According to the Washington Post Democrats are reeling from the nomination battle by complaining about the structure of the United States Senate. The state system for composing the senate cannot be changed by amendment or otherwise.
On the other hand, if the incumbent president needed to win the plurality of votes cast in the nation to be reelected then you can believe that presidential appointments to the judiciary or indeed any job would be designed to appeal to the majority of the country. And it does not take a new constitutional convention or even an amendment to change the method of selecting the electors. Any state can do what it wants in this respect.
Turnout Surge in Primaries Indicates 2018 Midterms Will Be Highly Contested
Americans are more aware than ever that their participation in elections is essential to maintaining a healthy government that is accountable and responsive to their voices. Nearly a fifth (19.6%) of registered voters – about 37 million – cast ballots in House primary elections, according to the Pew Research Center. The resurgence in primary voting validates the polls finding that voter enthusiasm is at a record high, just four years after the midterm elections saw the worst turnout since 1942.
We know that Americans do vote when they feel that their vote matters. How many millions more of Americans would vote if we had a national popular vote for president by 2020?
How to Boost Turnout? Create the Proper Incentives for All Parties
At this link you’ll see an article explaining the obstacles states create for voting—or, you could say, the steps the states establish to guarantee that voters are legitimate. But the article misses the main point. Because the presidential selection system takes for granted more than 80% of all voters neither major party has adequate incentive to smooth the path for people to vote. If the major party candidates had to compete to win the national popular vote, then they would each battle to reduce barriers for their likely voters to get to the polls. Each party would still insist that the opposing party not be able to perpetrate voter fraud. Yet, while still insisting on fair practices, each major party would make a concerted effort to increase turnout as much as possible on Election Day. They would have every incentive to boost turnout in every state by reducing unnecessary structural obstacles.
A Clear and Present Danger: and What To Do About It
In this week’s New Yorker, Jane Mayer covers a new body of research by scholars concluding that “in the 2016 election, Putin’s meddling was decisive.” As Mayer’s piece illustrates, the winner-take-all method of electing the president makes states where the presidential contest is closest into the most vulnerable targets of all for foreign manipulation. These same vulnerable states are also the most critical to victory in our current electoral model, given that the winner-take-all system is in use by 48 out of 50 states. The Russian social media attacks on candidates and disinformation campaigns, micro-targeting voters in order to sabotage outcomes in these critical states, were largely successful, according to the new research summarized by Mayer.
If every vote counted equally in every state, foreign adversaries would have a significantly more difficult time making an impact. That’s not to say it couldn’t happen, but we would not run the same risk of interference in only two to three states potentially altering an election.
We face a clear and present danger. But we don’t need a Jack Ryan to save us— we need the protection of a national popular vote that matters.
Sliding Away from Democracy: the Case of Poland
Anne Applebaum has published in Atlantic this chilling piece about the Polish move away from democracy. The underlying thesis: some, many perhaps, in Poland think the country is better off if it "is ruled by people who deserve to rule." The fundamental claim for democracy is that all citizens collectively should decide by a majority vote, or at least a healthy plurality, who "deserves to rule." Step one down the dismal Polish slide toward authoritarian illiberal autocracy is for citizens not to vote. The easiest way to convince people not to vote is to adopt a system in which their votes don't matter. So, to make a big story really short, Poland and the United States need to make sure that every citizen's vote really matters -- matters to the decision about who rules, matters so much that the candidates for president want and need to win most votes, matters in determining the winner, matters as much as everyone else's vote (because unequal voting power means someone's vote doesn't matter as much, and maybe doesn't matter at all).
The United States should make sure that all votes for president matter in all these senses, and the winner of the presidential election should commit to persuading Poland and every other country of the world that following the example of this reform will make every country better off.
The Supreme Court and the National Popular Vote
The Supreme Court as an institution would be a big winner if presidential candidates had to win the national popular vote in order to prevail in the Electoral College. Why? Because the majority of people in the country prefer relatively non-partisan moderate judges who do not have an aggressively liberal or conservative philosophy. And the less political the Court appears to be, the greater the respect and approval it obtains from the populace.
But I am a graduate of Yale Law so take this comment with lots of salt.
Pew: "Voter Enthusiasm at Record High in Nationalized Midterm Environment"
According to Pew, “voter enthusiasm is relatively high among voters in both parties:” http://www.people-press.org/2018/09/26/voter-enthusiasm-at-record-high-in-nationalized-midterm-environment/
If you would like to learn more about how we can increase voter participation nationwide through a national popular vote, please consider signing up for our monthly supporter updates. We respect your privacy and won’t share your contact information.
Allowing Democratic Decline Means Stifling Economic Growth
We should be concerned about the decline of democracy around the world for many reasons, and one of them is the harm that abandoning democracy would inflict on national economies.
