Electoral College Killed Auto Industry Aid Bill - And Michigan House Approves National Popular Vote Bill to Kill Electoral College
When the U.S. Senate killed the auto industry rescue bill last week, some conservative commentators saw it as payback for Michigan voting the wrong way in the November election. William D. Zeranski at the popular rightwing American Thinker site argued, "We know which way those 17 Electoral College votes will go. So, how does helping bailout the Big Three help the GOP?"
Local Michigan Republican leaders themselves began worrying that national party leaders would begin ignoring state concerns after McCain lost the Great Lakes states. As Republican pollster Steve Lombardo said after the election, "It's a matter of worry...It may be that Republicans begin to write off Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota."
Of course, the writing off of all Michigan voters only makes sense politically because of the Electoral College. Under that system, states rather than voters are represented in the Presidential vote and the country is divided into "swing states" - where Presidential candidates need to campaign - versus the rest of the states, which can be ignored as "safe" states for one party and written off as useless by the other.
Michigan House Approves National Popular Vote for President: But there is an option to end that system. In a vote that probably not coincidentally occured the same day as the U.S. Senate vote against the auto industry, the Michigan State House in an overwhelming bipartisan vote (65-36) approved HB 6010 to join the interstate compact to de facto abolish the Electoral College and assure that the winner of the National Popular Vote (NPV) becomes President. Michigan House Republicans provided almost a third of those votes, recognizing that under the Electoral College system, their national party counterparts were essentially abandoning them.
As Michigan state leaders argued, the point of a popular vote for President is not just for the abstract democratic principle of assuring that the popular winner become President; it's to encourage candidates to fight for every vote in every state and never to have a reason to ignore their concerns. Majority floor leader Steve Tobocman, the main sponsor of the bill, noted:
"The [National Popular Vote] also will discourage candidates from ignoring so-called 'fly-over states.' John McCain bailed out of Michigan and Barack Obama pulled out of North Dakota for one reason: those electoral votes were out of reach."
NPV- Making Flyover States and Issues Matter: In fact, despite talk of a "fifty-state campaign," the reality was that 98% of Presidential campaign events and spending went to just fifteen states-- and four states received over 50% of all campaign attention, according to a new report by FairVote. Thirty-four states were essentially written off by both campaigns.
The effects in the elections were obvious: the targetted 15 states had a turnout of 66.9%, while the remaining states had a much lower 60.7% turnout. In fact, in fourteen of the "flyover" states, voter turnout declined compared to 2004.
But beyond the election, it's the marginalization of the issues that matter to those flyover states that is the most pernicious effect of the Electoral College system. There should be a substantive political debate on any industry investments by the federal government, but we have a broken system when the auto industry bill could be dismissed by some national Republicans because Michigan is no longer a swing state.
And the problem is not just that individual states get ignored. Because African-Americans, Asian-Americans and Hispanics, for example, are concentrated in non-swing states, Presidential candidates have downplayed civil rights issues for a generation, leading the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, the National Latino Congress and the Asian American Action Fund, to all endorse National Popular Vote as an alternative to our present system..
States Moving Rapidly Towards National Popular Vote: A survey of 800 Michigan voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 73% overall support for a national popular vote for President, reflecting broader national support for National Popular Vote. When the Michigan House voted for HB 6010, it became the twenty-second legislative chamber to vote for NPV, with Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey enacting it into law.
No state should be a flyover state whose issues like the auto
industry aid bill get dismissed on partisan grounds. Instead,
legislative leaders across the country are embracing the National
Popular Vote compact in hopes of creating a Presidential electoral
system where every vote matters -- and is fought for by Presidential
candidates -- and the issues that matter in each state matter equally
in the national debate.
An exemplar of modern GOP logic. Further comment would be redundant.
December 16, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its obvioous the GOP deosn't want to represent ALL Americans.
December 16, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. They want your vote, not your input, and certainly not your resistance.
Ironically, the choice of Sarah Palin as VP candidate revealed one of the breaks in the GOP--evangelicals are supposed to be used as a political billy club, not made vice president. McCain's goose was cooked once he made that choice.
