FairVote Feed: Presidential Elections

Election Administration Under National Popular Vote: Simpler Than You Might Think

Wed, 15 May 2013 10:18:01 -0700

Connecticut State Capitol

The National Popular Vote plan has been making great strides in state legislatures around the country. A few weeks ago, it passed the Oregon House of Representatives, and it is poised to pass other legislative chambers in the coming months, including in Connecticut, a state I had the privilege to call home for four years.

Unfortunately, there are still some misconceptions out there about what the bill does and what that would mean for presidential elections. A few of these misconceptions were recently expressed by Luther Weeks of Connecticut Voters Count, a Connecticut-based election integrity organization, in a comment made under an article about former presidential candidate Michael Dukakis’ recent visit to Connecticut to support the passage of the National Popular Vote there. Weeks' concerns center around questions of election administration under National Popular Vote, namely, whether there is an official national popular vote count based on which compacting states would be able select their electors, and how a recount might work under a national populate vote. He also worries that a lack of uniformity in state voting procedures could make the votes in some states count more than others.

His concerns are not unusual among skeptics of the National Popular Vote plan. Luckily, each question is easy to answer.

An Official National Popular Vote Count

Some question whether there is an official national popular vote count for the purposes of this bill, since under National Popular Vote, compacting states select their slate of electors based on who won the popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The quick answer is that there is an official national popular vote count. The National Popular Vote bill defines the national popular vote count as the summation of the popular vote count in every state, as certified by the chief election official in each state. Under section 6 of Title 3 of the United States Code, every state is required to report its official vote count in a Certificate of Ascertainment to the Archivist of the United States prior to the mid-December meeting of the Electoral College. Since every state is required to report its official vote count prior to the meeting of the Electoral College – more specifically, six days prior to the meeting, as specified under section 5 of Title 3 of United States Code – states party to the National Popular Vote plan will be able to determine the official national popular vote total by adding up the vote totals reported in each Certificate of Ascertainment prior to the meeting of their own electors.

Recounts under National Popular Vote

Luther Weeks was correct when he pointed out that there are no national recount or audit laws. Under the National Popular Vote plan, each state would be responsible for conducting recounts within their own borders, just as they are under the current system. Thus, under the National Popular Vote plan, if a presidential candidate desired a recount in every state, they would need to request one in every state, in accordance with each states’ individual recount procedures. In effect, recounts under the National Popular Vote plan would operate the same way that they do today, on a state-by-state basis. Of course, recount are extremely rare, and are also extremely unlikely to alter the outcome of an election. Between 2000 and 2012, of the 4,072 statewide elections that took place, only 22 resulted in a recount. Of those 22 elections, only three resulted in a different candidate winning than after the original count, and the average change in the outcome was a decrease in the margin of victory of 294 votes. Under a national popular vote, a recount would be highly unlikely, but if it were to occur, individual states would control how those recounts were conducted, just as they do under the current system.

Voter Fraud and Error

Some claim that the current system is preferable to a national popular vote because under the current system, any fraud occurring in one state would only affect the electoral votes in that state, and not nationwide. However, even if under the current system, fraud would only affect the electoral votes in one state, if that state was the last state that a candidate needed to reach the winning threshold of 270 electoral votes, than the fraud in that state could easily affect who becomes the next president. Therefore, under the current system, fraud and error would be more likely to change the outcome of an election than under National Popular Vote.

For example, in 2000, a flip of 527 votes from George W. Bush to Al Gore in Florida would have made Gore president, while under a national popular vote, and a flip of 250,000 would have been necessary to change the outcome. In 2004, flipping 60,000 votes in Ohio would have made John Kerry, not George W. Bush, president, while nationwide, 1.5 million Bush supporters would have needed to vote for Kerry to alter the outcome. It is hard to imagine a national popular vote, in which about 130 million votes are cast, with margins as narrow as we saw in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

Equality Between States

Under National Popular Vote, every vote would be equal, unlike under our current winner-take-all system, when a vote in Ohio is far more likely to alter the result of the election than a vote in Connecticut, and is therefore valued far more highly by presidential candidates. It is true that states that suppress their voter turnout will contribute fewer votes to the national popular vote total than they could, and it is at the discretion of those states’ legislators to change their election rules to increase their share of the national popular vote by enfranchising more of their citizens. In this way, National Popular Vote promotes fairness in presidential elections, while our current system perpetuates an unacceptable inequality that must be changed.

Got any more questions? Email Andrea at alevien@fairvote.org. Also, you can find more detailed answers to these questions in Chapter 9 of the new edition of Every Vote Equal, available for free download at Every-vote-equal.com.

FairVote Maps the 2012 Presidential Campaign

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:57:43 -0700

For some time now, we have known that presidential candidates focus their attention and energy on swing states. They do this because under the winner-take-all method of allocating Electoral College votes, the only states that matter are the ones that could go for either the Democrat or the Republican, while the ones that are squarely for one party or the other do not matter. For example, in 2012, the presidential candidates focused on only ten states. Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire were the only states in which Barack Obama and Mitt Romney held public campaign events after the Democratic National Convention, and those same ten states received 99.6% of all the Obama and Romney campaigns' television advertising money spent nationwide between April 11 and Election Day.

