Presidential election momentum... The winner may be National Popular Vote

by Rob Richie // Published October 26, 2008
This year's presidential election of course is hugely important. Indeed so was the last one in 2004, the one before it in 2000 and on back into our history.

But there's a special way this election may be part of history: 2008 promises to be the very last election held under the current Electoral College system that divides our nation into a shrinking number of have's (those who are wooed in swing states) and the great majority of us who are have-nots (those whose participation is taken for granted).

The National Popular Vote plan already has had a terrific introduction in state legislatures since I joined other reform leaders in introducing the plan to the nation in February 2006. It has been signed into law in four states, passed 21 legislatures and won the support of - count 'em - 1,181 state legislators. In 2009, expect legislation in nearly every state, and expect a growing number of states to join the people in their state who overwhelmingly prefer a national popular vote to the current system, as demonstrated in poll after poll.

What I suspect will ensure victory for the National Popular Vote plan is how this election once again is showing the extreme division between those have's and have not's. My colleague Laura Kirshner has issued a series of compelling news releases on how the resources and time of the presidential candidates are focused on almost entirely the same states as in 2000 and 2004. There are changes on the edges, but for most states, they have been on the sidelines in all these elections.

As more evidence of how the icy stranglehold of the Electoral College on our core principles of equality and majority rule is melting, see a quinttet of worthy opinion pieces this weekend, coming from across the political spectrum. Commentaries by Detroit Free Press editorial page editor Ron Dzwondowskiand Houston Chronicle contributor Jeff Pozmantier explicitly endorse the National Popular Vote plan, while New York Times editorial page editor Gail Collins, New London (CT) Day editorial page editor Paul Choiniere and Lafayette (LA) Advertiser columnist Bill Decker call for direct election of the president.

It's coming, folks -- and in 2012,  I predict you will have the same power to elect the president as every other American.

Comment on Presidential election momentum... The winner may be National Popular Vote

Current Discussion

  • I'm with Bob. There are plenty of important elections to win alternative voting methods and in the meantime, we can win National Popular Vote by 2012 for a lot of very good reasons and begin to have a serious conversation about applying alternative voting methods to presidential elections. I don't see NPV as fragile legally or problematic in its implementation. See strong arguments in favor of this position at nationalpopularvote.com

    Posted by Rob Richie, 2008-12-21 21:05:27 (3 years ago)

  • John O'Brien: ... the NPV plan would be accepted as "reform" until such time as a spoiler candidate thwarted the popular will as described above. I think it would be better to have no change at all than a change that would still leave a gaping flaw in the system. There is a counter-argument. Adoption of a majority-rule method is impossible now because everyone believes that a constitutional amendment cannot be ratified. Implementation of NPV as an interstate compact might break that logjam by rendering the EC irrelevant, thus making a majority-rule amendment possible. The folks who make this argument believe there's no realistic alternative way to get IRV or two-round runoff.

    Posted by Bob Richard, 2008-12-21 18:15:03 (3 years ago)

  • I support NPV. It is an excellent idea as a constitutional amendment. However, as an interstate compact it seems very troublesome since: 1. the decision for who won the NPV must depend on input from states *who are not in the compact* and would effectively mean that those states must use plurality voting rather then better single-winner election methods - or their votes don't count as being part of the NPV. 2. It's a complicated system that strikes me as fragile and very prone to lawsuits and faithless participants.

    Posted by AllAboutVoting, 2008-12-21 00:26:23 (3 years ago)

  • The problem I have with the National Popular Vote (NPV) idea is this. I does not solve the problem of spoiler candidates.If the Popular Vote winner only captures only a plurality, not a majority, the popular will would still possibly be thwarted. Consider, in 2000, the NPV plan would have given the election to Al Gore, but a switch of 500,000 votes to Nader, not to Bush, would have given a plurality to Bush, even though the same 51.1% majority would have favored a left-of-center candidate. A national runoff or instant runoff voting on a national basis would not be feasible without a constitutional amendment, but the NPV plan would be accepted as "reform" until such time as a spoiler candidate thwarted the popular will as described above. I think it would be better to have no change at all than a change that would still leave a gaping flaw in the system.

