In presidential elections, the big state of Alaska is a small state. It has only three electoral votes. In a country of 311 million people, it has a mere 722,000. Worse, it can be hard for presidential candidates to get to Alaska, given its distance from the 48 contiguous states. Alaska needs every advantage it can get during presidential elections, which makes it all the more puzzling that at least some Alaskan legislators are seriously considering National Popular Vote (anti–Electoral College) legislation.
The Alaskan legislature convened less than two weeks ago, but its senate’s Finance Committee has already taken up the matter in a hearing. If the committee approves NPV, the matter will head to the senate floor for a vote: NPV was already passed by two other senate committees last year.
Some Alaskans have fallen for the argument that a direct national election will bring more attention to Alaska because “every vote will be equal.” A vote obtained in Alaska will have the same legal weight as a vote in California. Thus, presidential candidates will flock to the state in droves. Right?
Wrong. Perhaps Alaska does sometimes get less attention than other states, but it does not follow that eliminating the Electoral College will improve the situation.
The Census Bureau estimates that the most heavily populated state, California, currently has about 37.7 million people; it is allocated 55 electoral votes. Alaska, by contrast, has roughly 722,000 people; it has three electoral votes. California has more than 52 times as many people as Alaska, but only 18 times as many electoral votes. If, as NPV contends, Alaska receives a disproportionately small amount of attention now, when the difference is three to 55 electoral votes, how much greater would the problem be if the relevant difference were 722,000 people to nearly 38 million people?
Alaska will never receive as much attention as California in presidential campaigns, but such will be the case under any election system. The Electoral College does not eliminate this disparity, but it does minimize its severity. Can you imagine a vice presidential candidate hailing from Alaska in a world without the Electoral College?
Alaska may be big, but it needs the protections offered to small states by our current presidential election system. Its legislators should think twice before casually throwing away the Electoral College just because they heard an appealing sound bite from NPV’s lobbyists.
— Tara Ross is the author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.
The elected officials of that state seem weirdly out of step with the conservatives who predominate the population there. Do conservatives in Alaska even vote, and, if so, is this really something that's high on the typical conservative voter's agenda?
My guess is they do vote, but never have actual conservatives on the ballot from which to choose. If I'm right, it's time to effectuate your numbers into results, because legislation like this is patently absurd.
It reflects poorly on the residents of Alaska, too. All it takes is simple arithmetic to avoid making Alaska even less relevant.
It would hardly make less sense to secede from the Union, politically, although arithmetic would dictate that your state would have a lot less money in that event (without all the federal subsidies).
Untethering yourselves from those subsidies might just yield a different brand of politician. But, something has to give. It's one of the most conservative populations, with some of the most moderate politicians.
Moderate or no, any Alaska pol who supports this piece of legislation makes a strong case for an IQ test requirement before being placed on the ballot.
CAPTHCA: "Beg the question"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRoss is missing the real problem with the EC. It's not big vs small; its Solid vs Swing.
The EC makes most states Old Reliables for one party or the other. Candidates and operatives are free to concentrate solely on the voters and interests of the handful of swing states, and they do exactly that. Ohio and Florida are wildly over-represented in campaign appearances and party platforms.
In 2000, Medicare Part D was the ONLY subject of debate between Bush and Gore, even though the country didn't want it and didn't need it. But polls had determined that those 700 old ladies in Palm Beach could be moved by Medicare Part D, so it was the whole election; and those ladies were the only real voters.
Small Alaska has been an Old Reliable for Republicans, so its interests are way down the list; Big California has been solid D, so its interests are way down the list.
Without the EC, parties would have to develop broad nationwide coalitions with no particular geographical center, and the party operatives would have much less leverage. There would be absolutely no point in focusing on a few hundred people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> Can you imagine a vice presidential candidate hailing from Alaska
> in a world without the Electoral College?
Er, do you REALLY think McCain chose Palin because Alaska was so important to his prospects in the general election?
---
By the way, the problem that both CA and AK share is nobody cares very much about either state. OK, California is important but only for fundraising purposes ... the GOP hasn't been competitive in 20 years and likely will remain powerless thanks to the growth of the Hispanic population there. The beauty with NPV is every single vote becomes equally important! Doesn't matter if it's a deep Red, deep Blue or swing state -- they all matter.
MARCU$
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is total nonsense. The reason "nobody cares about California" except for money, is because UNDER THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM there is no reason for any presidential candidate to campaign there. The Republican has no chance of winning and the Democrat has no chance of losing.
