Some Utah Lawmakers want to change the way the state votes for president. Instead of awarding Utah's Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the state, Utah would join a compact with other states to give those votes to the candidate that wins the national popular vote.
That system would only go into effect if enough states to equal 270 Electoral votes (the number needed to win) signs on.
If this system were in place in 2000, Al Gore would have won the Presidency instead of George W. Bush.
| Should Utah scrap the current Electoral College system for electing Presidents in favor of a proposal to give their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, even if that candidate loses the state? | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Republican insiders | Democratic insiders | UtahPolicy.com readers | |
| Utah should join the NPV | 10% | 72% | 70% |
| Utah should stick with the current system | 87% | 20% | 28% |
Some anonymous comments:
"Any opposition to National Popular Vote smacks of "Elitism" which is as appalling as slavery and not allowing women to vote. Let's align our political values to those of the 21st Century and not to a time when Elitists would not allow the Peons think for themselves."
"Who would have wanted Al Gore to be President of the USA in 2000?"
"Love NPV - It is a way to be pro-active and fix the shortcomings of the current system. No more presidents pandering to the battleground states. Shouldn't every vote matter and not just the votes in Ohio, Florida, Iowa and PA????"
"We are United States. Areas with the highest population do not necessarily guarantee protection of everyone's values, therefore we are a group of united states with equalized procedures to secure the values in the area that we live."
"I'm a Republican and I feel that we could have more of a say in presidential elections under NPV. This issue should be non-partisan."
"Joining the NPV compact is quite possibly the most ridiculous idea ever brought to the table when it comes to voting in Utah. The Electoral College was set up by the founders to protect the interests of smaller states. Having an NPV would ensure that national policy is driven by NY, LA, Miami, Seattle, SF, Phila, Pitt. The entire population of Utah is less than the population of one of these cities/metro areas. Utahns who vote in favor of this hoping to become relevant in national politics are seriously misguided."
"It is about time we put a stop to presidential candidates pandering to battleground states. National Popular Vote is a great idea. We actually might matter in presidential elections. We currently have 0 visits maybe we might have a couple under NPV. They would have to talk about Utah's issues for a change."
"The current system favors battleground states... NPV will help change that."
"As a Democrat in Utah, this sure is tempting but I don't see how this system is any better than the current system."
"Not sure Utah would have any more or less clout than we do now, but it certainly couldn't hurt. And it only seems fair that the person with the most votes wins."
"Why should Utah's votes not matter? Every vote should count!"
"I would love to have my vote count directly instead of the current system. As a Democrat in a heavily Republican state, my vote is nothing more than symbolic."
"Right now Utah is a fly-over state for Presidential candidates. Any change to make us more relevant is a good idea."
"A big part of me likes this initiative, but I don't yet feel like I know what the unintended consequences might be. I still need to have people who are smarter than me help me understand NPV better."
"NPV is unconstitutional."
"In 2000 Gore would have benefitted. In 2012 it may be Mitt Romney that wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college vote. Fix the system and spare the reputation of a future Supreme Court in the process."
"Why would the Utah Legislature want to subvert the Constitution and at the same time greatly reduce Utah's current clout in the Electoral College? And in the meantime, give an advantage to the Democrats! This is one of the craziest ideas to come along."
"I'm still in the air about this one. There is a valid point about elections being about a small handful of states while the others are ignored."
"No way and no how should our state's electoral votes go to President Obama or to any other liberal who may follow in future presidential elections."
"I can't think of any good reason for Utah to dilute its influence by requiring Utah's Electoral votes to be tied to the national vote."
"The election of the President was never intended to be by popular vote in the constitution. It was a conscious decision by the constitutional convention. The fact that each state gets two electors no matter their population is proof that the election of the president was not intended to be proportionate."
"The Electoral College is out dated antiquated and serves no purpose. The person with the most votes should win. How tough is that to understand? I'm sick of this crap of "winner takes all" votes with the current system. What that says is my vote, or your vote didn't count because it was on the wrong side of the state total count. Bulls**t! You wonder why people stay home on election day? they know that their guy/gal can't win/lose so why bother to vote."