    Posted by John O'Brien, 2008-12-20 10:46:15 (3 years ago)

  • When talking to the converted on national popular vote, I'm with the 70% end of the public opinion stick -- that's a lot of folks to talk to, from all across the spectrum and across the nation I disagree with your other points (tell folks in states like Texas, New York, Washington and California that they're "homogeneous" and you may have a fight on your hands.....), but let me simply say that I don't see equality as a non-sequiter. When we're electing our president, every vote should be equal. I'm very comfortable with that position.

    Posted by Rob Richie, 2008-11-04 12:46:46 (4 years ago)

  • Rob - I've been following this issue for some time, and it is increasingly clear to me that virtually every argument for popular vote is a non sequitur. A homogeneous electorate, e.g., most US states, needs no electoral weighting. There are no regions in Iowa. Or in Rhode Island. Or Montana. Hell, Nebraska only needs one house in its legislature. What can the selection of governors of local polities (states) teach us about selecting the chief executive of a continental nation? Doesn't the existence of the Senate tell you that the President should be elected in part on the basis of population and in part on the basis of regional interest. Should we get rid of the antidemocratic Senate, too. And how do you know that popular elections "work?" New York, California and Pennsylvania do have regions, and it's not at all clear that they would not be better served with a Governor selected with more weighting for their farming sectors. Look at other continental countries. Canada's Federal government is weak and its system is parliamentary. Australia, too. So who are you talking about? Mexico? Yeah, that "works." Russia? China? My sense is that you've been preaching to the converted for too long. I suggest you try making your arguments as syllogisms, with the premises stated, like "How states elect governors is a good test of how a continental nation should elect its chief executive." It's that major premise, not the minor one that states use popular vote, that needs defending. Enthymeme is fine for debate class, but out here in the real world, not so much.

    Posted by Lawrence Kramer, 2008-11-04 12:34:19 (4 years ago)

  • Thanks, Lawrence. We don't have to do a thought experiment to see how a popular vote might work -- we just have to look at how every U.S. Senator and every governor is elected and how every other nation with presidential elections holds its elections. And... the idea works. When you have a close popular vote election, all voters matters -- including farm-ranch states. In a truly representative democracy, you don't have to gerrymander the game to try to help one group or another. You just hold fair elections.

    Posted by Rob Richie, 2008-11-04 11:03:12 (4 years ago)

  • I'm sure you hear this from time to time, but since you haven't grasped it, it won't hurt to say it again. A voter's power is not measured by how aggressively the candidates pursue him. The Mountain West, as a group, has more than a proportional share of the nation's electoral votes. Can there be any doubt that this weighting benefits the region as a whole? Yes, the region has been heavily Republican, so there has been little campaigning there, but Republicans have been elected President with some regularity, and it's very clear that W. would not have become President but for the influence of Mountain West voters. It's fine to claim that that fact is not a happy one or a fair one - to the big, blue state voters - but that's not whose water you pretend to be carrying. The people in those small, uncampaigned-in states were quite pleased with the outcomes in 2000 and 2004, without being campaigned for. And yet you act as if they have been disenfranchised. There isn't much campaigning going on in New York. As a heavily Democratic electorate, the people of New York are probably delighted that they can deliver so much heft to the Democrat WITHOUT absorbing campaign dollars. You mobocracy folks really need to do the thought experiment in which the popular vote rules. The most significant change would not be in where the campaign is fought but in whose interests are served, because it is the adjustment of interests, not the allocation of campaign dollars, that politics is about. The only important result of a switch to popular election would be a swing to the Left as the liberal big-city vote gains in importance and the conservative, farm-ranch states lose power. Thus, one must give you credit for seeing this obvious consequence and call you disingenuous, or fault you for not seeing it and call you foolish. Pick your poison.

    Posted by Lawrence Kramer, 2008-11-04 09:13:03 (4 years ago)