Electoral College poll updates from 2014-09-17 (UTC)

4 comments to Electoral College poll updates from 2014-09-17 (UTC)

• oldgullph

  18 September 2014 at 18:06:03

  By 2016, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

  Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

  The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

  The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

  The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

  In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

  Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls, almost always in the 70-80% range or higher.
  in recent or past closely divided battleground states like CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA –75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
  in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE -74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
  in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
  in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
  Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

  The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

  NationalPopularVote
  Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

• Abulsme

  19 September 2014 at 06:20:14

  Heh. Yes, I am very familiar with this initiative. If and when it gets enough momentum to be in place, it will make electoral analysis like what I do on my site obsolete. But having followed it, I see little chance of this happening in time for the 2016 election. Maybe someday, but not by 2016.

  Of course, I also think it would be a bad idea. I know I am in the minority, but I think there actually were and remain good reasons for the electoral college structure, and eliminating it would be a net negative.

  However, I do favor other forms of electoral college reform. I’ve mentioned on my podcast multiple times that I do believe in each state’s right to determine electors however they see fit. My preferred method is to dispense with the popular election entirely, and just select electors completely at random from the pool of registered voters in the state, and let the electors so chosen vote their conscience however they see fit, unconstrained by any prior pledges. (I would select them as close to the date the electors vote as possible, and require them to be sequestered until the vote to reduce the possibility of those electors being subject to outside influence.)

  Now THAT would shake things up. :-)

• oldgullph

  19 September 2014 at 16:25:52

  National Popular Vote would not eliminate the electoral college structure.

  With National Popular Vote, the United States would still elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states.

  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.

  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.

  The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

  The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter 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.

  Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

  National Popular Vote has the support of American voters and state legislatures, and would shake things up.

• Abulsme

  20 September 2014 at 03:02:34

  As I said, I am very familiar with this initiative, and the mechanics of how it would work. I just think it would be a bad idea.

  It isn’t just the fact that each of the states decides on their own how to allocate their electoral votes (which this proposal nominally preserves) that I like, but also specifically that the way the states have over time gravitated to the winner take all model (except in Nebraska and Maine).

  That isn’t to say that the current way the states determine their electoral votes is the best possible, in fact I suggested one alternative I prefer above.

  But I think moving toward a system where the national popular vote is the only thing that matters would have an overall negative impact, despite intentions to the contrary.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.