Under a national popular vote system, the candidates will ONLY campaign where they can run up the vote totals in large amounts.
That means campaigning in partisan states, and corrupt states, with very large populations.
For Democrats that means California, New York and Illinois, for Republicans that means Texas.
No one will give a rat's behind about the rest the of the country because it will be about even.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith three electoral votes, Alaska already has a disproportionate influence in the presidental election relative to its population. Their request doesn't make sense to me. They should leave well-enough alone.
Seriously, do you really want politicians coming up to spoil Alaska's gorgeous vistas? Greasy, oily politicians swarming into Alaska? It will be Valdez II.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe reason why Democrats are so in love with the idea of a national popular vote, is because it means the party that cheats the best, will always win.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it has more to do with being able to avoid campaigning among the hicks and not having wagyu beef on the local menus on the campaign trail. I rather like getting them out of their box from time to time, even if, as Obama said of rural Illinois, it's boring.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou have no clue what you're talking about. Under the current system, neither party has any reason to campaign "among the hicks" because the states you seem likely to be referring to are solidly red. Turning to NPV would give both parties incentives to campaign in those states, because they would no longer be all or nothing--incremental differences would suddenly matter. So if you want to separate Obama from his wagyu beef (and who doesn't!), then you want NPV. Got it? Misunderstandings like this make me think a lot more people would be pro-NPV if they bothered to think it through.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce we have a nationally elected president the states will be truly finished, beyond being convenient organizing regions for the all-powerful national government.
The states elect the president of the United States through the Electoral College. Each American, as a citizen of his state, votes to determine how is state will vote, not directly for the President. If Civics classes were still taught, maybe some people would understand this and cheer our quickly-fading Federal system of government. But, like direct election of Senators, we will soon see one less check on the national government by the states.
Patrick Henry to the States on their future under the National government:
"You are not to have a right to legislate in any but trivial cases: You are not to touch private contracts: You are not to have the right of having arms in your own defence: You cannot be trusted with dealing out justice between man and man. What shall the States have to do? Take care of the poor--repair and make highways--erect bridges, and so on, and so on. Abolish the State Legislatures at once. What purposes should they be continued for? Our Legislature will indeed be a ludicrous spectacle--180 men marching in solemn farcical procession, exhibiting a mournful proof of the lost liberty of their country--without the power of restoring it."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, in 2012 will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That's more than 85 million voters.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Electoral College is the final, most substantive bulwark against the complete victory of socialism in this nation. Few seem to understand its brilliance and necessity. Everyone will feel its absence once it is gone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you pining for a House of Lords?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust return the Senate to the way it used to be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBased your lack of reasoning then, the will of the people does not matter to you, as you are concerned with only the will of the GOP?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf it is the will of the people to steal from those who work, so that they don't have to, then heck yea, I'm not concerned with the will of the people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy too-sensible-to-actually-be-put-in-place compromise is this:
The winner of the popular vote in each congressional district gets one Electoral college delegate; the winner of the state-wide popular vote gets two additional delegates. badabing, badaboom.
It would take a constitutional amendment, and would neutralize the winner-take-all advantage of states like California and New York (and Texas, for that matter), but still respect the will of the voters state- and district-wide. Which is why it'll never happen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less 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 provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (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 was competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there have been only 55 "battleground" districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 2/3rds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 2/3rds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections"
But given that states are going to vote their particular interests anyway, a popular vote system will mean that some 80% of the states are going to be ignored.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. That's more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The whole point of the National Popular Vote bill is that the state-by-state outcome would no longer determine the Presidency, but, instead, the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states (and DC), would become President.
Under the National Popular Vote plan, the focus of the campaigns and media in the months prior to the presidential elections will be on polls of the national popular vote, not on state-by-state polls from the current handful of closely divided battleground states. There will be no red states and no blue states, no handful of decisive battleground/swing states, only the United States.
No votes would be irrelevant, as many are under the current system. Instead, all the votes cast in every state would be added to the national total for those candidates and would contribute to the overall winner.
This is about legitimacy. And the only way a candidate for president can be legitimate according to democratic principles is to win the popular vote of the entire country, and to campaign in the entire country, not just in the so-called "swing" states. Every voter in every state, every campaign worker must know that each vote counts and each effort to elect a candidate counts. That is not so in our present system. There will be no more blue states and red states in national presidential elections.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse