This appeared originally on Sept. 25.
The last comment on this thread was by Wayne at 9:30 Pm Sept23 as follows:
Each and every one of those elections mentioned in toto’s 9-23-6:15 note as well as all of the other 48 presidential elections that we have held have one thing in common. Winning of the popular vote was not the candidates’ primary objective. Whether we like the structure or not the name of the game was electoral votes. In each and every case the winning candidate won a majority of the votes that determined the election. (That includes the 1800 and 1824 in the House of Representatives.) The popular vote data begins with 1824, because until then they didn’t even record the popular vote. Popular vote is a wonderful thing. But when looking at elections which did not use that system it is strange to talk about those elections as if they did use that system. So perhaps Americans do not view the absence of runoffs as a problem in the present system because the present system always gives a winner who has a majority of the determining votes.
But NPV would change what the determinative votes are. In their system it is popular votes that count. OK but isn’t NPV then obligated to provide a method for dealing with a situation in which the votes are scattered among several candidates? The Bayh-Cellar amendment gave a way to do that. It required that the plurality winner have at least 40% of the vote or hold a runoff. A system doesn’t have give us a majority winner but please spare us from a 27% president (see 8-7-10 post).
.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After more than 10,000 statewide elections in the past two hundred years, there is no evidence of any tendency toward a massive proliferation of third-party candidates in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by the office. No such tendency has emerged in other jurisdictions, such as congressional districts or state legislative districts. There is no evidence or reason to expect the emergence of some unique new political dynamic that would promote multiple candidacies if the President were elected in the same manner as every other elected official in the United States.
ReplyDeleteBased on historical evidence, there is far more fragmentation of the vote under the current state-by-state system of electing the President than in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the jurisdiction involved.
Under the current state-by-state system of electing the President (in which the candidate who receives a plurality of the popular vote wins all of the state's electoral votes), minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). The reason that the current system has encouraged so many minor-party candidates and so much fragmentation of the vote is that a presidential candidate with no hope of winning a plurality of the votes nationwide has 51 separate opportunities to shop around for particular states where he can affect electoral votes or where he might win outright. Thus, under the current system, segregationists such as Strom Thurmond (1948) or George Wallace (1968) won electoral votes in numerous Southern states, although they had no chance of receiving the most popular votes nationwide. In addition, candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states.
If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with 15% of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured apocalyptic outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections.
Under the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's electoral votes.
Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.
Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote. – including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912, and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).
Americans do not view the absence of run-offs under the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.
Toto's data about outcomes of plurality elections at other levels -- local elections, congressional districts, governor's races, state allocations of electoral votes -- does seem to answer pretty well some of Wayne's concerns. Still, it seems to me that none of those elections is nearly as consequential as a US Presidential election, and I still wonder: If you thusly change the rules, how will the players behave? With so much power at stake, I want to be very sure about that before we undertake such a change. What we have is flawed no doubt, but, at least to me, is far from broken, and I'm hesitant to experiment with it given the stakes.
ReplyDeleteToto also points out the effect of minor party candidates on Presidential elections under the electoral college system. For me, it is one reason why I prefer the electoral college system over the NPV proposal. The electoral college system allows minor or third party candidates to affect the outcome, and therefore the major party candidates have incentive to pay attention to issues that are important to third party voters. The negative side of this potential -- of a major party candidate not paying enough attention to issues of a third party -- was felt rather powerfully in 2000, of course.
One of my concerns about the NPV proposal is that it feels like an end-run around the historic compromise that brought the small states together into the union in the first place. At that time, the principle was that the electoral college would, in some way, protect the interests of small states. I don't see a compelling reason for that principle to change. What reassurance am I to have, then, about the soundness of the American polity if such a foundational principle is cast aside by a process that could involve only 11 states? My guess is that the framers didn't anticipate the NPV maneuver, which feels to me like a clever exploitation of a procedural loophole that undermines the intended process for making this kind of dramatic change, namely an amendment. For this reason, NPV supporters should not be surprised if many people (like me) feel that this is a potentially very divisive machination that subverts Constitutional principles, even though I'll grant that it seems within the letter of the law.
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.
ReplyDeleteThe small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
12 of the 13 smallest states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota),, and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. So despite the fact that these 12 states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
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.
In the 13 smallest states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia and Hawaii.
In political science, Duverger’s law asserts that a plurality rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. Maurice Duverger, the French sociologist who observed this tendency in election systems around the world, suggests that plurality voting favors a two-party system because political groups with broadly similar platforms tend to form alliances because it increases their chances of winning office. Voters generally desert weak parties or candidates on the grounds that they have no chance of winning. In practice, ordinary plurality voting discourages the formation of niche parties and candidacies by rewarding the formation of broad coalitions in which various groups and interests join together in order to win the most votes (and thereby win office).
