Contact
Subscribe
House OKs National Popular Vote legislation
The New Mexico House approved a proposal on Friday that would, if enacted by enough states, effectively eliminate the Electoral College process for selecting the president of the United States.
On a largely party-line vote of 41-27, the House approved the National Popular Vote proposal — House Bill 383, sponsored by Rep. Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque.
“I’m thrilled that the National Popular Vote has passed the House and will now be headed to the Senate,” Stewart said in a news release. “Every vote should count equally in our country, and this vote today takes us one step closer to expanding our democracy.”
The National Popular Vote proposal takes effect only when adopted in identical form by states possessing enough electoral votes to elect the president (at least 270 of 538). States with a total of 50 electoral votes — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey — have already enacted it.
If enough states agree to it, all the electoral votes from the enacting states will be awarded as a bloc to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states, which would effectively bypass the Electoral College system.
The bill is now in the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
16 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think if you are uncertain how to think about this issue, observing the thread hijack should clue you in. Long “cut and paste” comments are a sign of desperation and/or hidden agendas. Thanks Heath for letting us see this group in action.
This idea is about as bad as the 17th Amendment, the popular election of Senators, and gubernatorial appointments of Senators in the time of a vacancy.
Disallowing the state legislatures from deciding their Senators, in addition to the 16th Amendment, allowed the Federal Government to grow in size because those Senators were not accountable to the States anymore, like the founders envisioned.
Federalism is effectively dead, and bypassing the Electoral College, would essentially put a nail in the coffin of the Republic that Mr. Madison so greatly envisioned in the Federalist Papers.
The problem with statistics is that they’re easy to manipulate. It doesn’t matter what “the people” think, what percentage of those support a direct election for the Presidency. If our PUBLIC education system, which is run by the Government, actually TAUGHT civics anymore, people would understand that, if we are to preserve our Republican Union, we ought to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, and not push forward with the direct election of the Presidency.
BTW, mvymvy created his/her account in December of last year. There is absolutely NO information in his/her profile. I would say with no profile and an unintelligible moniker, mvymvy is posting anonymously. IMO. peace, mjh
Heath,
Why does MVYMVY get to post 9 comments that appear to be “cut and paste” from some other website. I thought you wanted to encourage “original” ideas and dialog, not “canned” ideological messages.
Thank you, mvymvy for so much to contemplate. I may have missed your explanation of where the money for this campaign is coming from. I look forward to as much detail about the funding as about everything else.
As for apportioning electoral votes in a state by popular vote: I never mentioned districts. I believe if a candidate gets 40% of the popular vote statewide, he or she should get as close to 40% of that state’s electoral votes as practical. The top two candidates would divvy up the entire state’s electoral votes. That way, rather than NM’s votes going for a candidate no one in NM voted for (a hypothetical situation with 3 national candidates), those votes would be divided according to the statewide popular vote (in which case, the hypothetical 3rd party candidate who received no votes would receive no electoral votes, as opposed to receiving all electoral votes under the proposed system). peace, mjh
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run can be found by examining the way presidential candidates currently campaign inside battleground states. Inside Ohio or Florida, the big cities do not receive all the attention. And, the cities of Ohio and Florida certainly do not control the outcome in those states. Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in Ohio and Florida already knows–namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from national advertisers who seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. A national advertiser does not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because a competitor makes more sales in those particular states. Moreover, a national advertiser enjoying an edge over its competitors in Indiana or Illinois does not stop trying to make additional sales in those states. National advertisers go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red” states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.
The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York’s use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming–both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
The National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 23 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
76% OF NEW MEXICO VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL
A survey of 800 New Mexico voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 76% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 84% among Democrats, 64% among Republicans, and 68% among independents.
By age, support was 73% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 78% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 84% among women and 66% among men.
By race, support was 73% among whites (representing 55% of respondents), 83% among Hispanics (representing 38% of respondents), and 57% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).
see NationalPopularVote.com
there goes the republic of the united state of america…
will we be the people’s democracy of the united state of america if that his passes?
Truly, it is sad just how ignorant Ms. Stewart is! Our 5 electoral votes brought our presidential candidates to New Mexico repeatedly in the weeks prior to the national election. She really can’t believe that our small population will get us that much attention. where are the thinkers that made our Country one of the leaders of the free world. If we keep electing people who think like Ms. Stewart it’s no wonder we are becoming a welfare class state.
Pease follow the money. Not to whatever shell organization is providing the money or even the next level of shell organizations.
This is a really bad idea.
I don’t want my vote stolen! Why should the vote of someone in Phoenix, LA or New York City count more than mine.
If this idea becomes law, New Mexico will become a presidential fly over state. Why would ANY presidential candidate stop anywhere in New Mexico with a state wide population of 2 million, when that candidate could see (and be seen) by more people in Dallas, Denver, Phoenix or Miami.
If you want a local example of how this works, just look to our Governor’s race. How many candidates go to Union County, Hardin County or Catron County. They spend more money and time in Bernalillo, Chavez and Dona Ana because that is where the votes are and the counties with the most votes win.
Interesting debate but the unintended result will be that not one presidential candidate will ever spend any time in the lesser populated states in flyover country. They will spend all of their time in the large population centers.
Would a candidate spend days in New Mexico with the 500,000 possible votes of which that party routinely gets half, or the 10 million voters in the New York City metroplex of which each party get about half? Will presidential candidate spend any money in New Mexico? Never.
Consider that four states, California, Texas, New York, and Florida have about 100 million citizens while just California is bigger than the bottom twenty states. When you realize how spread out those twenty states are, you then understand why politicians will concentrate all advertising and visits to just those four states, or perhaps the top ten states, but never in the bottom 25 states. New Mexico will lose all of its draw. In the last election there was the notion that the election might hang on the five New Mexico electoral votes so we got lots of attention. Nevermore.
More in my column this week.
Perhaps a journalist would be willing to look into who is providing the funding for this national campaign and why.
So, Heath, do you want NM’s electoral college votes to go to the person who does not win the majority of NM votes? I do not want that. In fact, I want all states to apportion their votes, as in Nebraska and Maine. That would be much closer to the will of the people than Stewart’s horribly misguided plan. (Again, who’s paying effort and why?) peace, mjh