For two weeks, as John McCain’s national polls first rose above Obama and then solidified there, Democrats protested that the popular vote was irrelevant. Look to the state polls said they, in a sensible but amusingly opportunistic argument for the electoral college (for those of us who recall the venom of 2000). Alas, this was a comfort built upon something of an illusion, given that few state polls were available after the Republican convention. That’s begun to change of course, and for the first time Rasmussen has given McCain a slim electoral college advantage.
One of the most substantial changes is the elimination of Missouri from contention. She has moved safely into the “likely GOP” column by giving McCain a 51%-46% advantage. The key swing states are now New Mexico, Virginia, Nevada and Colorado, all of which McCain is leading in, with the exception of Colorado.
The most salient question about the election for me is how many states are not in play. If John McCain is unelectable, the natural inheritor of a cursed Bush legacy, or the personification of everything that’s rotten about America…why isn’t he massively losing such traditional swing states as Missouri, Florida and Ohio? Why are these states so easily moved into his column despite massive advertising investment by the Democrats? Even before the convention this investment appeared to have little effect.
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — 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).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, 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
Susan, the founding Fathers were right with the EC. A popular vote would mean that the largest population centers would be in control. Flyover country would be ignored. Corruption would have more sway.
We should keep the EC.
I blame the fact that people don’t understand the purpose of the electoral college on inept teaching of civics in public high schools. Our government was set up with severe limits on the will of the people and for good reason.
The primary is the Constitution itself, which prevents majority rule from taking away the rights of individuals and those who are in the minority. Democracy by itself is no protection if the majority votes to support genocide… or even just to outlaw certain things that no body really wants anyway… like guns… or going to church… or staying home from church.
Setting up the Senate and House was a response to the very real issue that the country is diverse and that interests of people in one geographical area may diverge from the interests of people in another geographical area… not just urban and rural. So small states or states with small populations wanted to be secure that they wouldn’t be trampled over by large states with large populations who’s citizens or representatives got easy majorities.
The electoral college does the same. It makes sure that a popular overwhelming majority in one area can’t trample over the interests of another area of the country. The total votes for California and New York may be huge… but it’s all the same if those votes are gotten with a simple majority or unanimously. And really… who’d campaign in a small state to even give lip-service to their concerns if all they had to do was gain super majorities in New York and California? Would anyone even show up in Iowa? No they wouldn’t.
But we’re all citizens and all deserve to be represented. Policies can’t favor one area of the country far above other areas. Candidates have to have broad appeal and somehow get people in Iowa, Oregon, Florida and New Mexico to like them best, too.
And any state that breaks up their own electoral votes *voluntarily*… ugh, what idiots.