But where within the swing states did the candidates travel? Did they travel everywhere within these swing states, or just to the largest cities? How did geography and demography within swing states affect their campaign strategy?

Now, we have the answers.

FairVote has published a new map charting in detail when and where the presidential and vice presidential candidates campaigned after the 2012 Democratic National Convention in early September. Overall, the candidates attended 253 events in 168 different cities and towns, 59% of which were held in just three states (Ohio, Florida, and Virginia).

As we can see from our map, while the candidates did spent a lot of time in the largest swing state cities and their suburbs, they also traveled to more remote areas in search of votes as well. For example, in Ohio, the candidates traveled to 49 different cities and towns over the course of 73 different events. 37 of those events (50%), were in the three largest metropolitan statistical areas (urban cores and their surrounding suburbs), or MSAs, in Ohio. However, 48% of all Ohio residents live in these three metro areas, so the candidates' attention to voters there is not surprising. Conversely, Iowa's five largest MSAs contained only 37% of its population, and therefore the candidates held only 44% of their events there.

Below is a roundup of how the candidates divided their time in the most targeted swing states. As we will see, the candidates gave areas within swing states attention in proportion to their population size.

For a more detailed look, check out our Google Map, and for a look at our work, you can find our spreadsheet here.

Ohio

Number of campaign events held in state: 73 (29% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 49

Three Biggest MSAs: Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati (contain 48% of the state's population and 52% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 38

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 23

Florida

Number of campaign events held in state: 40 (16% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 28

Four Biggest MSAs: Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville (contain 63% of the state's population and 70% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 28

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 19

Virginia

Number of campaign events held in state: 36 (14% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 22

Three Biggest MSAs: Washington, Virginia Beach, Richmond (contain 69% of the state's population and 69% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 25

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 13

Iowa

Number of campaign events held in state: 27 (11% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 18

Five Biggest MSAs: Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Waterloo, Iowa City (contain 37% of the state's population and 44% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 11

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 7

Colorado

Number of campaign events held in state: 23 (9% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 15

Biggest MSA: Denver (contains 51 % of the state's population and 48% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 11

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 8

Wisconsin

Number of campaign events held in state: 18 (7% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 13

Three Biggest MSAs: Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay (contain 42 % of the state's population and 56% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 10

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 8

Nevada

Number of campaign events held in state: 13 (5% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 4

Two Biggest MSAs: Las Vegas and Reno (contains 94% of the state's population and 100% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 13

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 4

New Hampshire

Number of campaign events held in state: 13 (5% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 9

Biggest Combined Statistical Area (encompassing mutliple MSAs): Boston (contains 78% of the state's population and 92% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 12

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 8

As we can see, there is some variation between states in the way that candidates travel within them, but the candidates do usually travel to areas based on their population sizes. The variety comes from that fact that some of these states are far more urban than others, and therefore, the concentration of campaign events are less dispersed in these states than in more rural states. In Nevada, for example, 94% of the population lives in the areas surrounding the state's two largest cities (Las Vegas and Reno). This population distribution incentivized the candidates to campaign only in these cities and their suburbs, since that was where most of the voters were. Conversely, in Iowa, the five largest MSAs only combined to make up 37% of the state population, incentivizing the candidates to travel throughout the state and visit different locations (18, to be exact), in search of votes.

Although it is impossible to know exactly how presidential campaigns would be run under a national popular vote, it is reasonable to assume that in an election in which every vote, in every state, was equally important, presidential and vice presidential candidates would divvy up their campaign attention nationwide in proportion to each area's share of the population. In that case, every state would host at least one event with a presidential or vice presidential candidate, and the midsized and larger states would receive multiple events, in both their urban and rural areas. A larger cross-section of the country would experience presidential elections and have a say in who becomes our commander in chief, and therefore, when National Popular Vote passes, our presidential elections will be better for it.

FairVote’s Top Ten List: The Breakdown of Winner-Take-All Elections

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:35:12 -0700

Want the facts faster? Take a look at this one-pager on our top 10 indicators of the breakdown of winner-take-all.

Geography has become an increasingly rigid indicator of which political party will win a state or legislative district in the United States. Voters are far more likely to vote only for candidates from a single political party, and to vote for that same party from election to election. When there is a shift in an area's underlying partisanship, it is now more likely to be away from the national political center than towards it.

The end results of these trends include:

- A Congress that is more partisan in its voting behavior than at any time in recent history, and legislative leaders who consistently use every procedural tool available to dominate the opposing party when in the majority, or to obstruct it when in the minority.

- A partisan voting consistency that means less ticket splitting in votes for president, Congress, and state elections.

- A pattern of majority domination that removes that vast majority of states from the battleground in presidential elections. This pattern incentivizes candidates to allocate more than 99% of their attention and resources on courting voters in just 10 states.

- A partisan consistency in congressional districts that makes it difficult for either party to make gains in the House outside of a shrinking band of competitive districts. The vast majority of incumbents are secure in their districts and do not have to worry about reelection.