"Al Gore would have been President!!!! Reason enough to oppose the NPV system."
"I am not surprised that Howard Stephenson is behind this push to circumvent the constitution. Seems like he only gives lip service to conservative principles."
"Utah is already a fly-over state. Switching to NPV will bring us to a "What the hell is Utah?" state."
"As a Presidential elector in the year 2000. I think we should stick with the founding fathers. If you go with the NPV, you might as well say Utah does not matter. And candidates will just divide their time campaign and once elected between 10 or so states."
"Al GORE? NO!!!!"
"The Founders gave smaller states (like Utah) an edge with the Electoral College. Why would we give up that advantage?"
Respondents include -
Fred Adams, Stuart Adams, Jess Agraz, Scott Anderson, Patrice Arent, Bruce Baird, Tom Barberi, Heather Barney, Steve Barth, Jeff Bell, Tom Berggren, Mike Bertelsen, Ron Bigelow, Rob Bishop, Laura Black, Jim Bradley, Ralph Brown, Ken Bullock, Chris Bleak, Curt Bramble, Ralph Brown, Aaron Browning, Dave Buhler, Ken Bullock, Ric Cantrell, Maura Carabello, Rebecca Chavez-Houck, Kay Christensen, David Clark, Thomas Clay, Peter Corroon, Fred Cox, Lew Cramer, Gene Davis, Richard Davis, Brad Daw, Alan Dayton, Margaret Dayton, Mike Deaver, Brad, Dee, Joseph Demma, John Dougall, Randy Dryer, Donald Dunn, Becky Edwards, Scott Ericson, Jessica Fawson, Janice Fisher, Wendy Fisher, Lorie Fowlke, Ronald Fox, Jordan Garn, Luke Garrott, Dave Gessel, Natalie Gochnour, Robert Grow, Karen Hale, David Hansen, Neil Hansen, Joe Hatch, Jeff Hartley, Deidre Henderson, Lyle Hillyard, Randy Horiuchi, Bruce Hough, Scott Howell, Miriam Hyde, Allison Isom, Eric Jergensen, Mike Jerman, Roger Johnson, Michael Jolley, Gordon Jones, Leslie Jones, Kirk Jowers, Brian King, Scott Konopasek, Chris Kyler, Fred Lampropoulos, Douglas Larson, David Litvack, Larry Lunt, Matt Lyon, Ben McAdams, Gayle McKeachnie, JT Martin, Jason Mathis, Karen Mayne, Derek Miller, Rob Miller, Ethan Millard, Brett Millburn, Karen Morgan, Mike Mower, Holly Mullen, Wayne Niederhauser, Mike Noel, Ralph Okerlund, James Olsen, Val Oveson, Scott Parson, Kelly Patterson, Frank Pignanelli, Jason Powers, Joe Pyrah, Mike Reberg, Jill Remington Love, Lauren Richards, Holly Richardson, Robin Riggs, James Roberts, Luz Robles, Ross Romero, Don Savage, Bryan Schott, Jay Seegmiller, Patrick Shea, Randy Shumway, Soren Simonsen, Jeremy Slaughter, Carol Spackman-Moss, Howard Stephenson, Mike Styler, Todd Taylor, Juliette Tennert, Gary Thorup, Kevin Van Tassell, Royce Van Tassel, Michael Waddoups, Chuck Warren, Christine Watkins, LaVarr Webb, Todd Weiler, Alan West, Ted Wilson, Carl Wimmer, Mike Winder, Thomas Wright
Post a Comment
State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
Utah DOES NOT MATTER NOW. Candidates DO just divide their time campaign and once elected between 10 or so states.
In 2008, two-thirds of states were ignored by the presidential and vice-presidential candidates in the post-convention general election campaign for President. Utah got no attention from the candidates.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. At most, 12 states will determine the election. Candidates will not care about at least 76% of the voters-- voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and in 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning could be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, 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). 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 85 million voters have been just spectators to the general election.
