FairVote Feed: National Popular Vote

Presidential Tracker: New Evidence of our Shrinking Battleground

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:57:30 -0800

Since FairVote's last presidential tracker update in December, President Barack Obama's travels have followed the standard rule of prioritizing the swing states. Indeed, just like his predecessor George Bush as he prepared for re-election, the president's destinations and the nature of his visits followed the same trends that we've seen in the past: battlegrounds and fundraising.

According to the Washington Post's POTUS Tracker, since the first of December, Barack Obama has officially visited 11 states and held a total of 17 events, excluding his personal trip to Hawaii over the holidays. Of the 12 most likely battleground states for the 2012 election, the President visited eight of them in the past 2 months alone.

As indicated in the chart below, events in the New Year are similarly shaping up to be a complimentary mixture of fundraising and swing state public events. During his trips to New York and Illinois, both typically strong blue states, the President held a total of seven events, all of which were for fundraising. And, battlegrounds are gaining momentum, as expected. Last week, the president completed a 3-day battleground tour to Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, and Michigan, with an additional visit to one state that is unlikely to be a real battleground: Arizona.

This is what his 2012 is shaping up like so far:

States	Type of Event(s)	No. of Events	State Status
Ohio	Public & Private	2	Battleground
Illinois	Fundraising	3	Safe Democrat
Florida	Public	1	Battleground
New York	Fundraising	4	Safe Democrat
Iowa	Public	1	Battleground
Arizona	Public	1	Leaning Republican
Nevada	Public	1	Battleground
Colorado	Public	1	Battleground
Michigan	Public	1	Battleground

As discussed in previous tracker updates, visits to these so-called "battleground" states (and safe states for fundraising) meet a strategic need in a candidates bid to get elected to the office of the president. Typically, the President takes a public tour or delivers remarks in battleground states. Yet, it is also common to travel frequently to certain safe states that can lend a helping hand in the fundraising department. President Obama regularly held events in New York and California over the past year - both of which top the list for most events held in 2011 and are famous for many big campaign donors.

This focus on swing states is a direct result of the winner-take-all system of our Electoral College. Once the nomination is decided - which it effectively is for Obama, as he avoided a primary challenger - presidential candidates have every incentive to focus all of their campaign-related attention on a dwindling number of swing states. This leads to many being excluded from the national conversation. Indeed, there is no real need for the President to be concerned with "safe states" under such a system (other than for fundraising purposes). It is the incentives created by the system.

When Obama had different incentives, he campaigned differently, of course. In his hard-fought race for the Democratic nomination in 2008, he visited nearly every state. But in his three years as president, he still has yet to travel to nine states - a direct result of our indefensible way of electing presidents.

To wrap up the past year, in 2011, 61% of the country received 100% of the attention and event visits from the president, but more than half of those states are considered "battleground". Although fundraising in safely democratic states was high on the agenda during the past year - a combined 52 events - public events in battleground states totaled a hefty 49.

As you can see from the map below, 20 states in total never had one event in all of 2011-including the nine that have never received a visit since he took office in 2009. 15 other states across the nation still had three or fewer visits. Iowa, New Hampshire and Minnesota are the only "battleground" states to have less than four events in 2011. In fact, of the 12 battlegrounds for this election, 11 of them each had three or more events in the past year.

Data on President Barack Obama's travels is obtained from the Washington Post's POTUS Tracker

2011 Year-end Summary

South Carolina voters better enjoy it while it lasts

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:13:52 -0800

With the South Carolina primary just around the corner on Saturday, the preferences of South Carolina voters are of intense interest to the nation -and of course to the candidates swarming the states. Events, polls, debates and the media are all focused on South Carolina voters.

Today alone, GOP candidates are holding a combined 16 events throughout the state . Even comedian Stephen Colbert is holding a rally with Herman Cain, and the online world is full of chatter about Newt Gingrich's showdown with the media in last night's debate and who took home the prize for best debater of the night. There have been five total debates in South Carolina since politicians first started announcing their candidacy - three in the past week alone.

