The National Popular Vote movement is starting to gain attention in Alaska, following a hearing on Senate Bill 39 which would, if passed and signed, commit Alaska’s three electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes across the country.
The idea does have some definite advantages — along with a few problems that make it an imperfect, but not unworkable solution. Those benefits and drawbacks will be touched on soon, However the Alaska Legislature decides to proceed with this idea, if they do at all, he National Popular Vote (NPV) group does deserve credit for not only pointing out the silly way we elect the leader of our country, but also for getting a fair number of the right people talking about changing it.
To this point, eight states and Washington D.C. endorse the measure legislatively, but aren’t yet bound to a compact because one isn’t created until states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes agree to cast their electoral votes in such a manner.
The concept passes constitutional muster (Article 2, Section 1 states “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress …”) without an amendment, since it works within the existing framework of the Electoral College.
One of its benefits would be avoiding races where the candidate with the most popular votes failed to win the electoral vote and, thus, the presidency. This, of course, happened in 2000 when Al Gore claimed more than 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush did, yet still lost the electoral vote 271-266. It also happened in 1824, where popular vote winner Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams after neither man could claim a majority in the Electoral College, and the House of Representatives picked Adams. Had just a few very tight state races in 2004 been flipped, John Kerry would have been president, despite trailing Bush by more than 3 million popular votes.
It would also end the idea of “mandates” driven by electoral vote counts. Barack Obama won the 2008 Electoral College by a more than 2-to-1 margin, yet won just under 54 percent of the popular vote. His election, hailed as a landslide, was not the only such Electoral College blowout that didn’t reflect the true reality of how the voters felt.
The NPV movement also states the change will end the current practice of waging the presidential contest almost exclusively in so-called battleground states. It’s no doubt true that 30-plus states, including Alaska, will not see any campaigning, because the electoral votes in those states have long been in Republican or Democratic pockets. Neither Obama nor his Republican challenger will address Alaska’s issues — or Oklahoma’s or Massachusetts’ — because there’s nothing to be gained by doing so.
However, it’s less clear if the NPV will fix this issue. If the goal is to win each person’s vote, it only makes sense to spend time, energy and money in the places where the most people are. That means big cities, of which Alaska has a dearth. Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, is the 64th biggest city by population in the U.S. Sixty-three other media markets would take priority over Anchorage. As it is now, if a state is a battleground, many cities, large and small, will get attention from presidential races. That does little for Alaska now, but political views have a funny way of changing.
Which leads to the second concern with NPV. If Alaska does become a closely contested state, its three electoral votes might be meaningful in a tight presidential race. One half of 1 percent of the overall electoral vote may not seem like much, but when it’s compared to the one-fifth of a percent of the votes Alaska would get under a popular vote scheme (based on population, assuming the overall population of Alaska is in the same proportion to the overall U.S. population as the number of registered voters in both entities is). And, since those three electoral votes are concentrated, not divided, they carry more weight. (For example, if Gore had won Alaska by a single vote, he’d have won the electoral vote and the presidency. There aren’t enough popular votes in Alaska to make that kind of difference).
One possible compromise answer lies in proportionately awarding electoral votes based on how candidates fare in an individual state. That wouldn’t help Alaska’s influence grow much, since the electoral votes would almost always be split 2-1 (a candidate would need nearly 84 percent of the popular vote in Alaska to carry all three electoral votes, something that didn’t happen even with an Alaskan on the ticket). But it would force candidates to run truly national campaigns, as a swing of a few percentage points one way or another in more populous states could mean the swing of electoral votes. Instead of California’s 55 electoral votes resting solidly in the Democrats’ bank or Texas’ 34 being cast in red ink, the votes in those and other bigger states would be distributed based on a more accurate breakdown of how the state’s votes were cast. Yes, states with more people would still get the bulk of the attention from candidates, but, in a tight race, any state where a vote was in play would get noticed.
The NPV movement’s work has been fantastic in getting states to look at alternatives to winner-take-all vote counting in individual states. And, just because their proposal isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it’s unworthy of attention. But, if our Legislature is open to alternatives, it should be discussing a wide variety of them and picking the best one (or a hybrid). A change in presidential voting procedure isn’t likely to happen more than once in a great while, so it’s vital to get the change right. A discussion inclusive of all the options would do that.
• Ward is deputy managing editor of the Juneau Empire. His views do not necessarily represent the views of the Empire’s editorial board.
• Editor's note: This column has been changed to reflect the correct percentage of popular votes a candidate would need to claim all three of Alaska's electoral votes under a proportional vote system. A candidate would need nearly 84 percent of votes cast to sweep the electoral votes.
Comments (18)
Add commentNice piece, Charles
Good to see the Empire Bosses giving this some thought.
And of course your conclusion that the Proportional approach is a worthy solution is a brilliant piece of work...
Let me get this straight--
1. Probably the most challenging op piece I've read in some time: complex and provocative;
2. If I line the points up it comes down to we are bound by Article 2 of the Constitution, but have some latitude in how our Electors can influence the EC, and therein lies our leverage - which isn't much (3 votes!);
3. What the NPV would do for Alaska's 3 votes is heap them on top of whichever way the wind is blowing Down South, veritably eradicating the purpose of the Electoral College in the process. We would be afterthoughts --
4. Which is not much different than where we're at right now, but the fact that Alaska's 3 votes currently go to the candidate that Alaskan majority voters endorse does preserve our humble status, as opposed to this proposed vote-jacking.
