Senate Advances Popular Vote

(I also support directly electing the president. This bill is a step in the right direction. - promoted by desmoinesdem)

The Iowa Senate's state government committee has approved the bill that would move the USA away from the archaic electoral college. I was quite surprised–but pleased–to hear from Jack Kibbie last week that this might happen.

Most Americans think the electoral college is a mistake. Apparently the whole world agrees, because no other country has ever copied this 200 year old method of choosing a leader. It's really a relic of the free-state, slave-state compromises that were made in writing the Constitution. Until now it's been impossible to get rid of it, because it's so hard to amend the Constitution.

The new idea is to sign up states in a contract to cast their electoral votes as a group with all the votes going to the winner of the national popular vote (NPV). If Iowa joins the group, we'll vote for the national winner even if another candidate did better in Iowa. This plan will go into effect when the group controls the majority of the electoral college votes. Ingenious!

Skeptics always assert that the electoral college protects us and other small states. This not true. Research into where candidates spend their time and money in the 90 days before a Presidential election proves they don't go to small states unless they are also swing states, such as Nevada in 2008. Who campaigned in Rhode Island or Wyoming? No one did, because they are not swing states.

So far only four states have joined—Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii. These are states that usually get ignored by Presidential candidates, so I can see why they passed it. Iowa has been a swing state, the center of much spending and campaigning. If the electoral college is kaput, we may get less attention. That's why I was surprised to see the bill gaining ground here. Time to get cynical . . . .

Why would we pass this bill? Isn't this carrying good government a little too far? (snark)

Maybe it has to do with the caucuses. We barely defended our caucus timeline in 2008 from attacks by Florida and Micigan. We get double attention in Iowa as both the first caucus and as a swing state. If we are generous enough to forego the swing state advantage, maybe the voters elsewhere won't keep beating on our caucus advantage.

Or maybe we see our swing-state status eroding. If Iowa becomes reliably Democratic(voted for the D five times of the last six elections), candidates won't come here in election years, only in caucus years. Going to the NPV could bring the candidates back since those many Iowa independents and Republicans would not be disenfrancised in a NPV system.

Whatever the motive–good government or selfish government–I'm glad for the progress. I hope the full Senate approves it, too.

——cross posted from IowaVoters.org

About the Author(s)

IowaVoter

  • Horrible bill

    This bill would make Iowa irrelevant when it comes to presidential elections.  Without the electoral college we will have a campaigns waged on the airport runaways as candidates fly from big city to big city.

    I have to agree with this quote from Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley on this…


    “If this bill were enacted, presidential candidates would have very limited motivation to come to Iowa to campaign for votes because Iowa is only about 1/100 of the country’s population,” Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley said in a statement. “They would instead stick to campaigning in other states where the population is more dense and Iowans would be ignored and our issues would be swept aside. This is just another example of how our founding fathers were once again right on target in their desires to protect smaller states.”

    • if we cease to be a swing state

      we will be ignored during presidential elections anyway.

      Most small states are ignored during the current system because they are not competitive.

      And as Deeth points out, if enough of the big states approve this, it will happen whether Iowa passes it or not.

      I would like to avoid another miscarriage of justice as happened in 1876 and 2000. Almost every elected official is the person who got the most votes, and the president should be too.

    • Every Vote Equal

      Currently candidates ignore most of the country: NY, CA, TX, NJ, IL, MI just to name a few large groups of people who get ignored while we get courted.  Is that your idea of democracy?

      If we had this plan in 2000 Bush would not have been selected.  That would have been a big benefit to Iowa!

  • Culver Backs EC

    Gov Culver has caved to the Republican outrage that arose over this bill, today coming out against it.  He prefers seeking Republican support to listening to the views of 75% of Iowans who think the electoral college is inferior to a popular vote system.

    Senator Gronstal remains aggressive in his support for the popular approach, according to Radio Iowa.  

Comments