Popular Vote Support

Many Ways: One Goal

All credit and honor to National Popular Vote, the non-profit that for years has championed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. By the end of this month 14 states and the District of Columbia, at least, will have passed and signed the bill. The total number of electors bound then will be 189, leaving 81 more to be committed to the same bill before it becomes effective.

As the finish line of 270 electors emerges from the fog of the future, I respectfully suggest to the advocates of the Compact that two ideas should be firmly embraced by them. First, for the good of the country and the long-term viability of the Compact it is critical to include voters from Republican-leaning states in the great advancement of one person, one vote as the means of choosing the president. Second, there is more than one way to slice an apple.

 With respect to the first, I hope the National Popular Vote folks will be much more open about the states in which they are advocating the Compact. They should post the names of contact people in every state. They should sponsor on-the-ground activists who enroll citizens in the great cause. They should endorse ballot measures as a technique for winning support. A good first step would be to find a legislature that puts the Compact on the ballot for the primary in 2020, so that both Republican and Democratic leaning voters can decide whether to support the Compact. Oregon is a good case in point. Why not take this step? Get the Oregon legislature to put the Compact on the ballot. Let the people pick the way the president is picked.

Second, State Senator Bill Ferguson of Maryland recently introduced a very thoughtful bill in the Maryland legislature. His idea was to maintain the Compact, passed in Maryland in 2007, but to supplement it by offering to pair Democratic-leaning Maryland's electors with the electors in a Republican-leaning state in an agreement both to support the national popular vote winner in 2020. Representatives of National Popular Vote opposed this bill on the ground that the Republican nominee might win the national popular vote and then Maryland Democrats wouldn't like having their electors bound to vote with the Republican electors in another state to this end. But hold on: everyone has to agree that the Republican nominee, meaning of course Donald Trump in all likelihood, might win the national popular vote. If that happens, he deserves to be president. Denying that on the bet that the Electoral College will help Democrats frustrate the will of the nation is quite contradictory to the entire thrust of the great one person, one vote cause. I hope the National Popular Vote advocates—who deserve all honor—will recant this unfortunate position and support Senator Ferguson's idea.


,

The Electoral College is a Security Risk

,

From NPR:

Swing states, and even individual precincts within those states, present a significant point of vulnerability when it comes to the threat of election interference because of their potential to impact the result in a presidential race, the current secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and one of her key predecessors both told senators Wednesday.

…

[L]ocal jurisdictions in places that can have an outsized effect on the outcome of national races — like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan — will be forced to defend against cyber-threats posed by entire nation-state adversaries like Russia.

“The reality is: Given our Electoral College and our current politics, national elections are decided in this country in a few precincts, in a few key swing states," former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, who served under President Obama during the 2016 presidential election cycle, told members of the Senate intelligence committee. "The outcome, therefore, may dance on the head of a pin.”


, ,

Majority of Americans Support Getting Rid of Electoral College

, ,

The widespread discontent with the Electoral College has recently gone from a slow, constant simmer to a full-on boil.

Making Every Vote Count weighed in on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight, as CEO Reed Hundt joined the show to discuss the system’s inequities.


, ,

Dispatch from the Land of the Ignored

, ,

As everyone probably knows, in seeking the 270 electoral votes, both parties' candidates in the general election take for granted more than 40 states, where more than 80% of Americans live.

Nevertheless, some people assert that this skewed game makes candidates pay attention to small states and the Midwest. That was demolished succinctly last night by a respected Republican strategist:

Screen Shot 2019-03-20 at 8.32.47 AM.png

In just the last day numerous presidential candidates have inveighed against the current system. They all grasp that no one in the country really wants the presidential election in 2020 to be determined by the two parties spending two or $3 billion on trying to persuade voters in just five or six states. 

Well, there is an exception. One presidential candidate tweeted that if every vote in the country mattered, and were counted equally to pick the president, then the candidates would ignore all small states and all states in the Midwest.

The idea that with a national popular vote system the parties would pay no attention to voters in the Midwest or Great Plains is about as logical as saying that Amazon doesn’t deliver products outside big cities or cell phones don’t connect to people everywhere in the country. Everyone in business knows how to reach everyone in the country, and in the business of politics with the national popular vote the candidates would do what businesses do: try to get every single customer. 

