Obama won’t run a true “50 state campaign,” no matter what this email says. While new battlegrounds like Virginia may be explored, and there may be some token activity in safe states, nearly all resources will be poured into the usual suspects – a dozen swing states, especially Ohio, Pennsylvania, and of course Florida.
In 2004 and in 2000 those three states got close to two thirds of the advertising budget for the general election. Obama’s 2008 budget for North Dakota will be, shall we say, smaller.
But the pledge is great rhetoric because the idea of a national campaign is enthralling to Americans as well as being good public policy. A telephone survey conducted June 3rd of 800 likely Massachusetts voters showed that 73 percent support a national popular vote for the President as opposed to the current Electoral College. This parallels polling done nationwide and in other states, although Mass Democrats are even more in favor of the idea than the national average-a full 82% of likely Democratic voters support the idea.
We have a chance to make Plouffe’s pledge a reality in the 2012 election. The National Popular Vote bill (H. 678), which would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states, has been holding steady on the calendar of the Massachusetts House for some months. Sponsored by Representative Charley Murphy and Martin Walsh and Senators Joan Menard and Robert Creedon plus 100 other endorsers and cosponsors, the bill must be voted on soon because time is running out.
National Popular Vote has been discussed on BlueMass Group several times. The plan is an interstate compact where member states agree to give all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, but only after states representing a majority of the Electoral College sign on (that is 270 of the 538 electoral votes, roughly equal to half of the population, and most likely around 25 states). The reform will ensure a true 50 state campaign, make all votes equal in weight regardless of the state from which they were cast, and of course ensure that the candidate with the most votes from real people wins the election. No more election 2000, or 1888, 1876, and 1824.
Identical legislation has been introduced in 47 states, passed by 18 legislative chambers, and has been enacted in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Illinois.
Massachusetts should be the next state to join the compact. Please help us pass this important reform by contacting your legislators ASAP. We need a vote in the House in the next three weeks or it will be too late. You can use a canned email or better yet write or call. For more information visit www.nationalpopularvote.com or www.commoncause.org/ma
The quote from the email refers to deploying staff, whereas Nixon pledged to personally visit all 50 states. Since the DNC did it in 2006 then why not? I think the emphasis is not on the safe states, but in the really tough states and 2006 seemed to suggest that Howard Dean’s strategy worked.
<
p>The national popular vote is, I think, a different issue. I do not favor state electoral votes going to someone who didn’t win the state. This would mean MA votes not being recorded for our own Senator if that had been in place in 2004. I would, however, be thrilled if we truly had a national popular vote by eliminating the electoral college altogether. A next-best option would be if all states went the Maine/Nebraska route of allocating by congressional district. Don’t take this the wrong way, but I see the NPV proposal as half-baked and would rather go straight for the necessary constitutional amendments to make popular election of the President a reality.
The point of the NPV initiative is to ensure that whoever gets the most popular votes nationwide becomes president. As presently drafted, the NPV initiative would do exactly that. Who cares which electoral votes go where? Isn’t the point to make state-level electoral votes basically meaningless, in favor of a national plebiscite?
<
p>NPV is, IMHO, the only plausible way to achieve that goal. A constitutional amendment will never, ever happen.
we are a Democratic Republic. Under our system which preserves the voice of small states it is how our leaders are picked. The system has served us well for over 200 years I would not support anything that changed it. Also you’d have to have a constitutional amendment to change it and since more than 33% of the states would be adversely affected, I don’t think you will.
As it is just about every state with 3 or 4 electoral votes is reliably in the column of one party or the other. As such I don’t see candidates doing much campaigning in those states under the current system anyway. I believe going to a popular vote would actually enhance paying attention to all states. Even though MA is midsized we are so reliably Democratic to be virtually out of play as well.
3 EV states (+ DC):
AK, MT, ND, SD, WY, DC, VT, DE
None of those are competitive.
<
p>4 EV states:
ID, RI, NH, HI, ME*
Of those, only NH is competitive.
<
p>5 EV states:
UT, NE*, NV, WV, NM
Of those, Nevada and West Virginia have been competitive and may be competitive in 2008, and NM is competitive.
<
p>That’s 18 out of 51 that are 5 EVs or fewer, and only 4 of ’em are reasonably competitive. While the EV system certainly provides more weight to low-population states**, it doesn’t make them attractive to campaigning candidates.
