advertising polluting the airwaves, denigrating every candidate and eroding citizen faith in their leaders and the political process as a whole.
• Because a direct election would be, by definition, national and resource allocation would be overwhelmingly dominated by paid television advertising, there would be little impetus for grass-roots activity. That, in turn, would likely diminish voter turnout.
• Similarly, because a national campaign mandates a national message, there would also be a smaller incentive for coalition-building or taking into account the characteristics, needs and desires of citizens in differing states and regions.
• NPV supporters claim, accurately, that a direct election for president would reduce or eliminate the possibility that a fringe candidate (like a Ralph Nader or Ron Paul) winning five percent or less of the vote in a single state could serve to defeat a major party candidate from the same side of the political spectrum. But the much greater danger to American democracy is that direct elections may make it possible for a president to be elected by no more than 30 percent of the vote, regardless of his or her suitability for office, so long as there is sufficient money and a clever media advisor behind the effort.
The issue raised by the National Popular Vote campaign is fundamental: What kind of a democracy should America be? Their answer is simple: one in which every citizen's vote is equal to every other citizen's vote and one in which the winner of the presidential popular vote, no matter how small his or her percentage is of those who voted, would be elected.
The alternative view of democracy is more complex; it is one that includes but is not limited to the pursuit of equality. That view of democracy recognizes the existence and desirability of organized interests and enshrines that principle under the concept of pluralism. It understands that while the nation is one union, it is also an amalgam of varying experiences and perspectives arrived at via the settings and unique problems surrounding those who live in different places, and that these differences fall within the broad rubric of federalism. E pluribus unum -- out of many, one. It is our national motto and is so for a reason.
It sees a healthy and vibrant democracy needing the underpinnings of civil society that rests on the sustained and active engagement of the citizenry and promotes approaches that seek to maximize that involvement. It seeks to be a bulwark against mass hysteria and the hysteria created by mass media. It knows that a majoritarianism that produces a plurality is not the voice of a majority of the citizenry. The Electoral College system, however imperfect, serves this broader view of democracy.
Imperfect, because its modern-day blessings -- enhancing coalition building, pluralism, federalism and grass-roots participation -- are enjoyed only by a minority of states (in any given presidential election 18 or 20), where the battle for electoral votes is competitive for both major parties. The lack of competition and campaigning in a majority of states owes itself not to the existence of the Electoral College's indirect method of choosing presidents but rather to the winner-take-all method of choosing electors in all but two states. If a party knows either that it can't win a single elector in a state or has an easy road to winning all of them, it sends its resources to where it has a competitive chance..
There are alternatives to winner-take-all that do not involve abandoning the positive aspects of the Electoral College. All states could adopt the system that now exists in Maine and Nebraska, where all but two electors are chosen by congressional district, and the other two go to the statewide winner. Or states might explore what was recently proposed in Colorado -- that electors be allocated in proportion to each candidate's share of the popular vote above a certain threshold. Either would provide a reason for both parties to compete in most states because there would be electors to win. Either would likely produce an electoral vote count closer to the popular vote. And unlike direct elections, either would provide an incentive for grass-roots activity, coalition building and enhanced citizen participation.
National Popular Vote proponents argue that the United States has had four presidential elections in which the plurality winner of the popular vote was not chosen as president. It is also true that no president since 1824 has received the votes of a majority of the eligible voters and 18 presidents, including Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, John. F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were elected with less than a majority of the votes cast. In each instance the republic has survived, and democracy has prospered despite the challenges presented. It is not at all clear that it would similarly prosper under the direct election regime being pushed by NPV.
The appeal of NPV is the simplicity of its message. The danger of NPV is that it will undermine the complex and vital underpinnings of American democracy. NPV is more than a third of the way to its goal. The time to stop its momentum is now.
Carl Pope: Cleaning Up Hamilton's Mess -- and Madison's
Rob Richie: Seven Top Election Insights From 2011
McConnell: National Popular Vote Is 'Absurd, Dangerous' Idea
California Joins National Popular Vote Movement | Mother Jones
NBC Politics - McConnell warns of popular vote 'catastrophic outcome'
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/national-popular-vote-goodbye-sweet-america/
Wyoming has 544,2170 people.
California's population is 68x larger than that of Wyoming.
California has 55 EC votes. Wyoming has 3. CA has only 18.3x as many EC votes as Wyoming.
How is this a fair system, when California has 68x the population, but only 18x the power? It gives unequal importance to smaller states. Larger states like NY, NJ, MI lose EC votes (even with a growing population, just not growing as fast as the South and West), but once a state gets down to 3 EC votes, it can't go any lower. There could be 1 person in Wyoming and they would still have 3 EC votes.
One person. One vote. Period.
So the framers settled for an electoral college to dilute the numerous population of the large states in the then original 13 colonies, like Virginia to help the Small states to air their voice in the Federal level. That is the reason why there is electoral college and until now, it still dilutes the overwhelming numerous advantage of Large states so the voice of Small states will be aired out. Why you may ask? Because the US is a federal republic that also protects the rights and the voice of the Small states.
This is exactly the same reason why NPV is dangerous is because if it succeeds, it will effectively disrupt the balance of democracy and the rights of the Small states the Framers visioned.
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.
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 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The same could be said if all (or simply more) states adopted the system used in Maine or Nebraska and it would retain the benefits of both propositions.
According to History Central, "The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states." (http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html)
Abraham Lincoln did not have the popular vote. JFK only won the popular vote by one-tenth of one percent. Jimmy Carter won it by 2%. Ronald Reagan by almost 10%. It doesn't matter which side you're on, this is something to think about.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained 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 Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.
With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
It can, however, be undermined by concern trolling.
This article is 1%-er Republican propaganda. I HIGHLY doubt he's part of a non-partisan organization. Where is he getting his money?
Regardless, he's entirely wrong.
The electoral college is antidemocratic, an example of structural racism, and decreases the president's political legitimacy and power to govern. The idea that sparsely populated, geographically large areas somehow "deserve" overrepresentation is equivalent to saying real estate = votes. Yes, rural areas would likely lose power in a truly national vote system; that's the whole point! They are OVER-represented; that means the political system gives them more power AT THE EXPENSE of people in urban areas. Inequality is BAD!
The original states could barely work together. The electoral college system, 3/5 a black man vote (where the planation slave owner got to tell them how to vote), and the filibuster were all compromises away from Democracy and Equality. The government was just acknowledging the realpolitick reality that if the North dominated the South in the federal government, then the South would just start a war.
Republicans live in more rural states and as such their votes are (sometimes drastically) overweighted in the electoral college system. These rural Republicans are also almost entirely white. It is unfair and blatant inequality for their votes to count more than everyone else's. The article fails to acknowledge that demographic/racial domination by one group is way worse than geographic domination.
If we had a national vote then Democrats could focus on voter registration and turnout in major urban areas. For example, New York, California, and Illinois are all so blue that Dems don't focus much on voter registration in those states. If we had a national vote there would be an unprecedented effort to get previously disenfranchised citizens into the voting booth. Furthermore, this would blunt the ability of the Republicans to keep black people, the poor, students, and seniors from voting with their state-level Jim Crow laws throughout the South and in the West/Plains.
When one party dominates a state's voter registration, anyone in a minority party has very little incentive to vote in presidential elections. These minority-party residents would have much more involvement in the presidential elections if they knew they mattered.
Most congressional districts are "safe," if you don't like the party in power, your only real option is to move.
In the Senate, small states wag the national dog.
I fear the notion of a failed state more than I fear change.