Its nice to see the empire
Its nice to see the empire writing more articles too, instead of cut and paste from AP. Now if we can work on the timeliness. They are about a day or three behind the ADN.
70% of Alaska Voters Support a National Popular Vote
A survey of Alaska voters conducted on January 27-28, 2010 showed 70% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Voters were asked "How do you think we should elect the President: 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 was 66% among Republicans, 78% among Democrats, 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
By gender, support was 78% among women and 60% among men.
By age, support was 68% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 70% for those older than 65
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
Alaska has been been won by Republican presidential candidates for the last 11 elections (44 years!). I wouldn't hold my breath that Alaska will become a battleground state, worthy of any candidate's attention, under the current system.
States can withdraw from the compact, "except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."
Proportional Method Issues
No state uses a proportional method now.
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
Don't mess with the electoral
Don't mess with the electoral college. It's a good system that has survived the test of time.
Since the progressives are the ones pushing this I believe that the endgame is more insidious. The left isn't real keen on state's rights and by letting the majority rule (or the popular vote as they like to call it) certain states' voices will be diminished. Eventually this will lead to a bigger, centralized government - which anyone would have to agree would be much easier to dictate from.
Here's a explanation for those that propose a proportional electoral vote -
This is determined by the individual state. Remember the whole purpose of the Electoral College in the first place was to let the states cast their votes for the presidency. Therefore the states must be allowed to cast the votes in any way they see fit to any candidate they wish. In 48 states and Washington, D.C. all electoral votes are cast for the candidate who wins the popular vote. Maine and Nebraska allow their electoral votes to be given to the candidate who wins each of their districts (Maine 2, Nebraska 3). Then the other two votes (representing their senate seats) are given to the candidate who wins the popular vote. This system seems to work remarkably well, and even the anti-Electoral College liberals find very little to argue against this arrangement.
Or the same thing explained this way -
It should be known that the most popular argument against the Electoral College system in this country is against casting all state electoral votes for the candidate who wins by the slightest of margins in the state. Those that consider this a flaw in the system should not blame this on the Electoral College but on the individual states. If you would like for this to be changed in your state, you should contact your state government representatives. Keep in mind that the smaller states tend to favor a "winner-take-all" system because it maximizes the state's voice in the electorate. When a state divides its votes among two or more candidates, its voice is also divided and it loses power.
In Nebraska and Maine, the statewide popular vote for President only determines two Presidential electors, the two representing the states’ Senators. The remaining votes are allocated according to the popular vote in each House district.
http://www.redstate (dot) com/neil_stevens/2011/09/13/pennsylvania-considering-electoral-college-split/
Moderated - again?
Moderated - again?
the term "popular vote" brings union meetings to mind...
I have never been to a union meeting where we are not emotionally manipulated into voting the way the union wants us to vote. Unpopular opinions are berated and the opinion holders are made to look like traitors. This is how I visualize the concept of NPV....scary.
Math correction
If a candidate received 67% of the vote, he would still only get 2 electoral votes. He would have to get 84% of the vote to get all 3 electoral votes.
I had a good post on
I had a good post on electoral votes and how they are proportioned but it went into moderation. Maybe it'll show up...
Anyway, it's up to the states' legislatures to decide how they want their states' electoral votes divided. Nebraska and Maine proportion their votes. All the other states do winner-take-all because it gives the individual state more power and influence on the national scene.
A national popular vote is being pushed by the progressives and it's just a way to eventually get rid of states' rights and let the majority rule. By diminishing the states' voices we'll end up with a big, centralized government. What better way to dictate? 'States having a voice makes it so hard to get things done'...isn't that what the left thinks?
Calypso, in short: states'
Calypso, in short: states' rights are more important than individuals' rights.
@ospreyy
Can you explain that conclusion? I'm genuinely curious to know how you hit that percentage.
@Charles Ward
Simple math Charles.
66.6% (2/3rds) + 16.6% = 2votes or =16.8%=3 votes
@Charles Ward
Each electoral vote would represent 33% of the popular vote. In a two person race, winning 67% of the vote would just get you two electoral votes. To win the third electoral vote, you would have to win a majority of the last 33% too, which would be another 17%, for a total of 84%.
Another way to look at it is that if the other candidate won 17%, he would get a majority of one electoral vote.
So
0-16% = 0 electoral votes
17-49% = 1 electoral vote
51-83% = 2 electoral votes
84-100% = 3 electoral votes
@toto
All you're really advocating for is the total elimination of the electoral college.
I happen to like the EC because it gives small-population states a larger voice. I don't like the winner-take-all approach because it means that even a very large minority's votes went toward the wrong candidate.
But you made one of the most compelling arguments for it yourself: "The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes"
@ima49er, @ospreyy
Hmm. Seems you're right. I didn't take into account the fact you'd round percentages to the nearest whole number of electoral votes. I'll correct it above and in Sunday's paper.
States rights vs individual rights?
There is no such thing as individual rights any more, and there never will be if the so-called "progressive" agenda prevails. It is all about power over the masses. Individualism will be dead or hidden in mental institution, prisons, or internment camps. Sound radical? Read Dr. Zhivago, The Last Emperor, Animal Farm.
@hellojuneau1: George Orwell
@hellojuneau1: George Orwell was a socialist. Your little rant makes no sense. And the fact that you can post this on the internet, anonymously, with no fear of consequences (other than someone finding out who you are and you being embarrassed for saying such silly things) proves your first point wrong.