It's government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy--all the rest is just a question of how to purchase enough votes in what the Republicans in Charge view as our outmoded one-person-one-vote system.
December 16, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
But getting back to the popular vote system, do you think that going with pop vote would cause flyovers of underpopulated states and heavy campaigning in more-bang-for-the-buck areas?
Also, if candidates had to fight for every vote, would this increase the already astronomical costs of campaigns?
I think that the Electoral College system could go away, but we need to understand how things would change as a result.
December 16, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes-- it might increases costs of campaigning, but that would go along with needing to reach everyone, which is the point. Or maybe it would mean that it would no longer make sense to carpet bomb a handful of states just to get that crucial last few percentage points for the "winner take all" result in that state, so spending could decrease a bit in many states.
Hard to know what would happen exactly on cost but it would mean that consistent outreach would matter more than high-stakes targetting of a few states-- which seems like a great improvement.
December 16, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes and no. The following large states are typically NOT considered battleground states:
New York
California
Texas
When have you seen a candidate from either party campaign there once the primaries have been decided. Even big states have low-density areas, like Upstate New York. Even mostly-empty states have decent-sized cities in them where one might consider campaigning if it meant a few thousand votes.
So you'd see more action in both one-party states and those with low population density. It would be a good thing.
December 16, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can see why "liberals," broadly understood, would tend to lean toward a popular vote.
However, looking at this population density map:
http://cohn.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/population-density.png
leads me to think that if Michigan is concerned about either resurrecting its industrial economy and/or a much better safety net, then NPV may be less productive than throwing their weight around as a swing state.
It strikes me that the part of the country with the greatest population density are not only ideologically post-industrial, but ideologically reconstituting the old notion of a "career" into chameleonic "career changing." Everything about the changing terms of the labor contract between employer and employee (organized or not) that promotes instability (and frustrates the upper mid-west), people in the population centers have been actively reconstituting as a virtue. Individuals should constantly job hop, career change, self employ themselves, get three degrees, and anyone failing to adapt is written off. If you find yourself having to do that (really they're pushed out), sooner or later you find yourself deciding that what you "have to do" is really the "right thing to do."
So, I'm not sure I see the coastal population centers voting in ways that help the Michigan economy any more than the southern Senators. Maybe there's enough rural voters facing similar economic challenges as Michigan to counterbalance the coasts. (But, do they collectively have enough Yalies to re-populate the public policy institutes? Somehow I doubt it).
I guess I'm not convinced. I seem to remember Obama pulling ahead of McCain in the rust belt states last fall, and want to hang onto the notion for a bit. I think the worsening economy and the economic concerns of the mid-west in combination are the main reason Obama won. And, I don't think that's such a bad thing to keep in focus, because I'm not so sanguine about this chameleonic career changing model--even in the northeast.
I vote for developing the rustbelt as a political thorn in the collective neo-liberal backside.
December 16, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not entirely sold on the NPV idea either. I think it could have lots of unintended consequences.
The biggest concern is that it would tend to turn the presidential race into a massive "American Idol" type experience. There'd be little need for real party-type organizing because you could build your base from anywhere, and in this day of hyper-media marketing, it would give the upper hand to the well-oiled instead of the well-honed.
If we had a NPV election, we'd most likely be ushering in Hillary as POTUS instead of SOS.
I also can't think of a single reason why a candidate wouldn't feel they could toss aside small rural states and favor the coasts with maybe a pitstop in Chicago for lunch.
My own Los Angeles County metro area has about 17+ million, that's about the same as the entire populations of WY, DC, VT, ND, AK, SD, DE, MT, RI, HI, NH, ME, ID combined, plus half of NE. For New York, toss in the rest of NE, and add WV, NM and add rural NV.
The NPV sounds nice in theory, and like an old curmudgeonly uncle, it raises it's head every 4 years, but I'm not so sure giving the heave ho to Uncle Sam E College is altogether a wise move.
