Guest Post: Why Republicans Have Nothing to Fear From National Popular Vote

npv

Many Republicans I have talked to seem to believe electing the president by a national popular vote would put Republicans at a disadvantage in presidential elections.  However, when I respond to their objections with actual vote totals and facts about elections, they almost always concede that a national popular vote system is at worst neutral to, or might even benefit, Republicans. Please carefully consider the following, as I believe it all to be true.

The nationwide popular vote is not skewed against Republicans

Since 1932 the combined popular vote by party for President was a virtual tie: 745,407,082 for the Democrats and 745,297,123 for the Republicans. In fact, during my lifetime, Republicans have done very well in the national popular vote compared to Democrats. Anyone who believes that the United States is a center-right country should have no political concern about trusting the American people to make the right choice.

The small states do not create a Republican political advantage in the Electoral College

Many believe that the Republicans gain from the fact that each state receives two electoral votes beyond what their population alone would justify. However, the historical fact is that the 13 smallest states (those with 3 or 4 electoral votes) have been evenly divided by party for the past six presidential elections. Six of the smallest states (Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Washington, D.C.) have almost invariably voted Democratic since 1988, while the other six non-battleground small states (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota) have almost invariably voted Republican. New Hampshire is the one closely divided swing state among the 13. In fact, Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) did from the 12 least-populous states despite the fact that Bush won considerably more popular votes in these states (650,421 votes for Bush compared to 444,115 for Kerry). The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue.

Similarly, in the 25 smallest states, the Democratic and Republican popular vote in 2008 was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

The presidential election will not become a race for a dozen states with big cities

While it is true that the 12 biggest states have over half the nation’s population and over half the electoral votes, when you actually look at presidential vote totals, you see that there is a virtual tie among the parties in the 12 biggest states.

In 2004, 6 of the 12 biggest states went Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia), while the other six went Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). Kerry got 34,784,178 votes in the 12 biggest states versus Bush’s 34,539,521, a difference of only 244,657 out of 69 million votes. Kerry’s slender margin in the 12 biggest states was then overwhelmed by Bush’s national popular vote margin of 3,012,171 (out of 122 million votes cast).

None of the biggest states are as Democratic as many people think. The highest percentage achieved by either party in the 12 biggest states in 2004 was Bush’s 62% margin in Texas (which alone generated a bigger popular-vote margin for Bush than Kerry received from far-larger California).

Republican candidates for governor and U.S. Senator have won statewide in all 12 of the biggest states in recent years.

Moreover, the big cities inside the 12 biggest states are not as big or as dominant as many people think.  Big cities do not, for example, control California elections, as evidenced by the historical fact that governors Reagan, Deukmejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger never carried Los Angeles, San Francisco, or other big cities in California. Similar examples of Republicans winning in big states, despite losing the big cities, can be easily cited in every other big state.

The populations of the 50 largest cities together constitute only 19% of the nation’s population. To put that into perspective, Arlington, Texas is the nation’s 50th largest city (at about 363,000). The fact is that the United States is predominantly a suburban, exurban, and rural country.

The small states would gain (not lose) influence

The reality is that small states are the most disadvantaged under the current state-by-state, winner-take-all system.

18 of the 25 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns. Only 4 of the 25 received more than two post-convention campaign events, namely New Hampshire (12 events), New Mexico (8 events), Nevada (12 events), and Iowa (7 events). The 25 smallest states together (with 155 electoral votes) received 43 post-convention campaign events. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) received 62 of the 300 post-convention campaign events.

The 12 smallest non-competitive states have a combined population of 11 million. Because of the bonus of two electoral votes every state receives, these 12 small states have 40 electoral votes. Coincidentally, the closely divided battleground state of Ohio has 11 million people. Ohio (with “only” 20 electoral votes) received 62 of the 300 post-convention visits in the 2008 presidential election, whereas the 12 smallest states received only three. The winner-take-all rule makes the 11 million people in Ohio crucial in presidential races, while rendering the 11 million people in the nation’s 12 smallest states irrelevant. A national popular vote would make a vote cast in a small state as important as a vote cast in Ohio.

California would not be the only state that matters

Seven western states (Arizona, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming), with only about a third of California’s population, generated almost the same popular vote margin (1,219,595) for George W. Bush in 2004 as John Kerry’s margin in California (1,235,659). Nonetheless, John Kerry received 55 electoral votes from California, while Bush received only 33 from the seven western states.