ReplyDeleteThe reason that ordinary plurality voting has this effect is that a vote cast for a splinter candidate generally produces the politically counter-productive effect of helping the major-party candidate whose views are diametrically opposite to those of the voter. For example, votes cast for Bob Barr (the Libertarian Party candidate) in 2008 made it easier for Barack Obama to win North Carolina, and votes cast for Ralph Nader (the Green Party candidate) in 2000 made it easier for George W. Bush to win certain states.
Based on historical evidence, third-party candidates are far more common under the state-by-state winner-take-all system of electing the President than in elections in which the winner is the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the jurisdiction involved.
The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties.
ReplyDeleteState-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
The winner-take-all rule is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district -- a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes
The state-by-state winner-take-all method was never debated or voted upon by the 1787 Constitutional Convention. There is unanimous agreement among historians that the Founding Fathers intended and expected that the Electoral College would operate as a deliberative body. No one can argue that the Founders expected, or wanted, 100% of a state’s presidential electors to slavishly vote, in lockstep, in the Electoral College for the choice made by an entirely separate extra-constitutional body meeting, namely the national nominating meeting of a political party.
So many comments so little time.
ReplyDelete1. I think the current system with all of its warts is the best system I have heard suggested.
2. The election of a minority President does cause me any heartburn.
3. The election of a President by popular vote in a country of 300 million citizens borders on a mobocracy.
4. I agree with Rob – who decided the current system was broken?
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
ReplyDeletePresidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Nor were big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Voter turnout in the "battleground" states has been 67%, while turnout in the "spectator" states was 61%.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections.
Near misses are now frequently common. We are currently in an era of non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). It is therefore not surprising that we have already had one “wrong winner” election in this recent string of six non-landslide presidential elections. If the country continues to experience non-landslide presidential elections, we can expect additional “wrong winner” elections.
The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is further highlighted by the fact that a shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in five of the 13 presidential elections since World War II.
For example, in 1976, Jimmy Carter led Gerald Ford by 1,682,970 votes nationwide; however, a shift of 3,687 votes in Hawaii and 5,559 votes in Ohio would have elected Ford.
In 2004, President George W. Bush was ahead by over 3,000,000 popular votes nationwide on election night; however, the outcome of the election remained in doubt until Wednesday morning because it was not clear which candidate was going to win Ohio’s 20 electoral votes. In the end, Bush received 118,785 more popular votes than Kerry in Ohio—thus winning all of Ohio’s 20 electoral votes and ensuring his re-election. However, if 59,393 voters in Ohio had switched in 2004, Kerry would have become President (thereby nullifying Bush’s lead of 3,500,000 popular votes nationwide).
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.
ReplyDeleteThe current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges
The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
ReplyDeleteIn 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. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
Most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes -- 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Toto – You refer to a “wrong decision” what would that have been?
ReplyDeleteOK, let’s get down to basics – with the present system the States elect the President. With the proposed NPV the people of the various States elect the President. It’s a non trivial shift.
Good description Tom.
ReplyDeleteDoes toto ever mention why NPV doesn't pursue the proper way to change the constitution?
With all this support that he says that they have it should be easy right?
toto says: "Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing."
ReplyDeletequestion: Do you have any examples of this?
The process for amending the U.S. Constitution does not reflect the will of the people. A federal constitutional amendment favored by states containing 97% of the people of the U.S. could be blocked by states containing 3% of the people.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "exclusive" and "plenary."
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws.
ReplyDeleteThe bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.
When the bill comes into effect, all the ELECTORAL VOTES FROM THE ENACTING STATES would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Campaigns and national priorities are stacked in favor of a few strategic states. Ethanol fuel, for example, a pet issue of Iowa farmers, is discussed a lot. But alternative energy issues of equal concern to "safe" states are not. Free trader President George W. Bush supported steel tariffs to get support in battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania.
ReplyDelete--The decision by President George Bush to impose steel import tariffs may be a betrayal of his proclaimed free trade instinct, and a flashpoint for a possible international trade war. But in domestic political terms, they make perfect sense.
As the former House Speaker Tip O'Neill famously remarked: "All politics is local." In the case of steel, Mr Bush is less concerned with providing more fuel for foreign critics of American unilateralism, than in shoring his own and his party's prospects at elections, above all in a handful of traditional steel industry states which could hold the key for victory.--
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-steel-tariffs-can-win-crucial-rust-belt-votes-661533.html
Presidential candidates and presidents hoping for re-election concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters.
Toto Dec.3 1:12 PM
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "exclusive" and "plenary."
I believe that the const. gives it to the legislatures of the states not the states. The difference being the governor.
Compacts are things made by states, including the governor.
Can you imagine a possible legal issue in there?