<
p>
<
p>* Maine and Nebraska award one EV to each congressional district, and the other 2 for popular vote within the state. Neither state has split EVs in at least, well, ever as far as I know, faithless electors notwithstanding.
<
p>** Low-population != rural. Ignoring DC being an exception, Rhode Island is 2nd in population density amongst states, New Hampshire 19th, WV 29th, and VT 30th. I would expect that Rhode Island, DC, and Utah would all get visits from POTUS candidates, in addition to NV, NM, NH, and WV. Additionally, so would California, New York, Texas, Georgia, Illinois, Arizona, Tennessee, Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Oregon, and Oklahoma — all states with more than 500,000 people in a city and states which are entirely ignored by nearly all POTUS candidates unless they’re showing up for $1000 chicken dinner fund raisers.
It launched the nightmare of incompetence and corruption that brought us a government asleep at the switch on 9/11, the trillion dollar Iraq war without end, and $4.00 per gallon gas with no alternative energy plan, among other disasters. The electoral college may have had some merit when Presidents were indirectly elected but it should be abolished now.
2000 was lost because the Democrats had an awful, awful candidate who decided to run away from one of the most popular preseidents ever, and– shocker!– paid the price, and wound up in a too-close-to-call election.
<
p>These kind of calls for changes are made solely for the purpose of advantaging a particular political party– the single worst reason for a Constitutional amendment possible.
<
p>We can’t win under the rules that have existed since 1789, so they must be unfair!
<
p>That’s just plain old tripe. Is it true that some supporters see this as an opportunity to increase the chances of their kind of POTUS being elected? Sure.
<
p>But that’s not your claim. You claim that this movement is “solely for the purpose” of advantage. That’s just pure nonsense. I know plenty of people who support a popular vote selection process, some of whom couldn’t tell you what state McCain hails from, or which party has the majority in the Senate.
People who don’t know anything support it.
<
p>Really, this is pretty obviously a remaining batch of sour grapes from 2000.
<
p>No, but there are people who don’t pay close attention to the current personalities in Congress who support the idea of a popular vote. That doesn’t mean they don’t know anything; far from it. But yeah, if calling a group of people dummies helps you feel like your comment wasn’t dumb, go for it.
<
p>
<
p>No, sour grapes would be if Gore et al went around saying “I didn’t want to be POTUS anyway. It’s a crappy job.” That would be sour grapes.
<
p>Wrong! A democracy is a concept not a specific form of government. There are several forms of government for achieving democracy, one of which is ours, a Democratic Republic. Besides, the question of whether we are a democracy is separate from whether we should be a democracy. I would agree that in many ways we are not as democratic as we should be.
<
p>
<
p>Wrong! When was the last time you saw active presidential campaigning in Montana? Rhode Island? Vermont? 12 of the 13 least populous states in the US are not competitive in presidential elections. Small states are not well served by our current system. (Neither are some very large states such as California.)
<
p>
<
p>Wrong! A system where 2/3 of the states don’t count in the presidential race does not “serve us well”. At least 2/3 of the country receives no active campaigning or attempts to address their concerns. Candidates instead have to disproportionately focus on parochial concerns of the swing states. Our current system partially disenfranchises 2/3 of the country by making them matter much less than the rest.
<
p>
<
p>Wrong! The National Popular Vote initiative would make the popular vote matter without eliminating the Electoral College or amending the constitution.
When I use the term I try to distinguish between “democracy” and “democratic system”. To me a “democracy” is where all voters get to vote on the big issues. Ancient Athens is the classic example and open town meeting would be a modern example. We also use democracy for initiative and referenda. “Democratic system” is a broader term that includes true “democracy”, but also parliamentary republic, representative democracy, and constitutional monarchy. Our republic includes both democratic and non-democratic elements. We elect our legislators and some executive officers, but we do not elect our judges. We are not, and in my opinion should not be, a “democracy”.
I think that is fairly non-traditional usage. The Athenian system is usually referred to as a “direct democracy”, while our system is referred to as a “democratic republic” or “representative democracy”. All are forms of government that qualify as democracies.