Top political analysts have been addressing these trends, including the Washington Post's Dan Balz, the Cook Political Report's Charlie Cook and Crystal Ball's Rhodes Cook. But one factor consistently overlooked by these analysts is that this partisan gridlock can be remedied with a simple change in electoral rules. By doing away with winner-take-all voting laws, by which 50% + 1 of the vote earns 100% of representation in a single state or district, political polarization could be substantially remedied, and voters would find themselves more accurately represented in their legislative bodies.

Many people wring their hands over how district lines are drawn, highlight the dangers of voting laws designed to reduce voter participation, or bemoan the role of money in politics. But however important these issues may be, they collectively have a minor effect on electoral outcomes when contrasted with the overwhelming power of winner-take-all voting rules. Under winner-take-all, once a candidate in a race for a congressional seat or a state in a presidential race has a partisan balance three percentage points or more away from the national vote, the odds of a victory for supporters of the minority party plunge.

Once an area's partisanship is six percent or more away from the national vote, any party shift is nearly impossible.

Fortunately, we can ditch the winner-take-all voting laws that have impaired our electoral process for far too long. With simple changes to federal and state statutes, the US can be on its way to better and fairer elections. The United States has a long history of using different voting rules that would, absent any other changes, dramatically improve elections, representation, and legislative behavior. To underscore the urgency of consideration of these reforms, FairVote has made a list of the top ten biggest indicators that winner-take-all elections have contributed to the polarization and stagnation that plagues our political process.

Definition of terms:

A swing state or congressional district is one that voted within three points of the national popular vote for president (47%-53% partisanship), meaning that their partisanship leaning is similar to the nation's as a whole. Presidential elections in states and congressional elections in districts (especially if there is an open seat or a first-term incumbent) within this partisanship band are likely to be competitive in a nationally competitive election.

A safe state or congressional district is one that voted at least 8 percentage points more Democratic or Republican than the national popular vote for president (42%-58% partisanship). Barring a landslide election for one party nationally, there is virtually no chance that any of these states or districts held by the majority party will be won by the minority party.

Presidential Elections

1. Decreasing state competition: In 1988, safe states collectively held only 40 electoral votes. In 2012, they held 247 electoral votes. During that time the number of electoral votes held by swing states shrunk by nearly half, from 272 to 140.

2. Consistent voting patterns: Between 2000 and 2012, 41 states voted for the same party in every presidential election. In both 2008 and 2012, 35 of these states received less than 1/100th of the attention from the presidential campaigns that they would have received if every state received attention in proportion to its population.

3. More partisan rigidity: The number of states where partisanship shifted by five or more percentage points between elections has decreased from an average of 23 states between 1960 and 1976 to an average of three between 2000 and 2012.

Congressional Elections

4. Decreasing district competition: Between 1998 and 2012, the number of swing districts decreased from 121 to 47. There are now 284 safe congressional districts, up from 179 in 1998.

5. Increasing dominance of partisanship over local factors: Only six incumbents remain in seats that favored the other party by a margin of more than eight percentage points in the 2012 presidential election, down from 34 such incumbents after the 2006 election and down from 47 after the 1992 election. In 2012, neither party took a seat away from the other party in a district that favored the opposing party by more than eight percentage points. Only six percent of districts (26) voted for different parties for president and Congress in 2012.

6. More partisan rigidity: Comparing partisanship in current congressional districts based on the 2008 presidential elections and 2012 presidential elections, only 30 districts (7%) experienced a partisanship shift of five or more percentage points - and all but four of those districts trended in the direction of the previous majority party, making them less competitive.

7. More regional domination: In 2012, large areas of the nation were dominated by one party. Democrats swept all 21 House seats in New England while Republicans won all 22 seats in the belt of states running from Arkansas through Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. In 1992, Republicans held 10 House seats in New England and Democrats held 14 House seats in this line of midwestern and western states.

8. More racial connection to partisanship: White Republicans represent 66 of 70 majority-white U.S. House districts in the adjoining nine states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. In 1991, 50 white Democrats represented these states, nearly all in white majority districts.

State Elections

9. More monopoly-controlled states: In 38 states, one party controls the governor's mansion and both state legislative houses - and the presidential candidate from the same party won 31 of those states in 2012. This is the largest number of states with one-party-monopoly governments since World War II.

10. More partisan rigidity: In North Carolina's 2012 elections for its 120-seat House of Representatives, 119 seats were won by the candidate with a partisan advantage in his or her district. In New Jersey's first election since its new two-member legislative districts were drawn by a commission in 2011, all 40 assembly districts elected two members of the same party.

As we can see, the phrase "all politics is local" has been replaced with "all politics is partisan." To see how we can fix presidential, congressional, and state legislative elections, visit

Presidential Elections: www.fairvote.org/national-popular-vote

Congressional Elections: www.fairvoting.us

Have your own favorite example of winner-take-all breakdown? Send it to us at info@fairvote.org.

