Monday, May 19, 2008

Popular Vote

Popular Vote

Advocates for electing the president by popular vote are renewing their call for a change in the way North Carolina distributes its electoral votes following an intense Democratic presidential primary in the state. A bill that passed the state Senate last year and is awaiting action in the House would add North Carolina to a coalition of states that pledge to elect the president by national popular vote instead of the current state-by-state system. The legislation doesn't take effect until it is passed by enough states to total 270 electoral votes, the number needed to elect a president. Once they reach that number, all of those states will award their electors as a bloc to the winner of the national popular vote.

North Carolina would no longer be a safe Republican state that both parties' presidential campaigns typically ignore in the November election, said Barry Fadem, president of National Popular Vote. He was lobbying several House members last week as the General Assembly convened for this year's session. Pointing to spikes in voter registration and turnout driven by the Democratic primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Fadem says the change would make candidates fight for every vote they could get and in areas seldom visited by presidential candidates or their surrogates. Republican leaders counter that the proposal would flip the election on its head. A presidential candidate could lose North Carolina by a wide margin but receive all 15 of the state's electoral votes. "That thing tells our voters that the state would support the very candidate they repudiated," said Rep. Paul Stam, R-Wake and House Republican leader. North Carolina hasn't seen a competitive presiden! tial election since 1992 because Republicans consistently have won the state.

House Speaker Joe Hackney, D-Orange, said no decisions have been made on whether the popular-vote bill will come up for a vote. Last year, national Democratic Party officials privately urged state Democrats to put the brakes on the legislation, facing the prospect of having to suddenly fight for big states such as California and New York. It's unclear if the national party's objections persist. Currently, each state essentially holds its own presidential election. Each state has a certain number of electors and awards them to candidates based in some fashion on the popular vote. The electors gather for the Electoral College several weeks later and elect the president. Twice, including President Bush's election in 2000, the candidate who won the necessary electoral votes and became president actually lost the popular vote. Four states have enacted the popular-vote plan.

(Mark Johnson, THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER, 5/17/08).

2 comments:

joreko said...

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states (such as North Carolina) where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are 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 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 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 bill would make every vote politically relevant in a presidential election. It would make every vote.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 17 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Jack Register, MSW, LCSW said...

Very good point. I think that Social Workers in NC would have alot to say about elections being held with only popular vote.

In fact, a coalition we joined some time ago was the NC Voters for Clean Elections. THese folks advocate for voter owned and publically financed elections.

THanks for posting.

JR