<
p>The disingenuous phrase “we are not democracy, we are a republic” has been pushed by Republicans and conservatives generally, including EaBoClipper above. I presume the effort is for two reasons: 1) they dislike of the similarity of the wors “Democracy” and “Democrat”; 2) they dislike many (small-d) democratic principles, preferring instead to a system closer to a plutocracy.
Now, you have resorted to distorting the meaning of the word “democracy” in order to smother a proposal in virtue and make it seem like the proposal would be enacted for something other than naked partisan politics. “Gee, that thing that it means is a ‘non-traditional’ meaning. It really means some nebulous thing that is unassailably good, and good for my team.”
<
p>I’m surprised to see such disdain for republican government; liberals seemed so very much in love with it (and adamantly opposed to democracy), when it came to the attempted referendum in Massachusetts, and the coming referendum in California, relating to SSM.
<
p>Wrong. My case for NPV didn’t hinge on any particular definition of “democracy”. The Electoral College violates the idea of “democracy” whether you define it as “direct democracy” or “democratic republic” or both. NPV is great regardless of how one defines democracy.
<
p>
<
p>Wrong again. There is absolutely nothing about NPV that is “partisan” in any way shape or form. It has both Democratic and Republican sponsors, for starters. What exactly is “partisan” about one person / one vote? No other election for public election in the United States uses an Electoral College — were all these elections therefore just “naked partisan politics”?
…I am usually one of those insisting we are a republic and not a democracy. I’m fine with electing officials, including truly electing the President. I do not, however, want the masses voting on every issue. We pay legislators and their staffs to obtain and analyze the information about public policy. Judges should not be elected at all as they should not be concerned with the popularity of their rulings. I am not always comfortable voting on referenda even though I pay attention because I’m not convinced I have all the information. In general only state constitutional amendments should be put to popular vote, but a recent proposed amendment would have stripped certain people’s civil rights so I hope you can understand why our side has reasons not to go to the people as well. (Since you make reference to Eabo above I’ll point out that I seem to recall him disapproving of the judicial decision that provoked that amendment on the grounds of not being handled democratically.) I have no problem with your first paragraph as I often use terms that way as well.
…I am usually one of those insisting we are a republic and not a democracy. I’m fine with electing officials, including truly electing the President. I do not, however, want the masses voting on every issue. We pay legislators and their staffs to obtain and analyze the information about public policy. Judges should not be elected at all as they should not be concerned with the popularity of their rulings. I am not always comfortable voting on referenda even though I pay attention because I’m not convinced I have all the information. In general only state constitutional amendments should be put to popular vote, but a recent proposed amendment would have stripped certain people’s civil rights so I hope you can understand why our side has reasons not to go to the people as well. (Since you make reference to Eabo above I’ll point out that I seem to recall him disapproving of the judicial decision that provoked that amendment on the grounds of not being handled democratically.) I have no problem with your first paragraph as I often use terms that way as well.
Yeah, Chris, there’s no difference in the effect of the NPV initiative and eliminating the electoral college altogether. The only difference is that most reformers, myself included, believe NPV is more politically feasible.
<
p>Remember, it only goes into effect once enough states have signed on such that those states have a majority of the electoral college. If Mass passed it tomorrow, it would take a good number more states to pass it before it takes effect.
<
p>Actually, going the Maine/Nebraska route would make matters worse than our current system. In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote, won 50.5% of EC votes, but won 55% of the districts! It would be a poorer reflection of the popular vote.
<
p>Going to the Maine/Nebraska system would change us from a system where only a handful of states matter to one in which a handful of districts matter. Whereas whole states like Ohio are competitive now, it would reduce big states into the very few “swing” districts within those states.
<
p>Bill Nelson did introduce a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College, and I would be as happy as anyone if it passed. I still think NPV got a better shot overall, and it has the same impact. So support it! 🙂
If I lived in Austin, TX for example, which I believe is a Democratic enclave in a Republican state, I would want an electoral vote representing my CD to reflect that fact. Winner-take-all swallows up any minority. Your concern might be alleviated if we had more balanced CDs nationwide in terms of party registration, but that is a different issue. I was hoping awarding the two at-large EVs representing the Senate seats to the statewide winner would balance things out. This is of course still second best and I would rather see complete elimination. I just think we should use electoral votes as originally intended or not use them at all. BTW, your 4 rating felt a bit harsh, but your written response was better.