December 16, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many. The first thing that would have to change is that the feds would have to establish voting requirements. Otherwise, how would you feel about a solid red state like Montana lowering the voting age to 16 and keeping the polls open until midnight?
There are a number of people that are registered in more than one state. There is a smaller number that votes in more than one state. Are you ready for national voter registration and some form of voter ID?
The easiest way for non-swing states to get more attention is to assign electoral vores by congressional district rather than by the whole state.
December 17, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
EthanQ - Your vote would be worth about twice as much as it is today. And due to the fact that the outcome in CA is pretty certain, it means that they don't even have to listen to you to get your 1/2 vote.
If you want to continue to promote the needs of WY, MT, AK etc then keep things just as they are.
This would allow DC to have a say as well.
December 16, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
December 17, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.
So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be "mob rule" in presidential elections, but whether the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. In 2004, candidates spent over two thirds of their visits and two-thirds of their money in just 6 states and 99% of their money in just 16 states, while ignoring the rest of the country.
The current system does NOT provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
December 17, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment says:
“no state [shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” [Emphasis added]
It has been argued by some that it is not permissible, under the Equal Protection clause, for some states to close their polls at 6 PM while others close at 9 PM ; for some states to conduct their election entirely by mail while other states conduct their (non-absentee) voting at the polls; and for some states to permit violent felons to vote while others prohibit it (absent a pardon). However, the U.S. Constitution does not require that the election laws of all 50 states are identical in virtually every respect. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only restricts a given state in the manner it treats persons “within its jurisdiction.” The Equal Protection Clause imposes no obligation on a given state concerning a “person” in another state who is not “within its [the first state’s] jurisdiction.” State election laws are not identical now nor is there anything in the National Popular Vote compact that would force them to become identical. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution permits states to conduct elections in varied ways.
The National Popular Vote bill does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
December 17, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Presidential candidates currently do everything within their power to raise as much money as they possibly can from donors throughout the country. They then allocate the money that they raise nationally to places where it will do the most good toward their goal of winning the election.
Money doesn't grow on trees. The fact that candidates would spend their money more broadly (that is, in all 50 states) would not, in itself, loosen up the wallet of a single donor anywhere in the country. Candidates will continue to try to raise as much money as economic considerations permit. Economic considerations by donors determines how much money will be available, not the existence of an increases number of places where the money might be spent.
Under the current system, they spend two-thirds of their time and money in just six closely divided battleground states; 80% in just nine states; and 99% in just 16 states. That's precisely what they should do in order to get elected under the current system, because the voters of two-thirds of the states simply don't matter. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns of voters of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
If every vote mattered throughout the United States, as it would under a national popular vote, candidates would have to reallocate the money they raise over all 50 states.
December 17, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York's use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming--both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
As of 2008, the National Popular Vote bill has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
December 17, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red” states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
● Texas (62% Republican),
● New York (59% Democratic),
● Georgia (58% Republican),
● North Carolina (56% Republican),
● Illinois (55% Democratic),
● California (55% Democratic), and
● New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
● Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
● New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
● Georgia — 544,634 Republican
● North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
● Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
● California — 1,023,560 Democratic
● New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.
Under a national popular vote, a Democratic presidential candidate could no longer write off Kansas (with four congressional districts) because it would matter if he lost Kansas with 37% of the vote, versus 35% or 40%. Similarly, a Republican presidential candidate could no longer take Kansas for granted, because it would matter if he won Kansas by 63% or 65% or 60%. A vote gained or lost in Kansas is just as important as a vote gained or lost anywhere else in the United States.
Although no one can predict exactly how a presidential campaign would be run if every vote were equal throughout the United States, it is clear that candidates could not ignore voters in any state. The result of a national popular vote would be a 50-state campaign for President. Any candidate ignoring any particular state would suffer a political penalty in that state.
December 17, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind that the main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
For example, in California, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise we wouldn't have recently had governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still 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 voters in Ohio.
December 17, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person's vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the winner-take-all rule (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 "battleground" districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including North Carolina and California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if the a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
December 17, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink