New Idea Alert: National Popular Vote

We all know that the President is not elected by popular vote. He or (someday, but hopefully not Palin or Bachmann) she must win at least 270 votes in the electoral college. Most states award all of the "electors" to whomever wins the popular vote in their state. Example, in 2008 Barack Obama received a majority of the vote in Iowa, so he received all of Iowa's 7 electoral votes. There are some states that allocate EV's (electoral votes) a bit differentl (Maine & Nebraska are examples), but most states follow the winner-gets-all model of EV allocation. 

"What's the problem?"** This might be the question you are asking yourself right now. The problem is permanent disenfranchisement. The majority of states are not competetive at the Presidential level. This is why we have the term "battleground states" (roughly 10 states) in the first place, they can, and do, swing back and forth from supporting liberal or conservative presidential candidates. This means, if you are a Republican living in New York state, your vote does not count. Why? Because you are simply outnumbered by people who vote for the Democratic presidential candidate, in nearly every election. Likewise, if you are a Democrat living in Tennessee, your vote does not count, because people who tend to vote Democratic for President are outnumbered by people who vote Republican.

National Popular Vote (NPV) is an interesting new idea getting a lot of attention across the country. In their own words, proponents of NPV say:

Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 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).

This sounds like an elegant solution that saves us the time, expense, and difficulty of amending the Electoral College out of the constitution. Also, this advances direct democracy, but transitioning the presidential election from 50 separate state elections to one, national election. After all, the candidates are not running to be President of Texas or President of California, they are running in the only nation-wide elected office we have in our system of government. It seems to make sense that the President be elected by a national popular vote, instead of the entrenced political tendencies of various states, or, but whoever can sway the majority of swing states. Is it fair that the President of the country be chosen, basically, by the voters of 5 states? No. Not at all.

NPV is not the only way to make our Presidential election more democratic, but it is another idea that gets us farther down the road to a modern, transparent, accountable voting system that lets everyone have a chance to be heard.

--

Daryl Northrop

**There is another major problem with the Electoral College. The constution does not compel individual states to allocate their EV's to the candidate who won the popular vote in that state. This means that rogue electors could cast their EV's for a candidate who "lost" the state, thus invalidating the will of the majority of voters. Some states, but not all, have passed their own laws that force electors to cast their EV's for the candidate who won the majority vote. This is one of the most crippling flaws of the Electoral College, and a travesty to democracy.