But after Saturday? Forget it. South Carolina will be lucky to see a presidential candidate in the next four years - -indeed, they may hardly see whoever is elected president until 2016. The state and its voters effectively won't matter once they cast their vote on Saturday.

It's all a product of our November election rules. Because South Carolina has a law to allocate all its electoral votes to the winner of the state, and since the outcome in November is not in question (a Republican is sure to carry the state in a nationally competitive year), there will be no incentive for the Republican nominee to return once the primary is over.

President Barack Obama will almost certainly skip the state as well. In fact, according to our Presidential Tracker, the president has visited South Carolina zero times since taking office in January of 2009. That's right. Zero. In contrast, he has held 14 separate events in neighboring North Carolina, which is also more likely to be a November battleground.

Just take a look at the two charts below that show a general news trend of interest in South Carolina voters and politics. The 2008 spike in interest in South Carolina and its voters is quite noticeable, but so too is the four-year drought in between presidential elections. Now, the cycle is just repeating itself again this month as interest in South Carolina climbs back up during this year's primary season -- its inevitable decline on the horizon.

So South Carolina soon will find themselves back in the undesirable position of "safe state" and be excluded from the national conversation come November. It's one alone. Truly, most states don't matter in presidential elections in November. Thanks to current state rules governing the Electoral College-- specifically, the winner-take-all system that 48 of our 50 states use -- about 40 states will be effective spectators in the general elections. All the hail storm of promotional ads, fancy suits, political rhetoric, and rallying cries will be in the familiar states of Ohio, Florida and the like. For South Carolina? Just a memory.

The best way to make every voter matter in every election is the National Popular Vote plan. South Carolina in fact had a debate about the idea, with CSPAN coverage . Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, was among those championing the NPV proposal. The proposal keeps making steady progress and has a real chance to be in place in 2016.

There are less than 48 hours of relevancy left for South Carolina voters. We hope they enjoy it while it lasts. Presidential candidates probably won't be back for another four years.

Learn more about the national popular vote plan for electing the president

Presidential Tracker: Looking at the Structure

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 12:20:52 -0800

I update our ongoing report on President Barack Obama's travels on our POTUS tracker on a near-daily basis. Since my last presidential tracker analysis update on October 14^th, the President has travelled to 10 states and held 41 separate events.

Over these past six weeks, a battleground state had a 50% chance of a visit, whereas a non-battleground had a 8% chance of a visit. In other words, of the 10 states that President Obama has travelled to since mid-October, seven of them are considered one of the 12 battlegrounds for the 2012 election and only three are among the 38 "non-battleground" states.

White House attention to the states that matter in the 2012 elections has been noticed. This week the Wall Street Journal reported that President Obama's visit to Scranton, Pennsylvania on Wednesday marked the 56^th event (according to their tally) in a battleground state since the beginning of this year. This means that President Obama has surpassed both Clinton and Bush with official event visits to battleground states in the year before re-election.

The WSJ also reports that critics accuse the President of "intertwining campaigning and governing." But of course, as the Journal's story shows, this is nothing new - and only to be expected when you have electoral rules that make some voters so much more important than others.

Indeed, why are people critiquing the number of events in battleground states when we should be critiquing the fact that the events are in so-called battleground states in the first place? It is the rules of the current system that make this pattern of travel so likely.

And why aren't we asking what could happen in our country's Electoral College landscape that would lead to the problem becoming even more pronounced?

What FairVote's analysis shows clearly is that in every new presidential election over the past 20 years, the partisan divide in this country has been stronger and the number of swing states, which traditionally garner all candidate attention, diminish. Because of these trends, general election candidates are forced to focus on only those "important" states that they have a potential of winning (should they campaign enough!) - hence the term, "battleground."

As discussed in my blog post earlier this fall on former U.S. Senator Arlen Specter's blunt statements about the value of being a battleground, this distinction inevitably affects White House attention. You can see it in the image below (as posted in the WSJ), Clinton, Bush, and Obama each gave significant attention to battleground states.

It should not be surprising that an electoral system that produces inequality in votes will produce inequality in attention. It should also not be surprising that visits to these battleground states by presidents and candidates have been increasing with each election. The structural system encourages it, political consultants promote it, and the emotional, partisan inferno that divides our country politically makes it a necessity.

Tracking the president's events and visits doesn't produce surprises considering the electoral system under which he operates, but it does provide insight into the inadequacies of our current structure -- affirming that the rules have a direct correlation on the outcomes.

A note on methodology: Our tracking data is based on the Washington Post POTUS Tracker, from which we gather information daily. We categorize each specific event according to its purpose, therefore reflecting some difference in event numbers compared to the WSJ.

Download the NPV flyer that was made using the WSJ image! "Unless you live in one of a few states, your voice and vote just don't matter."

Below is a snapshot of each type of event in the 12 highlighted battleground states for the 2012 election year:

Battleground Events since January 2011

	Public	Private	Fundraiser	Total Events
Colorado	2	0	2	4
Florida	4	0	7	11
Iowa	3	0	0	3
Michigan	4	1	0	5
Minnesota	3	0	0	3
Nevada	1	2	1	4
New Hampshire	1	0	0	1
North Carolina	6	1	0	7
Ohio	4	0	0	4
Pennsylvania	7	1	2	10
Virginia	10	0	0	10
Wisconsin	3	0	0	3
Total Events	48	5	12	65

NPV Critic Response Series: Spakovsky and the NPV plan

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:46:47 -0700

The plan for a popular vote to elect the president continues to make headlines around the country as new public opinion polls showing favor for such a plan emerge. Meanwhile, critics continue to decry the opinion of the American people and the National Popular Vote plan.

One such opponent is Hans A. von Spakovsky. On, October 26^th, he wrote an article for The Washington Times, entitled "Protecting Electoral College from popular vote".

Spakovsky's broadside is of the classic tabloid variety with extravagant tales of mishap. The bulk of this article and his argument begin,

Their stealth campaign - dubbed the "National Popular Vote" (NPV) plan - proposes an interstate compact in which participating states agree to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the popular vote results in their states or whether the candidate even qualified to be on that state's ballot.

He gives a valid effort to define the National Popular Vote plan. It is, correctly, an interstate compact that states sign agreeing to allocate their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide. Yet, he calls the plan "stealth". A plan that began with a Washington Journal appearance on CSPAN, a National Press Club news conference in 2006, and has involved very public efforts to secure the support of more than 2,000 state legislators.

Misleadingly, he also suggests that voters care more about which candidate wins the state than the presidency. I think most would agree that voters are more likely to wake up happy on the morning after an election if their candidate has won the presidency, even while losing the state, than vice versa.

In a national popular vote system red and blue states do not exist. Every single ballot cast in every single state is counted toward the nationwide tally of votes for presidential candidates. No one is misrepresented or unrepresented. Rather, everyone and their vote counts. Everyone knows the rules, and a super-majority of voters want exactly this kind of election for picking their president.

Spakovsky goes on to say,

The NPV will go into effect as soon as "states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes" needed to win an election (270) join the compact. This would give the most populous states a controlling majority of the Electoral College, letting the voters of as few as 11 states control the outcome of presidential elections.

Spakovsky couldn't be more wrong if he added two and two together and got five. Once a total number of states comprising the equivalent of 270 electoral votes sign the compact, Americans will be electing their president through a national popular vote in all 50 states (plus DC)- not just the states that signed the compact. It is an absolute impossibility that only those states which signed the compact can control the outcome of the election with a majority of electoral votes. Americans will be voting for the candidates, not electors.

He also suggests that only 11 states can come together to pass the compact and put it into place, but a number of small population states have already passed it. The NPV plan will not be enacted with just 11 states. Rather, it will be adopted when a broad mix of states adopts it - just as proponents have said all along.

Interestingly, he neglects to mention that under the current rules, which he defends, a candidate can actually win a plurality of the vote in those 11 largest states, losing heavily everywhere else - and still become president.

He continues,

It would undermine the protections of the Electoral College, elevating the importance of big urban centers like New York and Los Angeles while diminishing the influence of smaller states and rural areas. That was a major reason for establishing the Electoral College in the first place: to prevent elections from becoming contests where presidential candidates would simply campaign in big cities for votes.