“Battleground Texas” Still Many Years Away

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:16:08 -0700

Those seeking to make Texas a battleground state in presidential elections are failing to confront the realities of our winner-take-all voting rules for allocating electoral votes, as well as the increasing rigidity of partisan voting patterns in America. Over the next twenty years, the only way for Texas to ensure that it becomes relevant in presidential elections is to help activate the National Popular Vote plan for president.

Jeremy Bird, who served as National Field Director of Obama for America in 2012, recently appeared on the Colbert Report to discuss his new organization “Battleground Texas.” Founded with fellow Obama campaign veterans, the group seeks to transform Texas from a Republican bastion into a swing state, using “the data-driven, people-focused approach that has helped win grassroots campaigns around the country.” During his Colbert appearance, Bird explained, “Anyone who wants to be our commander-in-chief, they will have to fight for Texas.”

Due to Texas’ growing Latino population, Bird’s efforts seem plausible to some. After all, Latinos nationwide voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in 2012. We don’t know how Latinos in Texas specifically voted, as Texas was one of many spectator states where, for the first time in years, no exit polls were conducted in 2012, but there has been speculation that in a few elections, Texan Latinos could could be shifting Texas rom red to purple.

Politicians and public figures have taken note of Texas’ changing demographic makeup and the potential effect it could have on Texan elections. In October 2012, Jeb Bush told New York Magazine’s Joe Hagan that he was worried that “Four years from now, Texas is going to be a so-called blue state. Imagine Texas as a blue state, how hard it would be to carry the presidency or gain control of the Senate.”

On the Democratic side, San Antonio mayor Julian Castro has said, "Within the next six to eight years, I believe Texas will be at least be a purple state, if not a blue state." Actress Eva Longoria, a Texas-native, agrees. In a Politico article co-authored with Gilberto Hinojosa, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party, she wrote, “This might be the last presidential election during which Texas is not considered a swing state. We know that the Latino vote matters in this year’s election. And the sleeping giant of the Texas Latino vote is poised to awaken and alter the fate of every future election.”

But for all the hype, the numbers today tell a different story, making it crystal clear that if Texas becomes competitive for Democrats in 2016 or 2020, then Republicans will be getting crushed in the national popular vote. In other words, if Texas is a close state, then the national vote won’t be – and Texas voters still won’t have a chance to help determine who wins the White House.

Even as Texas’ Latino population has rapidly grown, the state has remained strongly Republican. Democrats last won a presidential race in Texas in 1976. For the four elections from 2000 to 2012, the state’s Republican partisanship - our reliable measure of swing state status, based on how a state votes for president compared to how the nation votes - has consistently hovered at 60%. In order to be considered a swing state, a state must hold a Republican partisanship between 47 and 53%, the closer to 50% the better. This heavy Republican partisanship means that in a nationally close election in any of those years, the Republican nominee would have won Texas by a landslide of 20% (as George W. Bush did in 2000). You can see the state’s steady trajectory from swing state status in 1976 to moribund spectator status in the chart below. The area between the dotted lines in the partisanship range a state would need to be considered a swing state.

Having such lopsided partisanship rating is especially telling in today’s political climate, in which states rarely shift in partisanship by even two percentage points between presidential elections. Barring a landslide election for Democrats (think Reagan in 1984), in order for a Democrat to win Texas in 2016 or 2020, Texas would need to shift its partisanship by a total of at least ten percentage points.

Such a major change might have been possible a generation or two ago, but not today. Consider that from 1960 to 1984, an average of more than 19 states shifted their partisanship by 5% or more from one presidential election to the next. In the four presidential elections from 1984 to 2000, that average declined to just over eight. In the three presidential elections from 2004 to 2012, however, an average of only three states shifted their partisanship by more than 5%.

Between the 2008 and 2012 elections, for example, only three states shifted in partisanship by more than 3.9 percentage points – all small states where their shift toward Republicans made no difference. Alaska reverted back to a more Democratic partisanship (though still very Republican) without Sarah Palin on the ballot. The already rock-solid Republican state of Utah – last won by less than six percentages points a century ago – voted even more heavily for state hero Mitt Romney, a Mormon (like 62% of Utahans) who helped make the 2002 winter Olympics a success. West Virginia continued its ongoing Republican trend.

The New Republic’s Nate Cohn agrees that Texas is a long way off from being a purple state, estimating that Democrats won’t have a realistic chance of winning Texas until 2028. One reason is that while Texas’ Latino population is growing, white Texans may be becoming more conservative. For example, Cohn estimates that Obama’s share of Texas’ white vote decreased by 6% between 2008 and 2012.

The growth in the Latino vote-share can be overstated as well. In 2012, Latinos made up 38% of Texas’ total population, but only 26% of its voting-eligible population. Because much of the increase in Texas’ Hispanic population will come from non-citizens, the actual increase in the percentage of Texas’ voters who are Hispanic will likely only be about four percentage points by 2024, according to an analysis by Yale University’s David Broockman. Even if Democrats were able to register all of Texas’ adult Latino citizens to vote and turned them out to the polls, they will not be able to turn the state blue in the near future unless they make significant gains among other demographic groups (mainly whites) as well.

And of course Republicans are working hard to reverse their slide among Latino voters. By 2024 or 2028, they may have succeeded.