Fraud would not dictate the outcome of a national popular vote election

Fraud is, in fact, a bigger threat in the current system. In the current system, a handful of fraudulent votes in a closely divided battleground state (say Wisconsin) will effectively steal ten electoral votes. Those same fraudulent votes would have very little impact on a national vote total. National Popular Vote mitigates the impact of fraud on presidential elections.

…But Al Gore would have been president under a national popular vote

Now we’re getting to the real objection. Let’s remember that weeks before the 2000 election the Bush team believed it was likely we (meaning the Bush campaign) would win the popular vote and lose in the Electoral College. The campaign distributed talking points and planned a talk radio effort to challenge the central unfairness of the winner-take-all system and state why the winner of the popular vote should always be elected president.

Of course, if the entire campaign had been run on the basis of national popular vote, President Bush’s campaign effort would have been very different. In a national election, contested in all fifty states and under a national popular vote, President Bush’s culturally conservative message would have likely carried the day. His campaign could have devoted its time to driving turnout in states where his message had resonance, rather then eking out small numbers of votes in battleground states.

Nationally recognized in the spheres of politics, public affairs, public relations and market research, Pat directed the highly successful Midwest grassroots campaigns to confirm U.S. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts. He is a senior advisor to National Popular Vote.

Related posts

  • Bat One

    In an age when the grasp of the federal government extends ever farther into the daily lives of Americans, especially the executive branch, there doesn’t seem to be any compelling reason abandon the federalist system bequeathed us by the Founders.

    Besides, Hillary Clinton has mentioned her partisan desire for abandoning the Electoral College quite a few times, and that’s reason enough to leave things the way they are.

    • http://twitter.com/oldgulph s e

      In 1969, The U.S. House of
      Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.It was endorsed by
      Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole.

      • Bat One

        So what?

        The House vote you refer to and the presidential endorsements are meaningless unless backed by a Constitutional Amendment.  And that, thankfully, has not been forthcoming.  The very last thing this country needs is a move toward more, direct democracy.

        • Bw

          Well said Bat One.  Why the push to change the Constitution in this regard? 

          • http://twitter.com/oldgulph s e

            National Popular Vote does not change the Constitution.

            The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution.

            State by-state winner-take-all
            laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

             

            Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “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.”

          • http://twitter.com/oldgulph s e

            Under National Popular
            Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every
            presidential election.  The Presidency would
            be guaranteed to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50
            states (and DC).

             

            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.

             

            And
            now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for
            winning in a state are wasted and don’t matter to candidates.  Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin
            of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states,
            with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

             

            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
            a 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.

        • http://twitter.com/oldgulph s e

          So, support for a national popular vote for President is NOT partisan, as you claimed.

          Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong
          conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: “I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for
          Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America.  National Popular Vote is not a grand
          conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.

           It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and
          Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the
          selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.

           National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily
          explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a
          keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans.
          . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully
          understand it. . . .We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform
          has the more support that will build for it.”

           Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred
          Thompson(R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are
          co-champions of National Popular Vote.

           National Popular Vote’s National Advisory Board includes former
          Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), and David Durenberger (R–MN) and former congressmen
          John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), and Tom Campbell (R–CA).

           Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan
          Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the
          Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the
          fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help
          Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV
          plan would not help either party over the other.

           

          Rich Bolen, a Constitutional
          scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County,
          South Carolina, wrote:”A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a
          state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.”

           

          Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for
          Electing the President by National Popular Vote” http://www.every-vote-equal.com/
          include:

           

          Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from
          2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is
          the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange
          Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

           

          James Brulte served as Republican Leader
          of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State
          Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to
          2004.

           

          Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American
          Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State
          Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

           

          Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a
          Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican,
          Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the
          first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

           

          Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from
          2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several
          faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

           

          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). Support for a
          national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent
          voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in
          recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA
          75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA –
          78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK –
          70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV –
          72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and
          WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO –
          70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in
          other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR –
          76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most
          votes should win.NationalPopularVote

                                            

           

        • http://twitter.com/oldgulph s e

          National
          Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy. Direct democracy is a form of government in
          which people vote on policy initiatives directly.  With National Popular Vote, the United States
          would still be a representative democracy, in which citizens continue to elect
          the President by a majority  of Electoral
          College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the
          periods between elections.