Here’s the problem: Congressional Districts can and are gerrymandered. State boundaries are fixed.
You’re right that the concept of winner-take-all is fundamentally flawed. However, the research shows that using winner-take-all on a district level would be worse (less reflective of the popular vote) than winner-take-all on the state level. And as sco points out below, it would raise the stakes of gerrymandering even more than they already are.
<
p>
<
p>That is exactly how the National Popular Vote works. The constitution gives states the ability to decide for themselves how their Electoral College votes are allocated. 48 states and DC allocate them one way. Two states allocate them a different way. Colorado toyed with yet a third way a few years back.
<
p>The Electoral College votes were intended to be divvied up according to the states themselves. Four states have already signed up with NPV to allocate their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote, and more will continue to do so.
Allocation of electoral votes by district dramatically reduces competitiveness.
<
p>Look how hard it is for an opposition party to make progress in Congress. All because the states gerrymander the districts up to be as safe as possible for the incumbent.
Christopher
It appears you agree with the objective of the NPV-namely, allow the presidential candidate who gets the most votes nationally to win. I am glad to know we are on the same page. However, you are concerned with the means by which we achieve that goal-NPV legislation v. constitutional amendment.
<
p>History suggests that constitutional amendments often times result following the actions of several states taking a positon on an issue. The 19th Amendment allowing women the right to vote was ratified after a majority of states already allowed women to vote. The 24th Amendment, eliminating the poll tax, was ratified after all but 5 states had eliminated the poll tax.
<
p>I would suggest that your desire to, “go straight for the necessary constitutional amendment to make a popular election of the President a reality” is a solid idea, however, I suspect Congress will follow suit after a majority of states adopt the NPV. At that time the electoral college will be eliminated altogether.
<
p>I am hopefull that the House will debate this matter in the next two weeks.
<
p>In response to the idea that Sen Obama is going to run a 50 state campaign, that makes good copy but reality will dictate, I suspect, that he will have to focus on the Blue/Red state breakdown and ultimately put his time, money and effort in those states that give him the most electoral votes in his quest for the magic 270.
<
p>Best regards,
<
p>Charley Murphy
State Representative
21st Middlesex District
Bedford, Burlington, Wilmington
The Congressional district idea is a terrible, terrible idea. As has been pointed out above, it would turn our current “handful of swing states” situation into a “handful of swing districts” situation. Even more of the country would be effectively “disenfranchised”.
<
p>Your example of Austin is still a bad idea. Yes, Austin’s CD would take away from Texas’ reliably Republican situation, but that CD would be so reliably Democratic that candidates still wouldn’t go there or spend much attention on it. Plus Austin’s CD would be more than balanced out by the reverse situation in other states, like Orange County.
<
p>The true second-best situation would be to allocate Electoral College votes proportionally. Get 60% of the vote in MA? Then you get 60% of our EV.
<
p>Don’t get me wrong, this is still far inferior to the NPV plan. Under my idea, California would get the most attention since you only need a 2% increase to pick up an extra EV, whereas in MA you’d need a 8% swing, and in DE a 33% swing.
<
p>No, if you want every vote to count and you accept that an amendment is out of the question, NPV is the way to go.
This recent Democratic primary season has reinforced in my mind the idea of one person, one vote. In the 2004 primary, it appears that Wyoming needed 4000 votes to award 1 delegate, while Massachusetts had 15,000 voters per delegate. This means that an individual in Wyoming had 3.75 times more of a vote than I did. The same with the Electoral College – this paper cites that “New York has 545,165 [voters per elector] while Wyoming has 151,196 voters per Elector”, meaning that a New Yorker would have to cast 3.6 votes to equal the weight of a vote cast in Wyoming. 2 votes in Wyoming could negate the will of 7 people in NY, how stupid is that?
<
p>If all men and women are indeed created equal, then they should have equal ability to exercise the franchise. I want an equal say in who my president is – not any more than anyone else, and certainly not less. The Electoral College may have served us well in the past, but it isn’t 1779 anymore. People are far more mobile and demographics are fluid and changing from cycle to cycle. I’d like the freedom to move throughout the country and know that my one vote will always hold the same value whether I live in Dorchester, Dallas, Denver, Duluth, or Douglas.
<
p>I resent that my vote for president could be the equivalent of 1/3 of a vote in another state.