Regardless, it is understandable that Texans would want to “bring the fight to Texas”. Texas’ voter turnout has been consistently low over the last four elections, an average of 6.9 percentage points below the national turnout rate. In addition, the gap between the turnout rates of Texas and the nation has been growing at a rate of about one percentage point each election.

Considering how presidential candidates have ignored Texas over the last decade, this low turnout rate is hardly surprising. In 2012, despite containing a full 7.4% of the nation’s voting eligible population and some of the wealthiest political donors in America, Texas received a grand total of only $2,570 in television ad money after April 11, when Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee for president. Based on the size of its voting eligible population, Texas would have received at least $62 million in ad spending during that time if the candidates had based their campaigning on where the most voters lived, rather than which states were swing states. Likewise, in 2008, it received only about $64,897 during the fall presidential campaign (mid-September to Election Day), and in 2004, it received $127 during the same period.

Texans, especially politically involved ones, believe this is an injustice. During his appearance, Bird explained to Colbert, “Volunteers want to be relevant, and they want to focus on Texas”, instead of just calling potential voters in Florida and Ohio or traveling to New Mexico to canvass there. They want to campaign within their communities and to see that those seeking our nation’s highest office value their votes and opinions.

Fortunately for Bird and supporters of Battleground Texas, there is another way to make Texas relevant in presidential elections, one that may be more attainable over the next few years than is turning a solidly Republican state into a swing state. If Bird truly wants to make Texas relevant to presidential elections, he should join with the state’s Republicans to organize for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact – a reform that truly could be in place by 2016 or 2020. The National Popular Vote would make every vote for president relevant in every race, expanding the presidential campaign to every state, including Texas. In a national popular vote, Texas would draw a much larger percentage of campaign attention than it currently does - the attention that it deserves.

Bird is right. Texas voters should matter in presidential elections. And so should all Americans. With National Popular Vote, that goal will become a reality.

New York Times Perpetuates Myth that Current Electoral College Rules Help Small States

Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:28:58 -0700

Last week, The New York Times published a long analysis by Adam Liptak about the advantages conferred on small states by their outsized representation in the U.S. Senate. It's an important and revealing article, but one that is marred by its inclusion of the Electoral College as part of its analysis.

Liptak's overall argument centers on the fact that the U.S. Senate tilts federal dollars toward Americans who live in smaller states. This results, in part, because the quarter of our population that lives in the nation's 31 least populous states has 62 senators, while a full other quarter of the population, which lives in the nation's three most populous states, has only six senators. This incredible distortion contributes to the residents of small states receiving disproportionate attention and federal grants. It is legitimate to question, as Liptak does, why residents of small towns in Alaska and Vermont should be favored over residents of small towns in New York and Texas.

But Liptak is wrong to suggest that reforming the Electoral College with the National Popular Vote plan for president has anything to do with the inequality between small and large states. He's also wrong to suggest that this small state math somehow gives Republicans a partisan advantage.

Let's start with the myth that small states receive any special clout from our current Electoral College rules. This belief is rooted in the fact that every state, regardless of its population size, is entitled to at least three Electoral College votes, two for its two U.S. Senators and one for each congressperson in the U.S. House. As a result of this electoral vote allocation, Wyoming has 192,137 residents per elector, and California has 691,662, over 3.5 times more.

Similarly to other astute analysts, however, Liptak does not account for that fact that states allocate electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. Winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.

Instead, one and only one factor governs whether presidential candidates will focus on a given state's potential voters: whether that state is likely to be a swing state in the next election.

With winner-take-all, if one candidate is comfortably ahead in a state - or, as is the case with some 40 states today, one party is sure to win the state in the next close election, no matter who the candidates are - then that state's voters are good for only two things to presidential candidates: donating money and helping to influence voters in the handful of states that matter. Unless a small state is a swing state, presidential candidates will ignore it, just as they ignore the vast majority of other states of all sizes.

We do applaud Liptak for discussing the National Popular Vote plan, as it is promises to be an historic reform drive that will change the Electoral College as we know it. But the National Popular Vote plan in no way "counteracts" the excess power of small states. In fact, it does just the opposite, giving voters in small states the attention and electoral clout that they deserve in presidential elections.

In 2012, for example, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received neither a single public campaign event after the party conventions nor a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

In a national popular vote, in which every vote is equally valuable, presidential candidates would seek to encourage participation and court voters everywhere, not just in the swing states. You can do all of the simple elector-per-capita math you want, but the fact remains that Wyoming and California were equally ignored by the presidential candidates in 2012, just as they have been in every election for many years. Both are disadvantaged by the current Electoral College rules. The only math that really matters when gauging power in presidential elections is swing state math.

In addition, small states also do not receive any monetary advantage from their status in presidential elections once a candidate is elected. While Liptak's piece shows how smaller states receive more benefits from legislation per capita than other states because of their overrepresentation in the Senate, the same is not true of the executive branch, which focuses its attention on swing states instead. Dr. John Hudak analyzed the apportionment of federal grants by the executive branch and found that swing states received about 7.6% more federal grants and about 5.7% more federal grant money between 1992 and 2008 than would be expected based on patterns in other states.

Furthermore, the fact that Republicans win more states than Democrats in close presidential elections does not give them any special partisan advantage. Liptak's claim that only one of the five smallest states leans Democratic is cherry-picked data. The 13 states with three or four electoral votes (including the District of Columbia, which has electoral votes, but not U.S. Senators) have split evenly between the parties in recent elections, with Democrats winning six of them in every election since 1992 and a seventh (New Hampshire) all but once. In 2004, John Kerry won more electoral votes out of these 13 smallest states, even though George W. Bush won more popular votes in those states.

Liptak cites the fact that if you were to eliminate the Senate electors, Al Gore would have won the 2000 presidential election, but this is only one example, not a pattern. Winning one or two extra big population states completely negates any advantage in small states. If Democrats were to gain a secure handle on Florida and Texas, for example, and hold onto the big states they now dominate, they would win any close presidential election even if Republicans continued to have an edge in more states overall.

The fact is, anyone trying to make partisan calculations about whether the current Electoral College system helps one party or the other is pursuing a fool's errand. In any given election, as we demonstrated in our October blog, one party can have an edge in an election- but which party has the edge varies from election to election. The real problem with the system is the indefensible reality that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the identity of those swing states has become increasingly fixed.

Underscoring the fact that small states are not helped by current Electoral College rules is the strong support for reform in small states. Every single state in the nation has had a representative in Congress sponsor or vote for a constitutional amendment to switch to a national popular vote over the past 45 years. In addition, Hawaii, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, all of which have three or four electoral votes, have adopted the National Popular Vote plan, and the plan has passed legislative chambers in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Rhode Island, all states with seven or fewer Electoral College votes.

The myth about the Electoral College and small states is a persistent one, but it's time for our nation's most reputable newspapers and wisest political analysts to get it right. It is wrong to lump the mathematical bonus small states get from having two Senators with the bonus they get from having extra electoral votes; in the Senate, that bonus has a real, practical effect on government policy; in the Electoral College, it does not. The case for a National Popular Vote has nothing to do with balancing out power between big and small states. Instead, it has everything to do with another balance, one fundamental to any representative democracy: one person, one vote.

2013 Edition of Every Vote Equal: The case for the National Popular Vote Plan

Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:01:08 -0800

FairVote is pleased to announce that the newest edition of National Popular Vote's Every Vote Equal: A State Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, is now available for free download at www.EveryVoteEqual.com. Co-authored by FairVote's executive director Rob Richie, Every Vote Equal explains in detail the need for a national popular vote for president, and the solution to that need: the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Developed by the National Popular Vote's John Koza, the compact guarantees election of the presidential candidate who wins the most popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Acting on powers granted to states under the U.S. Constitution, participating states enter the compact through passage of a state law. They agree to award all of their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote once participating states collectively hold a controlling majority in the Electoral College (270 electoral votes). The compact has been passed in eight states and the District of Columbia, holding 132 electoral votes (49% of the votes needed to activate the compact). More states may take action this year.

This new edition features an expanded section addressing myths about the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote, with a wide-ranging information about recounts, the effects of extreme weather on elections, out-of-state presidential electors, and much, much more.

It is free to download the book (or individual chapters). Be sure to check FairVote's work on this issue and the website of the organization leading the lobbying campaign to ensure that every vote in presidential elections is equal, National Popular Vote.

FairVote's Top Three Electoral College Stories of the Week, February 12 to February 19, 2013

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:07:55 -0800

Our system for electing the president is a broken one. Winner-take-all laws for allocating Electoral College votes produce presidential elections in which the candidates only focus on the handful of states in which the outcome is not certain. This inequality between swing and safe states has become greater in recent elections. In the post-convention campaign season of the 2012 election for example, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney only held public campaign events in 10 states, and spent 99.6% of their advertising money in those same states in the final seven months of the campaign. Our current rules are also vulnerable to partisan manipulation. Each week FairVote identifies three news stories or commentaries that provide particularly revealing insights into what's wrong with our current Electoral College rules and the best way to reform them. Here are our highlights from the past week.

1. "GOP Must Alter Message, Not System"

South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Editorial Board, February 13, 2013

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/editorials/fl-editorial-electoral-gs0208-20130213,0,2280906.story

This Florida editorial refers to recent proposals to allocate electoral votes by congressional districts as "sour grapes" and "rigging the system". It mentions the opposition of Florida Senate President Don Gaetz, who has stated his preference for going to direct election of the president The editorial concludes that, due to the unpopularity of current Electoral College rules, "Changing the election to a popular vote is something worthy of discussion."

2. "'Vile Plans to Cheat the Electoral College'"

The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg, February 12, 2013

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2013/02/vile-plans-to-cheat-the-electoral-college.html

The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg has been the nation's best blogger on the National Popular Vote plan. Here he takes on the headline writers of Seth Lipsky's New York Post op-ed, which overstates Lipsky's equation of attempts to alter swing states' Electoral College vote allocation with support for the National Popular Vote plan. Hertzberg rightly explains that the National Popular Vote plan is not partisan and that its guarantee of electing of the popular vote winner removes any doubts about what states in the NPV compact will do: "In other words, no do-overs. No wiggling out if you don't like the outcome."

3. "Geography as a Failed Unit of Representation: Why Fifty Equal Population States Is No Solution for Presidential Elections"

FairVote, Rob Richie, Andrea Levien, and Devin McCarthy, February 19, 2013

http://www.fairvote.org/geography-as-a-failed-unit-of-representation-why-fifty-states-of-equal-population-is-no-solution-for-presidential-elections

FairVote takes on the myth that what is wrong with the current Electoral College rules is uneven allocation of electoral votes between big and small states. We discuss an innovative map that has has drawn praise from the likes of The Atlantic's James Fallows as a better means to elect the president. The map shows 50 states of equal population, but population inequities are a minor detail of what is wrong with the current system. The fact that this map would likely have elected Mitt Romney despite his popular vote defeat and would have left most Americans in "safe states" underscores that the real problem is dividing Americans into separate geographic units, using a winner take all rules. Instead, we need one-person, one-vote -- where ever vote counts the same wherever it is cast.

Geography as a Failed Unit of Representation: Why Fifty States of Equal Population Is No Solution for Presidential Elections

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:18:05 -0800

This week, an alternative map of the United States has been floating around the Internet, one that some have suggested would create a more fair and equal Electoral College. Created by artist Neil Freeman, the map redraws state lines so that all fifty states have equal populations and are both compact and geographically intuitive. The implicit idea behind the proposal is that what's wrong with presidential elections is the unequal population of states.

The project is certainly an amusing thought experiment - especially given some of the more creative names for new states, like "Shiprock" and "Firelands" (less exciting is the proposed state of "Tampa Bay"). But as an improvement to the Electoral College, the plan is woefully inadequate. Its failure is quite revealing for how so many pundits fail to grasp the value of the national popular vote and think that redistricting is what's broken in congressional elections rather than districting itself.

That's not a criticism of Freeman, who readily admits that his plan is not a serious proposal and even links to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact for a reform plan that is. However, a few commentators who have picked up on Freeman's map have been more enamored with this "solution" than the plan merits. Robert Krulwich of NPR described it as "a crazy but rational solution to our Electoral College problem," and Jim Fallows of the Atlantic similarly lauded it as a "fix."

The problem is that uneven population of states is not what's wrong with the current Electoral College system. Sure, the large state of California has 66 times more people than the small state of Wyoming, yet only 18 times more electoral votes. But the campaigns don't care. To them, a vote in California counts the same as a vote in Wyoming: they're equally worthless.

The real problems with our current presidential election system arise from two factors: dividing the nation into geographic units (states) and allocating Electoral College votes in those states on a winner-take-all basis. It's the same problem we have with U.S. House elections.

Take the fact that this new system would be even more likely to experience a wrong-winner election than our troubled system today. According to Michael Barone, Barack Obama would have won only 21 of the new states in the Freeman map, with Mitt Romney winning 29. So even though Obama defeated Romney by nearly 5 million votes in the national popular vote, his 51% - 47% edge in the popular vote would have turned into a 43% - 58% deficit in this version of the Electoral College. Although all votes would be weighted equally, this system would have yielded election results entirely unrepresentative of what the country actually wanted.

In addition, it would do nothing to halt the inequality of treatment that voters across the nation. In 2012, only ten of our 50 states drew a major party presidential candidate for a post-convention campaign event, and those same states drew more than 99% of all presidential campaign spending in the seven months after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee.

From a cursory look at these new states, it seems that the great majority of them would remain uncompetitive, from the new safe Democratic states of Throgs Neck and Yerba Buena to the new safe Republican states of Salt Lake and Ogalalla. All this new map would do is alter a few of the areas where the candidates spend their time campaigning. By no means would it give all Americans an equal say in who becomes the next president.

In fact, the plan bears a remarkable similarity to another idea that is being more seriously touted as a fair solution to U.S. congressional elections: independent redistricting commissions. Backers of independent redistricting usually conceive of it as being governed by nonpartisan criteria of equal population, compactness, existing political divisions, and cultural coherence. Nonpartisan or not, however, any map using winner-take-all districts is necessarily going to favor one party simply due to the political geography of how Democrats and Republicans are dispersed throughout the country. It's also going to leave most voters as spectators in elections.

Just like Freeman's equal state population map, a U.S. congressional map of only single-member district seats drawn by independent redistricting commissions could easily result in wrong-winner elections. As FairVote has shown, the 2012 election would likely still have produced a Republican House despite Democrats receiving more votes nationwide even had the congressional map been drawn with "nonpartisan" lines. Emory University's Alan Abramowitz last week estimated in Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball that Democrats would need more than 56% of the two-party vote in the 2014 election to win a simple majority of House seats.

The fascination with Freeman's map as an actual improvement to our elections (rather than as a cool art project) highlights the ubiquity of an irrational obsession for geographic representation and making where you live more important than what you think. Winner-take-all elections using geographic districts can never be truly fair, no matter how the lines are drawn.

If the fans of Freeman's map really want to reform the Electoral College in a way that would make every vote equal, they should throw their support behind the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would ensure that every vote, in every corner of the nation, would count the same. To achieve the same objective in congressional elections, reformers should embrace fair voting forms of proportional representation in addition to independent redistricting commissions.

FairVote's Top Three Electoral College Stories of the Week, February 6 to February 12, 2013

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:03:13 -0800

We all know that our system for electing the president is a broken one. Winner-take-all laws for allocating Electoral College votes produce presidential elections in which the candidates only focus on states in which the outcome is not certain. This inequality between swing and safe states has become greater in recent elections. For example, in the post-convention campaign season of the 2012 election, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney only held public campaign events in 10 states, and spent 99.6% of their advertising money in those same 10 states between April 11 and Election Day. In addition, our current rules are vulnerable to partisan manipulation.

Each week, FairVote will identify three news stories or commentaries that provide particularly revealing insights into what's wrong with our current Electoral College rules and the best way to reform them. The media has been providing a great deal of coverage to Electoral College reform, focused on proposals to divide electoral votes. Here are our highlights for the past week.

1. Can GOP regain power by 'adjusting' Electoral College?

Sun Sentinal, Florida, Martin Dyckman, February 6, 2013

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-mdcol-oped0206-20130206,0,1045051.story

In this op-ed, journalist Martin Dyckman discuss how the congressional district method of allocating Electoral College votes would not accurately reflect the views of voters. In it, he quotes Florida Senate President Don Gaetz as saying, "I think we should abolish the Electoral College. But nobody in Washington has called to ask for my opinion." Dyckman goes on to say that Gaetz need not wait for Washington to act: he could support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

2. Moving the Goalposts

The Economist, February 9, 2013

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21571485-plan-change-electoral-college-carries-whiff-desperation-moving-goalposts

This articles gives a brief history of proposed Electoral College reforms, including after 2000, when both Democrats and Republicans were considering switching to the district method. He discusses the renewal of support for this system, although this time only among Republican legislators in states that voted Democratic in presidential elections. The author does mention the National Popular Vote in the middle of the piece, but neither approves of disapproves of the plan.

3. Republican plan to Electoral College not fairest idea

The News-Herald, Michigan, Editorial, February 9, 2013

http://www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2013/02/09/opinion/doc51152cc99be42213599757.txt?viewmode=fullstory

This editorial in the Michigan newspaper calls for either a proportional method of allocating electors or the National Popular Vote. It refers to the district allocation method as "a bad idea, borne out of desperation amid the recognition that hyper-conservative views, perhaps the Republican Party along with them, are declining in importance."

FairVote's Top Three Electoral College Stories of the Week: January 29 to February 5, 2013

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:16:37 -0800

1. The GOP's Bad Fixes to the Electoral College, Washington Post Editorial, February 3, 2013

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-bad-fixes-to-the-electoral-college/2013/02/01/7abe684e-699a-11e2-ada3-d86a4806d5ee_story.html

This lead editorial in the Sunday edition of the Washington Post explains that recent Republican proposals to allocate electors by congressional districts in Republican-controlled, Democratic-leaning swing states "would destabilize the already imperfect Electoral College," because it would heavily favor one party over the other. In addition the method "would create more potential for recounts, as electoral votes would be awarded based on very narrow margins in some congressional districts. For more on recounts, see Mollie Hailey's blog "Statewide Recounts Remain Scarce: Zero in 2012".

2. The Ramifications of Changing the Electoral College, Governing Magazine, Lou Jacobson, January 31, 2013

http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/gov-ramifications-changing-electoral-college.html

In this article, Jacobson discusses in detail the various impacts that switching to a congressional district method of allocating electoral votes would have on presidential elections, such as increasing the likelihood of a wrong-winner election and increasing incentives to gerrymander congressional districts even further. (He briefly addresses the National Popular Vote plan, with some inaccurate assumptions -- partisan electors will have no reason to be "faithless" and the nation will be focused on the national popular vote outcome rather than state outcomes.)

3. A) Pennsylvanians Shouldn't Be Fooled by Electoral Hijinks, New Castle News, February 4, 2013

http://www.ncnewsonline.com/opinion/x2056603914/Mitchel-Olszak-Pennsylvanians-shouldn-t-be-fooled-by-electoral-hijinks

B) Republicans Lost Popular Vote Twice, Now Want to Ignore It, New Jersey Star-Ledger, January 28, 2013

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2013/01/republicans_lost_popular_vote.html

Commentaries in two newspapers (one in Pennsylvania and one in New Jersey) criticize attempts to divide electors within states and instead urge state legislators to support the National Popular Vote. Mitchel Olszak, editorial page editor of Pennsylvania's New Castle News explains why proposals to divide electoral votes in Pennsylvania would harm the state and calls on legislators to support the National Popular Vote plan. He ends with "This is a reform that takes no sides and favors no party. Anything else is a gimmick." The Star-Ledger editorial board also comes out strongly in favor of the National Popular Vote plan. It closes with "It's a simple ideal: The person who gets the most votes should win."