That stands to reason given a new study published by the University of Chicago (Acemoglu, Naidu, et. al). The study, entitled “Democracy Does Cause Growth” concludes that “democratizations increase GDP per capita by about 20% in the long run”.
In short, democracy leads to growth and prosperity. The global trend in movements against democratic governance is therefore a great threat, not only to the erosion of freedom and civil liberties, but also the economic well-being of all citizens.
On the other side of things, is it possible that making our democratic institutions more robust— for example by implementing the National Popular Vote— could cause an increase in GDP or even prevent a future recession?
National Popular Vote Would Help Protect Nation From Influence of Russian Disinformation
Professor Josh Douglas, an election law and voting rights expert and professor at the University of Kentucky, had this to say about the Electoral College: it creates a highly exploitable vulnerability in our presidential elections that could alter the results; under the U.S. Electoral College system and its current political demographics, "eight to 10 states will typically 'decide' a presidential election."
The reach of Russian interference, consisting of highly targeted social media disinformation campaigns in the United States, poses a national security threat and a threat to democracy in general. There is even strong evidence, uncovered by journalist Casey Michel that Russia has been backing the Texas secessionist movement for years through covert operations, including during the 2016 election.
The 2016 presidential election brought the issue of Russian meddling to the fore, as the Russians brazenly exploited social media in efforts designed to exacerbate partisan divisions and the political polarization in the American public.
The implications of our Electoral College system and of the winner-take-all method of apportioning states electors from each state, make the consequences of hacking elections, even on a small scale, potentially disastrous. They could in fact tip national presidential elections in whatever way the Russians decide. Senior Trump administration officials informed the public on August 2nd that Russia plans to interfere in this year’s midterm elections in November, as well as in the 2020 presidential election.
Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.), the Vice-Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said, “a change in a national election doesn't require penetration into 50 states ... arguably, you could pick two or three states, and two or three jurisdictions, and alter an election."
Professor Douglas agreed, "the unique nature of the Electoral College, with the effect of making only a few states matter, means that it is presumably easier for a foreign actor to target just those states."
If we were to change the system to a National Popular Vote, the effects of hacking by foreign governments would likely have little effect. It would be very difficult for any actors, even with the backing of a nation state, to subvert an election in which every vote mattered.
Democracy East and West
The United States and India are the world’s two largest democracies. They are populous and diverse. This national unity through cultural diversity is what the two nations have been known for. There is another bond between them.
Emerging as a democracy one-and-a-half centuries after America, India has looked to the United States as the model of a democratic republic with a global leadership role. Both democracies are grounded in the principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and judicial integrity.
Similarly, the US Constitution has been a founding document for other nations, for example in South American countries, though quite a few there have slipped away from democracy at times. Democracies around the world are now backsliding—in the case of Hungary, where one party gained the majority in the last election and then imposed restrictions on other parties to prevent them from standing a chance in future elections. These examples teach us that, once lost, democracy may be very hard to regain, and reform— including election reforms— must therefore be fought for before it is in danger of extinction.
India and the United States are also going through, in parallel, a period of deep division and extreme polarization. In both Indian and American politics and government, there is a high and rising risk of eroding democratic principles and norms. The recent political trends in both countries, it seems to me as an Indian who has gone to law school, traveled in and cares about America, are less about the traditional left-right divide and more about the bitter clash between narrow xenophobic populism and a more generous appreciation of their countries’ roles in the global community. Politicians have exploited this clash and the electorate is not only splintered but also confused, unaware of the issues, fearful and distrustful.
I do not presume to have a prescription for how the United States can fix itself, but I do know that it is important to India and the rest of the world that it do so in a way consistent with the principles of democracy, [transparency], freedom of the press and an independent and non-partisan judiciary. India must also undertake reforms that advance these values, protecting its institutions and civil society from the threat of democracy declining. Nations can and should be models for each other. Now, more than ever, it is important for like-minded countries, like the United States, India and others, to uphold and pursue the values we share consistent with our own distinctive cultures.
Capt. Loveleen Kaur Mann is a former JAG officer of the Indian Army. She is a fourth generation Sikh soldier and belongs to Panjab, India. During her corporate stints, she has had the opportunity to work with colleagues of religious diversity including in Kashmir. She is an alumna of Georgetown University Law Center, Washington DC. Her interests include skydiving and exploring new cultures and places, having travelled 34 US states.
Politico: “The Electoral College Is a National Security Threat”
By design, the Electoral College was intended to protect presidential elections from foreign attack. "Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Electoral College could shield the United States ‘from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils,’” write Matthew Olsen and Benjamin Haas in Politico. Times have changed! Unlike the original electoral college, electors in 48 states are now awarded to the candidate who wins the plurality of votes cast in that state. The closest states are therefore the most valued by the campaigns. They are also the most vulnerable to interference, exactly what Hamilton most feared. Olsen and Haas continue, “In the social media age, the Electoral College system provides ripe microtargeting grounds for foreign actors who intend to sabotage presidential elections via information and disinformation campaigns, as well as by hacking our voting infrastructure.” Is there an answer to this unintended consequence?” What’s the answer then?