More than visiting, advertising, opening get-out-the-vote offices, going on radio, supporting small town newspapers, polling and calling people in small population states, the candidates would actually have to listen to people in every state. When every vote counts, every person gets attention.

Politicians who like the status quo might well dislike national campaigns by the presidential candidates. Republicans would have the incentive to rebuild their party in Vermont; Democrats would seek voters in the Dakotas. Two party contests would occur in most states, and some incumbents would lose their seats. Voters would have choices to make. Elections would not be foregone conclusions and mere coronations. The political parties would have to be big tents, where compromise was required to bond factions together. Small market newspapers and broadcast stations would be invigorated by advertising and news about candidate visits. Things would change. Democracy does that.

For those who think the country’s politics are heading in the wrong direction—and rural areas have high percentages of people who feel this way—the best possible antidote for the troubles of today is the election of the president by the people.

When I was the chairman of the FCC one of the reasons we wanted the Internet to touch everyone was precisely because we thought that if the political parties could reach everyone cheaply and efficiently through digital technology they would do so. The only reason that doesn’t happen now is the electoral college system makes 40 states and 80% of the people functionally irrelevant (taken for granted as) to the outcome of the presidential election.  


,

Beto O'Rourke Criticizes Electoral College

,

Beto O’Rourke has joined other 2020 candidates Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Kirsten Gillibrand in noting the unfairness of the Electoral College as the system currently operates.

When asked about it on the campaign trail, O’Rourke said that the Electoral College "puts some states out of play all together. They don't feel like their votes really count." O’Rourke added that “if we really want every person to vote,” the system has to “make sure their votes count and go to the candidate of their choosing.”


Elizabeth Warren Calls for Constitutional Amendment to End Electoral College

At a town hall event in Jackson, Mississippi, Senator and 2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren called for a constitutional amendment to end the electoral college “to make sure that every vote counts.”

Warren noted that “in presidential elections, presidents don’t come to places like Mississippi” because they aren’t battleground states.  “I think everybody ought to have to come and ask for your vote,” she stated.

Senator Warren is right that the Electoral College system, as it currently operates, means that candidates are free to ignore voters in Mississippi and Massachusetts.  However, we can work within the system without a constitutional amendment to make every vote count.  One option is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.  With the recent additions of Colorado, New Mexico, and Delaware, the Compact has 189 of the 270 votes needed to go into effect and guarantee that the winner of the national popular vote becomes the president.


Colorado Governor Signs National Popular Vote

Colorado Governor Jared Polis has signed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact into law, officially adding Colorado’s nine electoral votes to the effort to get 270 electoral votes pledged to the candidate that wins the national popular vote.

Assuming the governors of New Mexico and Delaware follow suit and sign the bills that have recently passed in those states, as they both have stated they will, the Compact will have 189 electoral votes.


Delaware Votes to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

The Delaware legislature has voted to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The Compact now goes to Governor John Carney (D), who has pledged to sign it.

Once states with 270 votes join the Compact, all member states have pledged to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.  This will ensure that no one can become president without winning the most votes. It also means that candidates will no longer be able to campaign only in swing states while ignoring the majority of Americans.  Every vote will matter equally, and the president will have to govern in the interest of all Americans instead of special interests in a tiny fraction of states. 

Thirteen other states, most recently New Mexico and Colorado, and the District of Columbia have already passed the Compact, totaling 186 votes. Delaware has three electoral votes, bringing the total to 189, or 70% of the votes needed.


,

No Matter Where you Live, Your Vote Should Count

,

Here is Representative Seth Moulton on the national popular vote:

People often defend the electoral college by arguing that without it, presidential candidates would pay attention to only a few states. But that’s already the case because of the electoral college: Two-thirds of general-election presidential campaign events in 2016 were held in just six states, and 94 percent were held in just 12 states. In a winner-take-all-electoral-votes system, candidates campaign only in the states that are a toss-up.

But if we abolish the electoral college — either through a constitutional amendment or a national popular-vote compact— presidential candidates could earn votes anywhere, making them far more likely to campaign everywhere. Then, no matter where you live or how your neighbors vote, your vote would matter. As it should.