Now, policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states - that include 9 of the original 13 states - are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing, too.
Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling 18 battleground states.”
Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that more than 2/3rds of Americans are ignored in presidential campaigns, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”
The state-by-state winner-take-all laws affect not only the conduct of campaigns, but governance while a President is in office.
State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states 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."
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
"How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"
Then, voters asked a second question that emphasized that Utah’s electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not Utah, vote. In this second question, 66% of Utah voters favored a national popular vote.
"Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"
The results of the first question, by political affiliation, was 82% among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, and 75% among others. By gender, support was 78% among women and 60% among men. By age, support was 70% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 68% for those older than 65.
The results of the second question, by political affiliation, was 77% among Democrats, 63% among Republicans, and 62% among others. By gender, support was 72% among women and 58% among men. By age, support was 61% among 18-29 year olds, 64% among 30-45 year olds, 68% among 46-65 year olds, and 66% for those older than 65.
NationalPopularVote
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
Now presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.
Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections-- NH, NM, and NV. These three states contain only 14 (8%) of the 22 medium-lowest population states' total 166 electoral votes.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
If big cities controlled the outcome of even state elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A 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.
When every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense to try and elevate your share where you aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Texas, or for a Republican to try it in California.
Even in California state-wide elections, 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 California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would 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.
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” 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). 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
However, the largest county in the state, Salt Lake County, is divided politically. In fact, despite receiving no campaign appearances from Barack Obama, the Illinois Senator won the county by 296 votes. Neither candidate tried to cultivate support in this swing county because their votes are irrelevant in the winner-take-all electoral system. While candidates assiduously cultivated support with Steel Workers in Pennsylvania, Cuban-Americans in Florida, and Ethanol growers in Iowa, the concerns of Utah voters were ignored.
Because of Utah’s status as a Republican citadel, candidates make the electoral calculation to not even attempt to court their votes. In 1996, Democrat Bill Clinton designated 1.7 million acres of canyon land located in Utah as a national monument and thus making this property off-limits to development. Clinton did this despite widespread opposition from the entire Utah Congressional delegation and the state’s voters. Interestingly, Mr. Clinton signed the order not in Utah, but in Arizona, a showdown state where the move was popular. Clinton had conceded Utah before the election season began.
Democratic Presidential candidates see no need to consolidate and solidify the Democratic base in Carbon and Summit County because the state, as a whole, will almost assuredly vote for the Republican nominee. Similarly, there is no effort by either the Democratic or Republican nominee to persuade swing voters in the politically competitive Salt Lake County to consider their candidacy because the state, as a whole, is destined to vote Republican.
Because Utah’s electoral votes are preordained to go to the Republican nominee, voter turnout in the Beehive state is dismal. In fact, it was the second lowest in the nation in the 2008 Presidential election, at just 53.1%. The only state with a lower voter turnout was in the blue state of Hawaii, where only two Republican Presidential nominees have won since it became a state in 1959. Accordingly, despite the partisan and ideological divergences of these two states, both would benefit from the NPVI.
The NPVI will put every vote in play. Candidates will have the same incentive to seek support of voters in Utah as in their neighboring states of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, all swing states which muster an inordinate amount of attention from the Presidential nominees. Candidates will have a reason to pay attention to the needs and aspirations of the Utah voters. They will no longer be relegated to the Electoral sidelines just because the majority of Beehive state voters mark ballots for the Republican Presidential nominee.
Utah is among the 3/4s of states IGNORED now by presidential campaigns.
The 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), 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. They have no influence. 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, like Utah, are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking as the U.S. population grows.
In 2004, % and margin of popular votes:
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
To put these numbers in perspective, 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. Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” 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 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270 electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
And votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning candidates in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
With National Popular Vote, we would continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
537,179 more voters in the country than wanted George W. Bush.
Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.