Spakovsky describes our current system, which ignores smaller states, less-populated areas, and emphasizes only a minute portion of the nation, otherwise known as "swing states." Previous blog posts on analysis of rural areas and small states, as well as the influence of big cities , effectively demolish any suggestion that the current system helps small states and rural Americans. They also explain how, under the NPV plan, votes count equally in what becomes a "swing nation," and candidates seek every vote they can get.

Spakovsky goes on to claim that the Electoral College also reduces the possibility of recounts and that such recounts would become a "nightmare" under the NPV plan. In his words,

Contrary to the claims of opponents, recounts under the NPV would be both more prevalent and more problematic... Suspicions necessitating a recount in just one jurisdiction would be an incentive for a national recount since every additional vote found anywhere in the country could make the difference to the losing candidate.

It is statistically less probable that a race will be close enough to warrant a recount under a National Popular Vote system. The National Popular Vote plan actually reduces the recount probability in every Presidential election to 1 in every 262 elections. Right now, under the current system, there are 51 separate possibilities for a recount in every presidential election.

Recounts occur because of small margins of win, typically a difference of 5,000 votes or less, although a legitimate contestation of the election result can be made for up to 50,000 or less. Despite what critics argue, the likelihood of recounts occurring under a National Popular Vote system are statistically, drastically decreased because of the larger population from which results are determined.

It is also wrong to say that a recount is any "easier" in one swing state than the nation as a whole. In fact, as shown by the unresolved dispute in Florida in 2000, and in other contentious recounts like the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota, a close race in one state is highly problematic for having a clear winner.

Spakovsky completes his article by associating the Electoral College system with the Founders' grander plan of representative democracy, stating that it protects minority rights, balances power, and provides orderly elections.

The NPV strikes directly at the Founders' views of federalism and a representative republic that balances popular sovereignty with structural protections for state governments and minority interests.

While the Electoral College has been in place since the time of the Founding Fathers, the winner-take-all rule has not. Winner-take-all is the element of the system that impedes the balance of power and encourages candidates to favor certain states and citizens over others.

What the Electoral College really represents is state authority over picking the president. The National Popular Vote plan is grounded in states exercising that power, reflecting what their voters want.

We live in a country dramatically different -culturally, socially and politically - than the founders. We cannot continue to ignore the modern day, negative repercussions of a winner-take-all, state-by-state system that leaves more than half of states and citizens as spectators in presidential elections. All Americans should matter.

As Hendrik Hertzberg said best in his recent New Yorker blog,

Why should Presidential candidates "cater" to "important states"-i.e., to the ten or so "battleground" states? What about the forty or so unimportant states? Why cater to "states" at all? Why not cater to human beings? Aren't they "important"?

Gallup Poll: National Popular Vote Favored by Majority

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:28:51 -0700

Polls are a significant medium through which politicians gain insight into the preferences of their constituents and the American public. For years now, polls have been conducted on whether to replace the current Electoral College system with a national popular vote for president. As FairVote detailed in a post a few years ago, national and statewide results consistently show favor for a popular vote – usually with majority support from backers of both major parties and from independents.

A recent poll by Gallup verifies this once again: 62% of Americans now favor direct election of the president and only 35% are in favor of keeping the Electoral College. It is likely that at least some of this 35% do not agree with the current rules governing the Electoral College; rather, they support states having the power to decide how to allocate electors.

Gallup has been asking this same question in different ways over the past several decades. A popular vote has always received majority support. As recently as 1980, Gallup also found no real partisan split on preference. Gallup links the more recent and differing opinions among Democrats and Republicans in 2001 and 2005 to the contentious 2000 presidential election, which left the country fiercely divided along party lines.

Over the past decade, opinions of adopting a popular vote have fluctuated, for instance, within political parties. In 2005, only a majority of Democrats and Independents were supportive. Yet, more than 10 years later, the majority of Democrats, independents, and Republicans now favor getting rid of the Electoral College.

Staying within the margin of error, Democrat support has remained about the same with 71% in the new poll. Independents continue to support a popular vote in the majority with 61%, and Republican support has risen to a majority in the last poll with 53%. We suspect this number will keep rising as we move away from 2000 considering that there was no partisan division about the Electoral College a generation ago.

Gallup even reports that this majority remains true throughout various age groups with lowest support among the 18 to 34 year olds at 58% -- still a landslide.

These latest poll results confirm that there is a majority preference among Americans for a national popular vote and that this support crosses party lines. Polls commissioned by National Popular Vote (NPV) show that support is even higher for the NPV plan for president. This difference is likely due to the fact that it establishes the desired policy of a popular vote for president without changing the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote plan upholds the values of democracy and gives every citizen a relevant voice and vote in elections. With the latest poll data, it continues to be clear that the American people realize this and that their barrier to equality in presidential elections is found in the current system of the Electoral College. As George Edwards, Texas A&M professor and author of the excellent, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America (in its second edition this year) commented in response to the poll results,

[The Electoral College] It’s a violation of the most fundamental principles of democracy, meaning equality in voting. Under the Electoral College, every citizen vote does not count the same. As a result, the candidate who gets fewer votes can win the election. I can't see how that's a good idea under democracy.

Politicians can no longer afford to be out of touch with the American people. We must put aside partisan calculations about who can better game the current system. It’s time to go with the people and support a national popular vote for president – making every vote equal and every vote count.

**Graphs from Gallup Poll Results

NPV Critic Response Series: Sen. Grassley Defends Wrong System

Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:24:51 -0700

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley was reported in the Globe Gazette as stating that the Electoral College “has served us well”--referring to his state of Iowa -- while on WMT Radio 600 this week.

Sen. Grassley has a point – at least for now, Iowa receives a decent amount of attention during presidential elections. Not only does it get all that undue attention due its caucuses coming first in the presidential nomination calendar, the state is one of the favored few states in general elections to be competitive.

According to the Gazette, he says that a change to a national popular vote would allow candidates “to ignore small-population states like Iowa.” In the words of Grassley,

“If we do a national popular vote, the 12 to 13, some say 19, largest states are going to get all of the attention”.

Grassley’s mistake is assuming that this is directly because of the Electoral College system. In fact, Iowa really only receives attention because it happens to be a close state. It is the current system that results in neglect of the smallest and most rural states.

In peak season of the last general election, 98% of all campaign events and more than 98% of all campaign spending took place in only 15 states. Swing states like Iowa dominate presidential elections, but FairVote’s data show conclusively that the number of swing states is decreasing with each new presidential election.

Due to the winner-take-all rule in states, candidates only focus on states where the outcome is in doubt. Of our nation’s 15 smallest population states, only one gets attention in a close presidential election.

Even among the swing states, it’s the large states that matter most. Why? Because they offer the biggest reward! Candidates can receive 100% of the prize for only half of the popular vote in a state --regardless of the ballots cast by a significant portion of voters in each. That’s why in the general election, we hear a lot more about Ohio and Florida than Iowa.

And Iowa isn’t sure of staying a swing state. Once a state tilts toward one party, it is absolutely, utterly ignored – just like most other states. And that’s happening to two or three more states each election.Although opposed by Sen. Grassley, the National Popular Vote plan has the opposite impact. Because we live in a ‘swing nation”, every individual vote counts just as much as another, and every vote in favor of a candidate will actually be his or her vote to win.

Grassley and Iowa Governor Terry Branstad say that 31 small states would not matter under a national popular vote for president. They are just simply wrong. A candidate could win every single vote cast in the 10 most populous states (including, of course, their big cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Houston), but he or she would still not be able to win a majority of the popular votes to be elected. There is no incentive to campaign in safe states; only competitive states matter in a winner-take-all system.

Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia are all losing right now because of the winner-take-all Electoral College rule. If we really want small states to matter in an election and, “a president who has to go to rural America,” as Grassley says, then we should all be rooting for the National Popular Vote plan for president.

NPV Critic Response Series: Big Cities Won't Rule

Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:14:54 -0700

It is a common argument that switching to the National Popular Vote plan will alter the political landscape to a point where big cities will rule and small states will suffer. These arguments have appeared recently in articles by critics such as Rachel Alexander’s Oct. 6th post on townhall.com and rightwingnews.com and a blog on Sept. 6th from joshuapundit.blogspot.com that received recognition on varight.com.

Rachel Alexander, for example, asserts:

“A national popular vote would transfer voting power to large urban cities favoring Democrats.”

Alexander’s statement may resonate on an emotional level with some of her readers, but she cites no facts to back up her claim. Facts actually contradict her argument.

FairVote’s research and analysis on past presidential elections detail the numbers that prove large cities alone cannot rule presidential elections and that Democratic candidates won’t be favored for it in a NPV system. FairVote addresses this critique in its FAQs on the National Popular Vote plan. In addition, chapter 10 of Every Vote Equal, coauthored by the National Popular Vote’s John Koza, FairVote’s Rob Richie,and other analysts takes on this myth. All of FairVote’s research, including the recent Fuzzy Math report , concludes that a National Popular Vote plan for president is more representative and fair than the current system or proposed alternatives involving the division of a state’s electoral votes.

Overlooking the fact that most states are already ignored under state rules allocating electoral votes by winner-take-all, Alexander fails to understand that no candidate can win based on large cities or states alone –just as governors can’t win by focusing only on cities. You have to win votes wherever you can when every vote is equal.

Moreover, in stating that power will be “transferred” to large cities, it is assumed that the counterparts to this (small states) currently have more power, but this is also wrong. Alexander also wrongly assumes that candidates will campaign for the same voters.

Here is the reality of it:

• Small and rural states are heavily ignored in the current system. It is wrong to assume that power “transfers” to big cities when, in fact, it is not fairly distributed in the first place, nor are small states receiving even a majority of that power in the present.

Of the 15 lowest populated states in the country, only one state receives regular attention: New Hampshire. This means that at least 14 states small states and over 15 million people are ignored under the current Electoral College system simply because they are “predictable” and offer little reward in terms of electoral votes.

In the 2004 election, only 12 states, home to less than 28% of the electorate, were of main focus. These states were also relatively concentrated in the Midwest. In the last few months of the 2008 election, more than 98% of campaign spending and events were in only15 states –representing barely a third of the nation. And, more than half of all time and resources were spent in just four states: Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

• Candidates cannot win with big cities alone. It would be foolish for a candidate to ignore voters in less-populated areas, even if a majority of Americans live in the metropolitan areas. A candidate could win every single vote cast in the 10 most populous states (including, of course, their big cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Houston), but he or she would still not be able to win a majority of the popular votes to be elected.

• Candidates will court voters that will actually vote for them. Let’s be honest. If certain urban areas are strong Democratic holds, Republican candidates won’t waste their time trying to court die-hard liberals for votes – just as Democratic candidates won’t spend the majority of their time looking for votes in the heart of Wyoming (see Hardening Partisanship report).

In the current system, governed by the winner-take-all rule, candidates in the peak general election season have no incentive to campaign in safe states. The only states that matter are the ones that happen to be competitive. This can’t happen with a national popular vote for president. Candidates will have to court the voters that are most likely to vote for them as well as the ones that are somewhat likely.

For example, in the 2004 election, John Kerry put his greatest attention into urban areas in Ohio, which he did tend to win in large numbers. George Bush’s campaign, however, mobilized many voters in the rural and “ex-urban” counties in Ohio that actually led him to win the statewide popular vote. Added to the votes won in urban areas – every vote counted.

Both major parties have shown an equal ability to carry the national popular vote in elections over the short, medium and long-term. In fact, the Republicans and Democrats have split the national popular vote in the past 26 elections back to 1904.

Overall, big cities will not take power from small states nor will Democrats be advantaged. A national popular vote for president provides a level playing field that is fair to both major parties and the American people.

NPV Critic Response Series: The Electoral College

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 05:50:32 -0700

Critics of the National Popular Vote (NPV) plan often make misleading or misinformed remarks and judgments. For those with questions about these claims, we urge you to read FairVote’s responses to frequently asked questions about the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote plan and to the “answering myths” chapter of Every Vote Equal (available for download at www.everyvoteequal.com and www.nationalpopularvote.com).