New Mexico Votes to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

The New Mexico Senate has joined the state’s House in voting to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The Compact now goes to Governor Michelle Grisham (D) for her approval.

Once states with 270 votes join the Compact, all member states have pledged to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, ensuring that the winner of the national popular vote becomes president. This will mean that candidates will be forced to campaign for all votes everywhere, and not just in a few swing states. All votes will matter equally, no matter where a person lives.

Twelve other states, most recently Colorado, and the District of Columbia have already passed the Compact, totaling 181 votes. New Mexico has five electoral votes, bringing the total to 186.


,

The Biggest Threat to Democracy is up to the States to Fix

,

The Democratic House has passed a massive election reform bill, HR 1:

The sweeping bill is aimed at getting money out of politics and increasing transparency around donors, cracking down on lobbying, and expanding voting rights for Americans by implementing provisions like automatic voter registration.

This bill would go a long way to restoring the voting rights of U.S. citizens.  However, it will probably never even get a vote in the Senate.  And HR 1 does not even address the reason that most Americans’ votes don’t count in the presidential election: the Electoral College.  Unless you happen to live in a swing state, your vote is either taken for granted or ignored. 

But there is some good news.  States have the power to allocate their electoral votes in any way they chose.  If the states pass a law that pledges their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, candidates will campaign for every vote everywhere and every vote will count equally.


,

What most people want

,

This chart shows that no presidential candidate could win the national popular vote by opposing immigration.

immigration chart.jpg

If the national popular vote mattered to choosing the president, there’s no doubt that the boiling divisive controversy over immigration would simmer down to the point of debating the necessary compromises over (a) who can stay, (b) who can come in, and (c) how to expel or keep out those who cannot stay or come in.


How would candidates campaign everywhere?

If the national popular vote mattered, then obviously in the general election the major candidates would have an incentive to campaign everywhere for every likely voter for their party.

To envision how they would conduct their campaigns we can look to the primaries where the nominees are selected and to commercial retail. In both cases—whether a person is selling a personality coupled with policy promises (the primaries) or a company is selling computer chips or potato chips (retail)—we know that the goal is close the sale to as many people as possible. 

The first step is designing the product. A candidate, like a chip (hardware or chewy-ware, if that's an acceptable neologism), would have to suit the preferences of most people. To win a national popular vote a candidate would have to reflect the majority preferences on immigration (it's good); battling climate change (it's necessary); early child care subsidized by the government (important); better publicly funded infrastructure including high voltage power, high speed trains, and repaired roads (critical); limits on rounds per magazine in automatic weapons (of course); and a host of other topics. 

Second, the candidate like the retailer has to build a brand. The means of branding would be to reach a national audience. That would lead to advertising on television content that huge audiences watch, like the Super Bowl or the Olympics. Currently 95% of all political advertising in the general election goes to local television in less than 10 states. We see in the critical early primaries, like Iowa, this same pattern within one state. But to build a national brand more than 5% would have to go to national advertising, such as on network shows. National branding would have to align with product-market fit; namely, the candidates' branding would have to appeal to the preferences of most people, instead of suiting niche audiences in a handful of states.

Third, just as Amazon delivers anything to anyone anywhere, candidates would deliver their messages to everyone. They would poll everyone in every town, which is feasible in the post-landline polling age we are now in. Their parties would offer to mail information, send out ballot applications virtually or by street mail, to everyone. The postal service would make more money; mail carriers would be part of the expansion of democracy to every precinct in the country. Social media advertising would go up in the aggregate, and would reach every demographic segment. It's important to note that the Internet does not care where you live. So using virtual mechanisms to reach everyone would certainly be part of national campaigning to win the national popular vote.

Fourth, television matters hugely, but in the current crabbed, confined system of competing only for swing votes in swing states, television advertising money in the general election goes to a handful of television stations. If the national vote mattered, middle and small sized television markets all over the country would get injections of political advertising. 

 Fifth, perhaps most interesting, local newspapers every four years would get a much needed injection of advertising. The cost of reaching their readers is relatively low and they offer a good way to present a candidacy. Newspapers in Mississippi and Missouri, North Dakota and North Carolina, and all the other areas currently in the land of ignored for the presidential candidates would not only get political advertising but they also would get interviews with candidates. They would have to hire reporters! That alone would reverse at least in part the sad trend of the last two decades of shrinking local news coverage. 

