National Popular Vote

  • December 1, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, a member of the ACS New York Lawyer Chapter Executive Committee, and a civil rights attorney who ran for the New York State Assembly in 2010
    Remember the 2000 election? Although over 500,000 more Americans voted for Al Gore than George W. Bush, Bush received 5 more electoral votes than Gore and, as a result, won the presidency. An unnecessary and unending war, economic collapse and a rising poverty rate ensued. This sort of scenario could be avoided in the future if our state legislatures could collectively pass the National Popular Vote.

    The debacles of 2000-2008 can't be blamed solely on the Electoral College, but, the fact remains that if the candidate who got the most votes were awarded with the presidency, Al Gore would have been America's 43rd president. (Problems with the Electoral College can favor Republicans as well. In 2004, George W. Bush got over 3 million more votes than John Kerry, but Kerry came within less than 130,000 votes in Ohio from winning the presidency.) Unfortunately, our country relies on the Electoral College, an atavistic system that was created at a time when women and minorities couldn't vote and long before the Supreme Court enshrined "one person one vote" into law.

    In a worst case scenario like 2000, the Electoral College damages our democracy by thwarting the clearly expressed will of most American voters. But, even when the Electoral College does not directly decide the outcome of presidential elections, it harms our democracy. Currently, presidential campaigns are designed to get 270 electoral votes. Both major parties tend to write-off certain "safe" states like New York (safely Democratic in recent elections) or Texas (safely Republican in recent elections) and concentrate all their resources in "swing states" like Ohio and Florida. This means that a majority of Americans are virtually ignored by our candidates (except for constant requests for money), while those who live in swing-states receive a disproportionate amount of attention.

  • November 12, 2010
    The efforts to advance the National Popular Vote law, which would allow for the election of president by popular vote instead of the Electoral College, are gaining momentum.

    As noted by one of the driving forces behind the proposed law, the National Popular Vote Inc., Massachusetts and New York made significant strides on behalf of the law this year. Late this summer, Gov. Deval Patrick signed a National Popular Vote bill into law, making the state the sixth to enact the law and giving the National Popular Vote movement 27 percent of the electoral votes needed to make it the law of the land. (The National Popular Vote would become effective if states holding a majority of electoral votes, 270, enact it.)Upon signing the bill, Gov. Patrick said, "Voter participation in all 50 states is critical to the strength of our democracy and the national popular voter movement will bring more voters into the fold and ensure that every vote counts."

    New York state lawmakers also made major progress toward enacting the provision. The New York Senate overwhelmingly passed the National Popular Vote bill, which is now pending in the 150-member New York Assembly, where the bill has 80 sponsors. The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg said the state senate's action revealed that lawmakers' "interests coincide not only with those of all their constituents, regardless of party, but also with an elementary tenet of democracy: that elections should be decided by counting up the votes of citizens, with every individual vote being of equal vote."

    The New York Times also got behind the National Vote bill, saying in an editorial that the "Electoral College was established by the nation's founders in part to appease slave-owning states. It is based indirectly on population, and slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. Each state now gets as many electoral votes as it has representatives in Congress. The results can be what we all saw in 2000, where the votes of one state, Florida, decided the election despite the fact that Mr. Gore was the nation's choice by more than a half-million votes."

    In addition, earlier this month the District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the National Popular Vote bill. In reporting on Fenty's action, Reuters cited recent polling that "points to overwhelming majorities of voters" in Idaho, Nebraska, South Dakota, Kentucky and several other states "favor the National Vote plan over current winner-take-all rules (i.e. awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular voters in each state)."

  • July 23, 2010

    The Massachusetts Senate passed a bill to adopt a National Popular Vote law, approved by the state's House of Representatives earlier this year.

    If Gov. Deval Patrick signs the bill, Massachusetts will join five other states that have agreed to cast their electoral college votes for the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, rather than the candidate who wins the state's vote, according to the Progressive States Network.

    The agreement between the states, which now include Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland , New Jersey and Washington, will not go into effect until states with electoral votes totaling 270 adopt such laws. If the Massachusetts law goes into effect, the number of electoral votes amassed would be 73.

    ACSblog reported last month that New York State is also close to adopting a National Popular Vote law. A June 21 editorial in The New York Times urged the New York Assembly to follow the lead of the state Senate and seize the "chance to withdraw from the archaic and unfair way the country picks its chief executives."

    The Progressive States Network map (above) shows the progress made in other states.

    Jamie Raskin, a Maryland state senator and constitutional law professor at American University, wrote a two-part analysis for ACSblog, available here and here, on the importance of the National Popular Vote movement.

    "Why is the NPV plan spreading like political wildfire?" asks Raskin, who introduced the nation's first National Popular Vote bill to be signed into law.

    The core reason is that it presents an irresistible proposition: that the person we elect president should be the one who collects the most votes. This is how we elect Governors, Mayors, Senators and Congresspeople, and it is how presidents are elected in most democratic nations that have presidents. On the other hand, the current electoral college regime can produce farcical upside-down results like the one we saw in 2000, a dismal turning point in American history, when the popular vote loser (by more than a half-million votes) tortured out a "victory" in the electoral college after the most dubious sequence of assaults on voting rights and political participation by state and federal actors like Katharine Harris and five Supreme Court justices.

  • June 22, 2010
    New York lawmakers are getting closer to becoming the sixth state to adopt a National Popular Vote law. Such laws, if adopted by enough states, would pave the way for the election of the president by popular vote.

    The New York Times editorial board today urged the New York Assembly to follow the state Senate's lead and adopt the National Popular Vote law, saying the legislature "has a chance to withdraw from the archaic and unfair way this country picks its chief executives."

    The Times editorial continues:

    The Electoral College was established by the nation's founders in part to appease slave-owning states. It is based indirectly on population, and slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. Each state now gets as many electoral votes as it has representatives in Congress. New York, for example, has 31 electoral votes, and whoever wins the most votes in New York gets all 31.

    The results can be what we all saw in 2000, where the votes of one state, Florida, decided the election despite the fact that Mr. Gore was the nation's choice by more than a half-million votes.

    The editorial also notes the work of the organization called National Popular Vote. The nonprofit group educates the public about its proposal to "implement a nationwide popular election of the President of the United States.

    The Times editorial noted that since the 2000 presidential debacle that the National Popular Vote organization has advocated proposals that New York lawmakers are moving closer to approving.

    Since it takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency, the National Popular Vote laws would go into effect only if states accounting for 270 or more electoral votes agree to the new system. So far, five states, with a total of 61 electoral votes, have done that. New York should become the sixth. [Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland and Washington have adopted National Popular Vote laws.]

    In a recent op-ed for the Albany Times Union, John R. Koza, chairman of the National Popular Vote, maintained, "It's time to reform the system and do what poll results show 78 percent of New Yorkers have long supported - elect the president by a national popular vote."

  • January 5, 2010

    This fall, at American University (AU) in Washington, D.C., ACS Executive Director Caroline Fredrickson moderated a debate about whether to replace the electoral college with a national popular vote in presidential elections. Critiquing the national popular vote plan were John Samples, Director of the CATO Institute's Center for Representative Government, and Alexander Belenky, author of How America Chooses Its Presidents. Debating on behalf of a national popular vote were John Koza, Chairman of National Popular Vote Inc., and Jamie Raskin, a Maryland State Senator and Director of the Law & Government Program at AU's Washington College of Law, who previously outlined his positions on the electoral college for ACSblog here.

    With several states having made some movement towards embracing the national popular vote, video is now available here of this timely debate.