According to Olsen and Haas, counting every vote equally: “What if the national popular vote determined the president instead of the Electoral College? No voter would be more electorally powerful than another. It would be more difficult for a foreign entity to sway many millions of voters scattered across the country than concentrated groups of tens of thousands of voters in just a few states.”
Kid Hacks Voting Machine Replica in 10 Minutes!
Kid Hacks Voting Machine Replica in 10 minutes! https://tinyurl.com/ycfxfhwg
What can we do to stop this? One way is if we change the rules of our presidential system so that the winner of the most votes cast nationally always becomes the president. Under a national popular vote system, manipulating a few thousand votes in one state would not be enough to change the national outcome.
The Wrong 'Checks and Balances'
Consider these findings by the U.S. Elections Project and NonProfitVOTE:
“In 2016, four battleground states alone – Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania – were the target of the majority of campaign ad spending (71%) and candidate appearances (57%). Together the 14 battleground states absorbed 99% of ad spending and 95% of candidate visits for campaign purposes.”
This is absurd and inexcusable.
All states’ voices and all citizens’ votes should matter when we elect the president.
But the voices of millions of voters will remain off the radar until we change the rules of our elections. The current rules dissuade candidates who want to win from conducting truly national campaigns that target every state. Instead, as these numbers show, they target only a handful. Why is that?
Contenders for President cannot win under the current electoral system unless they push all their resources into the handful of states that are “up-for-grabs”; they cannot simply afford to campaign in states where their victory is already guaranteed because a simple majority wins all a states’ electoral votes (Maine and Nebraska are the only exceptions). Our presidential contests are bizarrely unbalanced in that way. A small minority of states have a monopoly on the real decision-making power over who becomes President! The stakes are so high in these key states that most states, and the millions of voters who do not live in a swing-state, take a backseat.
One way to make all votes matter would be to use one of many presidential selection systems that would require candidates to win the popular vote to become President. We can still work within the current Electoral College framework— the states could pass laws to pledge Electors to the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide. There is nothing in the Constitution or any other federal laws which contradict this course of change.
It is time now to change the system so that every vote will count.
If Voting By Mail Increases Turnout, Why Aren't More States Using It?
We know that vote-by-mail options are effective at increasing turnout, so why aren’t more states using it? Partisan explanations don’t explain why states are not adopting the easy and cost-saving fix; for example, although some believe the measure may favor Democracts, it depends largely on the race in question: for example, incumbent Democrat Mark Udall lost his Senate seat in the first-ever vote-by-mail election in the 2014 Colorado midterms.
The mail-in ballot option is becoming more common in state and local elections, but few states allow it for the presidential vote. A likely culprit for why this method is not used in all our elections is that our current system discourages both parties from pushing turnout except in the dozen-or-so swing-states. Those states provide the path to victory and votes there are far more influential than all the votes cast in the remaining 38 states and D.C. A national popular vote would change all of that and make it imperative to get out the vote everywhere. Your vote should matter, and you should have options that make it more convenient to vote!
Vote-By-Mail Option Increases Turnout
Colorado became the first state to implement vote-by-mail voting in the 2014 midterm elections.
In a year in which voter turnout reached a historic low nationally, a study of voting patterns in Colorado revealed that 3.3% more voters than expected cast ballots (with a robust sample size of 2.8 million Coloradans analyzed). Incredibly, the increase in voting was highest among people predicted to be unlikely voters by multiple criteria. Young people ages 18 to 24 voted in far greater numbers than expected (low turnout by younger voters is a consistent trend nationally over the past several decades). Even more surprisingly, a lower expected probability of turnout by an individual voter predicted a higher likelihood that he or she would change their entrenched habits and vote in the midterms. Similarly, in the 2016 presidential race, states which had adopted vote-by-mail ballots consistently ranked among the highest in turnout (Colorado, Oregon and Washington for instance, which now use vote-by-mail in all elections).
America's Voting Machines Are Vulnerable. How Can We Weaken Hacks?
At the Def Con hacking conference in Las Vegas, participants have found, “The vulnerabilities in America's voting systems are staggering,’ a group representing hackers warned lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Thursday -- just over a month before the midterm elections.”
Writes CNN, “A voting tabulation machine the group says is used in more than two dozen states is vulnerable to be remotely hacked, they said, claiming, ‘hacking just one of these machines could enable an attacker to flip the Electoral College and determine the outcome of a presidential election.’” In our current way of selecting the president by winner-take-all, a few thousand votes in a close, competitive state have more weight than millions of votes cast in predictably red or blue states. This makes our way of counting votes especially vulnerable to hacks.