Sixth, in big cities television advertising is too expensive. So in the top 10 media markets, social media would be used to reach voters in very large part. 

Overall the amount of money spent would go up, but the amount spent per person would go down. This would be a relief for the badgered and beleaguered voters in the swing states who justifiably feel they are bothered way too much by advertising in presidential elections. 


, ,

ICYWTK

, ,

Someone asked me the other day what I most disliked about the Electoral College system (that any state law can change). Huge is the fact that the system virtually forces the candidates to ignore the views of the vast majority of Americans. But here's the whole list of what disturbs your correspondent.

1. Makes the views of most Americans irrelevant to presidential candidates.  The Electoral College system creates swing states—they are accidents of demography, states where the balance of right and left leaning voters by happenstance is roughly equal. Most state populations tilt one way or the other. These are the ignored states, because the candidates know who will win the plurality. But more than 80% of Americans live in the land of the ignored. There strong majorities support more government action on infrastructure, shift to clean power, limitations of the size of magazines in assault weapons, the well-off paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle to lower income households, more government support of higher education so college doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and immigration reform to give clarity to millions of people about whether they can or cannot ever become citizens. The Electoral College system motivates the candidates to appeal to the views of the few and ignore the wishes of the many.

2. Bad for Black Americans. The framers of the Constitution designed the Electoral College to make sure that no abolitionist could become president. When Lincoln got elected in 1860, and the civil war ensued, in the aftermath the former Confederate states in the south adapted the system to make sure that all electors from their state represented white supremacists and no former slaves could ever send an elector to choose the president. To this very day that same system suppresses the relevance of African American votes in almost every election. This is why Barack Obama got zero electors from South Carolina to Texas—right across the heartland of the old Confederacy.

3. Unfair to women. The Electoral College is biased against women. More women vote than men. Women turned out a bigger majority for their preferred candidate than men did for theirs. But somehow the choice of males got elected in 2016 and 2000. Why? The Electoral College made the election turn not on the views of the whole country but only on the skinny margins of a handful of states where the views of women were felt a little less strongly than in the whole country. 

4. Treats legal immigrants as second class citizens. The Electoral College is biased against immigrant citizens even to the second generation. Most immigrants live in just five states—the states that are portals to the country. In all these five except Florida the candidates of both parties take the election results for granted, and so they ignore the wishes of immigrants. And in Florida the immigrants who matter most matter are Spanish speakers not from Mexico. No candidate could campaign about a wall or rail against immigration except for the unfairness of the Electoral College.

5. Throws shade on workers. The Electoral College is biased against workers who hold jobs located mostly in the 40 states that are taken for granted. Loggers and longshoremen for example are ignored while coal miners get lots of attention. Why? Coal miners live in swing states. The others don't. This unfairness exists only because every vote does not matter—hardly any votes matter except those in swing states.


Delaware Senate Passes Popular Vote Bill with Bipartisan Support

The Delaware Senate has passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact 14-7, with all Democrats and two Republicans backing the bill.  The bill now moves to the Delaware House, with a vote likely next week. 

If presidential candidates have to compete for the popular vote to win, every vote will count. Whether you live in state that's big or small, red or blue, all votes will be counted the same.


Delaware and Maine Consider the National Popular Vote

Legislative committees in Delaware and Maine have referred the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact for a full vote.  If Delaware and Maine both pass the legislation, the Compact will have 188 votes.  Once states with 270 total electoral votes join the Compact, the states agree to pledge all of their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote, guaranteeing that person will become the president.


,

FiveThirtyEight Takes a Look at the Popular Vote Movement

,

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is gaining momentum and getting attention. Political forecasting website  FiveThirtyEight notes that with the addition of Colorado, the first state to join the compact that is not solidly blue, the Compact has reached a huge milestone and is two-thirds of the way to the 270 votes needed to guarantee the president would have to win the popular vote.

538.jpg

The FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast also covered the national popular vote movement, and discussed the ways that the Electoral College system distorts the way candidates campaign. 

In reality, the problem goes much further than campaign stops or advertising money.  The Electoral College system also warps the way that presidents seeking re-election govern—and the consequences are very real.