Saving the electoral college will not keep Iowa relevant

Head in Sand (4.00 / 1)

None of the arguments for the electoral college are sound.  This is just knee-jerk conservatism on the part of most critics.

Culver may see a bigger role for himself if he can keep Iowa a swing state, whereas he becomes less important if the popular vote system takes hold.

---

by: IowaVoter @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 08:42:51 AM CST

how badly does he want to keep us a swing state? (4.00 / 1)

If he wins a convincing re-election and we maintain our legislative majorities, we will cease to be seen as a swing state.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:14:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

this (4.00 / 1)

map shows where candidates would compete in a national popular vote.

The concept of 'swing state' is relevant only in the electoral college system b/c it's winner takes all. Whether IA is +4 R or D just doesn't matter due to the state's relatively low population density. MD has 10X the population density of IA, most of it crammed in the B-W corridor. So, if I'm a Republican, there's more bang for my buck in campaigning for extra votes in MD over IA, particularly since the strip from DC to MA/NH is highest density in the nation.

Let's be clear -- if a Republican battles to 50% of the vote in IA, it's equivalent to 26%-27% of the vote in MD over a much smaller area, and obviously, they can do better than that. Next stop, NJ, PA etc. Meanwhile, IA is hanging on right at the edge in population density ... next to Nebraska.

If I were the executive for IA, I'd have no incentive to hand more power to the coasts. Neither system is bias-free, why not keep the one that favors my jurisdiction?

---

by: ragbrai08 @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:22:52 AM CST

Amen, and A Woman to that... (0.00 / 0)

Personally I don't like Iowa's "First In Nation" status anyway.  I'm still paying off debt incurred from the Progressive Caucus we held for those of us who felt entirely disenfranchised by the ruling class elites (D&R) that declared their respective vision of the future the only "viable" option for Iowa voters.

One person, one vote sounds like a step away from the abject disenfranchisement I feel with the EC system. If I want to have an active and engaged participation in the process, I have felt in the past that I have to work with a party that does not represent me in the least.

The caucus system works at the grass roots level, but the system of checks on grass roots participation that ends up happening when this gets to party central committees leaves me again, feeling disenfranchised.  

One person, one vote sounds a little like Democracy.  Which I am not entirely opposed to, btw.  I think real Democracy sounds like something we should actually try sometime.

---

by: EltonDavis @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:46:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

one person, one vote (4.00 / 1)

is difficult in practice as long as political boundaries are maintained or even in a single jurisdiction w/ an inhomogeneous pop distribution.

Politicians get around CDs of equal number by gerrymandering.

It's been a long time since I've read over the details of the Warren Court cases, but the chief issue back in the day was racial segregation. When I look at the pop density map for the US, my concern with the NPV proposal is wealth segregation. All the big money is in the regions favored by the NPV proposal. I appreciate the spirit of arguments made by IowaVoter and dmd, but in reality, until we have clean, or cleaner elections, I'm not convinced that an NPV approach is  any more representative of the popular will.    

---

by: ragbrai08 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:57:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Warren Court (4.00 / 1)

One Warren Court case stopped states from apportioning their legislators so that every county got a seat in the statehouse.  Some legislators appeared to represent cattle more than people.  That's the one-man one-vote case.

NPV just uses the same thinking to replace the electoral college.  Political boundaries won't allow some votes (Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, Delaware) to have more weight than others.  It eliminates political boundaries and the gerrymandering of the EC.

---

by: IowaVoter @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 10:53:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

case (4.00 / 1)

That's the one-man one-vote case

The Court next established the "one person, one vote" requirement for federal elections, in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 526, 11 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1964). This requirement, which held that voting districts should be roughly equal in population, was extended to the states in reynolds v. sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S. Ct. 1362, 12 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1964). In Wesberry, the Court struck down a Georgia redistricting statute (Ga. Code § 34-2301) because its voting districts were unequal in population. Georgia's Fifth Congressional District, largely populated by African Americans, was two to three times the size of other districts in the state. As a result, the African Americans in the Fifth District received less representation in Congress than persons in the other districts. According to the Court, this violated Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that U.S. Representatives were to be "apportioned among the several States ... according to their respective Numbers" (Wesberry).

NPV just uses the same thinking to replace the electoral college.

On the federal level, 'one person, one vote' applies only to House seats, apportioned by population in the Constitution and not extended to the Senate for obvious reasons. For state legislatures, it was the application of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (No State shall .. deny to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws). A driver for judicial intervention was the effective dilution of minority bloc voting strength by creating (numerically) disparate jurisdictions.

We have two complaints about the current system. (1) Some states have greater electoral weighting than their population share, and (2) the nationwide election effectively takes place in states that are up for grabs. I 100% agree that it's frustrating. Example,

1. IA:MD electoral ratio is 7/10 = 0.7 but the population ratio is 0.53.
2. Since MD is reliably blue, it is ignored. Kerry-Edwards did one plane stop for 30 min.

I totally understand why high-population density states would support this measure, and that it attempts to correct a perceived imbalance.

However, it's not Culver's job to worry about MD or NJ. He is tasked w/ protecting IA's interests.