What can we do to stop this? One answer is if we change the rules of our presidential system so that winner of the most votes cast nationally always becomes the president. Under a national popular vote system, manipulating a few thousand votes in one state would not be enough to change the national outcome. If you would like to see this happen, please click below:
Disillusioned by a Broken System: Some Plan Not To Vote, Believing Their ‘Votes Do Not Count’
A Suffolk University poll released this past April underscores voters’ disillusionment with U.S. elections; many registered and non-registered voters alike believe that their votes “do not count” and, accordingly, said they do not intend to vote this November.
Midterm turnout is traditionally lower than turnout during presidential election years. However, it is still troubling that this belief has become widely held—and in this poll was the most common reason cited for planning not to vote. This echoes non-voters’ same concern with our presidential elections: a feeling that their votes do not count or matter. In the case of the presidency, they are correct in most cases. The current model for electing the president ends up devaluing millions of votes; votes which are not cast in a dozen or fewer states that hold the key to victory count for very little since they have little to no chance of influencing the election’s outcome. To voters dissatisfied with this flawed system, our presidential electoral process can instill negative expectations of all elections, including down-ballot contests. The preconception that U.S. elections are dysfunctional has eroded both trust in government and voter participation, and it will continue to do so unless we demand reform.
Let’s change that system so that every vote for president DOES matter, no matter what. A national popular vote to choose the next President would not only correct the imbalances of our current system, but it should be a step in the right direction to restore voter confidence and participation. As we have noted before, Americans do vote when they know that their vote matters.
Essential Reading on Democracy: Dr. Carol Anderson’s One Person, One Vote
The concept of “One person, one vote” became a widely articulated core principle of the Constitution when it was first spoken by Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Supreme Court in 1963. In Dr. Carol Anderson of Emory University’s new book One Person, No Vote, the scholar exposes how this fundamental egalitarian principle of Constitutional law and its enforcement by the Civil Rights Act of 1965 has again become violated with shocking impunity throughout the American South. After the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby ruling which rolled back key protections of the Act, many states have implemented discriminatory measures which effectively disenfranchise large numbers of black voters. Along with Dr. Anderson’s seminal book White Rage, which chronicled the near-century of disenfranchisement that preceded the Civil Rights Act despite the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870, One Person, No Vote is essential reading for all citizens concerned with the resurgent anti-democratic pressures in our society.
"Will Florida’s Ex-Felons Finally Regain the Right to Vote?"
“Across the country, more than six million people have lost the right to vote because of their criminal records. More than 1.5 million of them live in Florida, a higher number than in any other state,” writes Emily Bazelin for NY Times. Bazelin’s piece highlights the experiences of two advocates, one Republican, the other Democrat, fighting for “the expansion of the franchise to be a key pillar of the platform of both parties.” A proposed ballot initiative for this November, Amendment 4, would restore the voting rights of ex-felons (although Floridians convicted of murder and sex offenses would not be able to vote under the proposed law). And it's a popular reform, with 71 percent support according to a recent poll. So why would anyone want to oppose it?
In the winner-take-all system of electing the president, the stakes are potentially very high. If this law went into effect, it could possibly change the balance of voters favoring a Democrat or Republican for president in any given year. That might be of less concern in a red state or a blue state, but Florida is very often among the most closely contested states nationwide. in 2012 Florida was the closest state in the country in electing President Obama. In our last election, President Trump carried the state by less than 1.2 percent. And because Florida is among the most populous, it has a lot electoral votes to give.
But what if we elected our president by the winner of the most votes cast nationally? The overall impact of roughly a million more votes cast by ex-felons in Florida would be significantly less likely to determine the winner of the presidency alone, but citizens in every state as well as Florida would finally have a voice in electing our president because every voter would matter equally.
If you agree, consider being a supporter of Making Every Vote Count. Click this button to see what is entailed in signing up as a supporter.
A National Popular Vote Would Weaken The Impact of Cyberwar
In today’s WSJ, Judith Miller has a new op-ed, "Surprise--Ukrainians Are Bullish on Trump."
Writes Miller, “Russia’s cyberwar against its neighbor [Ukraine] has drawn the attention of American and European analysts, who believe Moscow’s tactics demonstrate the country’s ambition and ability to target other nations. Jared Cohen, chief executive of Alphabet’s cybersecurity company, Jigsaw, notes that Russian attacks in Ukraine have been “multi-dimensional”—deepening mistrust between Ukrainians and their government while exploiting ethnic and religious divisions.”
In the current presidential system in the US, a few thousand votes in one state are enough to win an election, and misinformation spread through cyberattacks can have a heightened impact in the closest states. On the other hand, if we changed the rules so that the winner of the presidency must be the person who receives the most votes nationally, every vote cast nationwide would count equally and manipulations in one state would have far less impact. Here’s how you can: