The Campus

Donate to The Campus
Our Goal

Comments (2)

All The Campus Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • M

    mvySep 23, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    A survey of 800 Pennsylvan­ia voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
    Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republican­s, and 76% among independen­ts.
    By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states 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 wins the presidency.

    National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

    With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn’t be about winning states or districts (in ME and NE). No more distorting and divisive red and blue state and district maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.

    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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed iin recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.

    On Election Night, most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district … they care whether he/she wins the White House. 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.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislativ­e chambers, in 21 small, medium-sma­ll, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdicti­ons possess 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.


  • M

    mvySep 23, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    Don’t be so quick to assume all Republican leaders are on board with this.  “Keep PA Relevant has noted seven (Pennsylvania) Republican members of the House who have expressed opposition in some form or another to the proposal, to only three who have come out in favor. ”

    Republican legislators seem quite “confused”
    about the merits of the congressional district method. The leadership committee
    of the Nebraska Republican Party just adopted a resolution requiring all GOP
    elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding
    electoral votes or lose the party’s support. 


    And up in Maine, the only other state beside Nebraska to use
    the district method, Mike Tipping reports on Republicans, also newly in the
    majority like their counterparts in Pennsylvania. Earlier this year, Republican
    leaders in Maine proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed
    at referendum, will require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting
    decisions. Now they want to pass a majority-only plan to make redistricting in
    their favor even easier.


    Dividing Pennsylvania’s electoral votes by district would
    magnify the worst features of the system and not reflect the diversity of


    The district approach would provide less incentive for
    presidential candidates to campaign in all Pennsylvania districts and would not
    focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the whole state.
    Candidates would have no reason to campaign in districts where they are
    comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind.


    Due to gerrymandering, in 2008, only 4 Pennsylvania
    districts were competitive.


    In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional
    district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign
    events in 2008 (whereas Maine’s 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored)


    In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008
    presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of
    Nebraska’s reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it
    was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both
    of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the
    Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the
    remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.


    When votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously
    solicit those voters. When votes don’t matter, they ignore those areas.


    Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground”
    districts that are competitive in presidential elections. 88% of the nation’s
    congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all
    system were used nationally.


    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.


    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 becomes President.

Activate Search
Republicans anticipate electoral changes