To supplement these resources, we are launching a new blog series designed to address the latest arguments from opponents. We start today by first reviewing some important features of the current Electoral College system and how those features influence our critique of current state laws governing modern elections. Subsequent posts will address arguments specifically and directly respond to new criticisms.

Unlike in other democracies that hold an election for president, American voters do not directly elect their national leader. Instead, the United States has an intermediary body that selects the president on behalf of the American citizens. This intermediary institution is called the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is the official body of chosen “electors,” whose role to elect the president and vice president of the United States is established under the U.S. Constitution; meanwhile, states are charged with establishing how those electors are chosen.

The Constitution establishes that presidential elections take place every four years, with the timing of the meeting of the Electoral College established by statute. Each state has the same number of electoral votes as Members of Congress (its U.S. House members and U.S. Senators) with Washington, D.C. slated to have three electors. Currently there are a total of 538 electoral votes. A candidate must receive an absolute 50% plus one majority, or at least 270 of those votes, to win the presidency outright.

In other words, the Electoral College directly elects the president and vice president. As Americans, when we go to the polls on Election Day, we may see candidates’ names, but we are in fact only voting for the "electors" who will then cast votes on behalf of us and our state. Although some states seek to bind electors to vote in a certain way, “faithless” electors could vote for a different candidate. We have seen a handful of such “faithless” votes, but they are rare since the electors are chosen by the candidate who has earned them.

In reading our blog series, it is a critical point to keep in mind that the rules governing the Electoral College are a mixture of Constitutional law and federal and state implementation laws. Federal implementation statutes establish such features as when states must report their official vote totals, when the Electoral College meets and how federal elections in general must be conducted, while state laws have authority to determine how to allocate their electors and how to conduct elections.

Under our Constitution, the states – and states alone – have the critical power over how to allocate electoral votes.

Every state has passed a law establishing how to allocate its electoral votes. Although not the norm in early presidential elections, nearly every state today awards all of its electoral votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote. This is known as the “winner-take-all” or “unit rule”. These state laws used to frequently change, but today, 48 states and the District of Columbia award all of their electors to the slate of people selected by the candidate who wins that state’s popular vote.

The winner-take-all rule means that candidates only have an incentive to campaign in states where they are not comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Today, that means only a third of states have a chance to be battlegrounds – and it will be down to less than ten states in the final months of the election

In our opinion, the winner-take-all rule is not a fair way to elect a president. We see the purpose of presidential elections as primarily about establishing a fair way to elect one person – the president - rather than primarily about selecting a group of 538 electors. The Electoral College doesn’t need to be broadly representative in the way we believe legislative elections should be. Rather, it needs to be an effective instrument for a fair way to elect one winner: the president.

The impact of the winner-take-all rule is critically important for understanding our critique of the status quo. The winner-take-all rule does not lead to less campaigning in states that are not considered battleground states. It results in no meaningful campaigning: no focus groups or polls of voters living in these states, no get-out-the-vote activities, no persuasion advertising or outreach. Once a state is outside of the “swing” band of competitiveness, it effectively disappears for campaigns – it is only useful as a source of campaign funds and potential volunteers to target the states that matter.

The current state rules that govern the Electoral College are not set in stone and can be changed based on state preferences of how to allocate their electoral votes. Our blog series is grounded in FairVote’s belief that states should change their rules to enter into the National Popular Vote interstate compact to guarantee election of the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

We believe that the arguments in favor of the status quo do not stand up to scrutiny. Grounded in the basics of the system as laid out in this post, we seek to provide a reality check of claims made about the impact of our current system, potential reforms and a national popular vote for president.

For more information on the Electoral College, visit our Electoral College FAQs page and read more about how it works today.

FairVote Testimony on Electoral College Reform in Pennsylvania

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:25:21 -0700

On October 4, 2011, FairVote submitted a written testimony to the Pennsylvania Senate's 'State Government Committee' for the public hearing on electoral reform of whether or not to allocate the state's electoral votes based on congressional district outcomes.

FairVote strongly opposes the proposed legislation. When adopted in all states, the congressional district system takes us farther from the goal of ensuring that the winner of the national popular vote is elected president. When adopted in Pennsylvania alone, it takes us farther from the goal of ensuring that the winner of Pennsylvania's statewide popular vote wins most of the state's electoral votes.

And, make sure to see Rob Richie's Nation magazine commentary on the Pennsylvania controversy

Download FairVote Testimony of Electoral College Reform in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvanians oppose congressional district system - but also status quo

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:33:57 -0700

Poll numbers released this week by Quinnipiac University indicate that Pennsylvania voters prefer the state’s current winner-take-all rules for allocating Electoral College votes over Senate majority leader Dominic Pileggi’s proposal to allocate electoral votes by congressional district by a margin of 52% to 40% . That finding is important as the legislature heads into hearings on the proposal next Tuesday.

But some journalists have wrongly suggested that the public endorses the current system. The reality is that the pollsters didn’t ask the obvious question: would you instead support Pennsylvania moving the nation toward a national popular vote for president, guaranteeing that the candidate with the most votes nationwide wins?

We know what Pennsylvania voters would say. This poll was asked in a different form in Pennsylvania earlier this year and, in direct comparison, in several other states in recent years. Indeed, it’s not even close.

An April 2011 poll by Dr. Terry Madonna from Franklin and Marshall University revealed that 2 out 3 Pennsylvanians believe the president should be the candidate who “gets the most votes in all 50 states” and that a clear majority of PA residents from all political parties and all regions of the state favor this approach. Here is a comparison of the polls.

2011 Pennsylvania Polling Numbers


	% Favor Current System	% Favor Congressional Districts	% Favor NPV	Don't Know
Quinnapiac Poll, Sept. 2011	52	40	n/a	7
Franklin and Marshall Poll, April 2011	31	n/a	64	5

Voters in several other states have been asked directly to compare all three methods: allocating electoral votes by congressional district, allocating electoral votes by winner-take-all statewide or guaranteeing victory for the national popular vote. You can see the exact questions and demographic breakdowns at the National Popular Vote site, but here’s a summary:

POLL DATE	STATE
May 2009	Idaho	PREFER NPV	PREFER CURRENT	PREFER DISTRICT
	Overall	71%	13%	16%
	Republican	70%	18%	12%
	Democrat	77%	12%	11%
	Other	66%	17%	16%
January 2009	Maine	PREFER NPV	PREFER CURRENT	PREFER DISTRICT
	Overall	71%	8%	21%
	Republican	65%	7%	27%
	Democrat	77%	8%	15%
	Other	68%	11%	22%
May 2010	Massachusetts	PREFER NPV	PREFER CURRENT	PREFER DISTRICT
	Overall	68%	16%	16%
	Republican	49%	23%	28%
	Democrat	80%	12%	8%
	Other	65%	16%	19%
January 2011	Nebraska	PREFER NPV	PREFER CURRENT	PREFER DISTRICT
	Overall	57%	16%	27%
	Republican	53%	20%	27%
	Democrat	65%	9%	26%
	Other	51%	17%	32%
May 2009	Oklahoma	PREFER NPV	PREFER CURRENT	PREFER DISTRICT
	Overall	77%	10%	13%
	Republican	76%	12%	12%
	Democrat	80%	6%	15%
	Other	70%	17%	13%
May 2009	Washington	PREFER NPV	PREFER CURRENT	PREFER DISTRICT
	Overall	73%	11%	16%
	Republican	61%	17%	22%
	Democrat	82%	8%	10%
	Other	72%	11%	18%

Not only does state after state show a similar finding, but it’s strong across the spectrum. Idaho, for example, is a Republican stronghold, in which John McCain defeated Barack Obama by 62% to 36% in 2008. Yet, support for a national popular vote remains consistent across party lines. Findings are generally similar where this question has been asked, and we're sure it would be about the same in Pennsylvania, despite its recent (and perhaps fleeting) history as a swing state.

So let’s be clear. The congressional district allocation system is unpopular in Pennsylvania, but so is the status quo. We urge Pennsylvania lawmakers to join with other states to guarantee what the public really wants: a national popular vote for president, guaranteeing election of the candidate who wins the most votes in all 50 states and District of Columbia.