As it stands now, states like MD/NJ do pretty well for themselves when resources are allocated. Both coasts are geographically advantaged. Let's say we move to a single jurisdiction under NPV. Effectively, the elections will take place at the power centers, the ATMs. You only need 50%+1 to win a two-person race.

Should it go to court, I doubt that the effective dilution of the interior within a single jurisdiction would be ignored.

Question -- doesn't NPV introduce the need for a nationwide standard in election administration? How would the popular vote be tallied? By federal agents?

---

by: ragbrai08 @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 00:12:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

but if I'm an American citizen (0.00 / 0)

why do I want the "wrong" candidate to win the presidential election approximately once every 100 years?

You could come up with all kinds of crazy electoral-college-type systems for electing senators or governors, in order to increase the power of small counties or whatever. No one would ever propose switching to those for electing any other office, because they could lead to a candidate losing the election despite getting more votes from the people.

The electoral college was a compromise needed for political reasons in the 18th century, but we shouldn't settle for it now. The winner of an election should be the candidate who gets the most votes, whether that's a Democrat or a Republican.

I remember reading in October 2000 that the Bush campaign (fearing Gore might win the EV while losing the popular vote) had a public campaign ready to go, demanding that Gore step aside and let Bush be president if that happened. If that had happened, we wouldn't be hearing any Republicans defending the electoral college.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:10:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not (0.00 / 0)

arguing one vs the other, just can see why Culver would leave it alone.

---

by: ragbrai08 @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 18:45:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

75% OF IOWA VOTERS FAVOR A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT (0.00 / 0)

75% OF IOWA VOTERS FAVOR A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT

A survey of 800 Iowa voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President. The question was "How do you think we should elect the President when we vote in the November general election: should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote for President was 82% among Democrats, 63% among Republicans, and 77% among others.

By age, support was 76% among 18-29 year olds, 65% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 82% among women and 67% among men.

By race, support was 75% among whites (representing 93% of respondents), 65% among African Americans (representing 2% of respondents), 86% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 58% among others (representing 4% of respondents).

The survey was conducted on February 17-18, 2009, by Public Policy Polling

---

by: mvymvy @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 19:50:17 PM CST

small states are most disadvantaged (0.00 / 0)

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  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.  

In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont.  It has been enacted by Hawaii.  

---

by: mvymvy @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 19:51:31 PM CST

same disadvantage for most medium-small states (0.00 / 0)

Most of the medium-small states (with five or six electoral votes) are similarly non-competitive in presidential elections (and therefore similarly disadvantaged).  In fact, of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with three, four, five, or six electoral votes), only New Hampshire (with four electoral votes), New Mexico (five electoral votes), and Nevada (five electoral votes) have been battleground states in recent elections.  

Because so few of the 22 small and medium-small states are closely divided battleground states in presidential elections, the current system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.  The New York Times reported early in 2008 (May 11, 2008) that both major political parties were already in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008 (involving only 166 of the 538 electoral votes).  In other words, three-quarters of the states were ignored under the current system in the 2008 election.  Michigan (17 electoral votes), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and Florida (27) contain over half of the electoral votes that mattered in 2008 (85 of the 166 electoral votes).  There were only three battleground states among the 22 small and medium-small states (i.e., New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada). These three states contain only 14 of the 166 electoral votes.  Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.  

---

by: mvymvy @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 19:52:49 PM CST

the National Popular Vote bill (0.00 / 0)

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 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): Delaware - 75%, Maine - 71%, 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 - 73% , Massachusetts - 73%, New York - 79%, and Washington - 77%.

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...  

---

by: mvymvy @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 19:54:01 PM CST

While I agree with John Deeth that (0.00 / 0)

the Caucuses are the biggest factor in making Iowa important in nominating/electing the President but they aren't the only reason.  

I will say that you would never see a Presidential Candidate in the State of Iowa during the General Election again because if you win the popular vote you get Iowa's electoral votes.  And this has real a real impact because a lot of regular voters don't even begin to pay attention till Labor Day or later.  

These reforms cannot be started one state at a time you would need a coalition of states to do this.  There is NO incentive for Iowa to do this.  

Lots of people remember Al Gore coming to Iowa the weekend before the 2000 election and many credit that visit for him winning the state.  

Finally, I will say that Iowa's impact on the Republican party nomination is in flux(as much as I may way people who vote for Steve King and David Hartsuch deciding who the Republican Party nominates for President).

---

by: BlueWaterloo @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 22:39:53 PM CST

I consider it unlikely (0.00 / 0)

that Iowa will be in play in 2012. Of course I could be wrong, but several factors point to this being a safe state for Barack Obama. We are not going to get as much attention as people are used to.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 07:44:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Coalition it is! (0.00 / 0)

The NPV plan takes effect only after it has enuf participants so that those participants control a majority of the electoral votes.  So far it has NJ, Illinois, Maryland, and (small state) Hawaii.

---

by: IowaVoter @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 10:40:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Then again (0.00 / 0)

a state with no major metropolis would become a Presidential ghost town if there were no electoral college.  

Personally, I like that issues in both urban and rural America are being addressed because of the current system.

---

by: BlueWaterloo @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 14:53:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]