        • http://twitter.com/oldgulph s e

          The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award
          all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

           

          The presidential election system we have today is not
          in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an
          amendment. State by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College
          votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so,
          AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can
          be changed by state laws again.

           

          Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting
          presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method
          exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution–
          “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.”

           

          The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods
          that were debated and rejected.  Indeed,
          a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the
          rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet).  Presidential electors were appointed by state
          legislatures for almost a century.

           

          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 method) 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, and only three states used the state-by-state
          winner take-all method to award electoral votes.

           

          The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (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 entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S.
          Constitution. It 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 method.

           

          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 method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States
          can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over
          the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– 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 abnormal process is to go outside
          the Constitution, and amend it. 

  • http://twitter.com/oldgulph s e

    With the Electoral College and federalism, the
    Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests
    within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an
    exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

     

    The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party
    activists who vote as rubberstamps for
    their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

     

    The National Popular Vote bill preserves the
    Electoral College and state control of elections.  It changes the way electoral votes are awarded
    in the Electoral College.

     

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method
    of awarding electoral votes (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, ensures that
    the candidates, after the primaries, in 2012 will not reach out to about 76% 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.

     

    More than 2/3rds of the states and people have
    been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million
    voters.

     

    Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’
    states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’
    states when it comes to governing.

     

    States have the responsibility and power to make all of their
    voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

     

    Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers
    left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to
    the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the
    U.S. Constitution– “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.”

     

    Federalism concerns the allocation of power
    between state governments and the national government.  The National Popular Vote bill concerns how
    votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the
    national government.  The powers of state
    governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential
    electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with
    the National Popular Vote).

    • Bw

      “With the Electoral College and federalism, theFounding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interestswithin the confines of the Constitution.”

      The founding fathers intended none of this, “empowerment . . . within the confines of the Constitution”?  The founders were acutely aware the states’ source of power arose from the states themselves (i.e., the general police power granted by the citizens acting in unity in forming govenrments,)  and the soon to be Constitution had only its enumerated powers and no more.  In other words, the Constitution of 1789 did not give the states anything they did not already possess; it merely enumerated what the federal govenment could and could not do.  The states had their own constitutions, statutes, common law, etc., in many cases predating the federal Constitution.   “Empowerment” of states by the federal government via the federal Constition is anachronistic and is not how federalism has ever been understood, except by Leftists and progressives. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Willis-Forster/100002880371309 Willis Forster

    This would be another step towards pure democracy that has a long history of rapid disastrous failure.  The past failures were in small countries, the scale of the disaster here and now would be proportional to our importance in the world. Everyone can see the debacle of war and revolution brought on by the incompetence of obama and his political cronies and the worlds economies teetering at the abyss. Hope and change is not a plan, it is just an empty political slogan.

    • http://twitter.com/oldgulph s e

      National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly.  With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a representative democracy, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority  of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

  • Ratbite

    The Republican National Committee had best worry more about the loss of the hated conservative base & its votes which they take for granted cuz we’re feed up with being hated while being taken for granted.

  • http://www.themarketingsurvivalist.blogspot.com melissapaulik

    Nothing to fear from it…now. The federalist system was set up as a safeguard against big centralized government intrusion. Just because the numbers happen to work (slightly) in our favor right now doesn’t mean they always will.  Be careful what you wish for.

  • Calthropeallan

    After 21 years of voting in California where they almost had me arrested for showing my ID/Driver’s License….It’s obvious that  a popular direct vote would add millions of votes to the Democrats.. The past couple of years, I needed an ID here in North Dakota.

  • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

    Nothing to fear except that a vote stolen by the Democrats in California really doesn’t have a big implication.  They were going for Obama anyway.  On the other hand if we went with the popular vote every stolen vote would count. 

    There is a huge danger in this idea.  It’s an idea with no benefit but lots of risks.  

    • http://twitter.com/oldgulph s e

      The
      current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change
      the national outcome by changing a small number
      of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all
      of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare
      plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number,
      compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against
      manipulation.

      National Popular Vote would limit the
      benefits to be gained by fraud. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in
      the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55
      electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without
      having the most popular votes in the country.

      Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “To steal the
      closest popular-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal more
      than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election
      in American history, you’d have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. .
      . .

      For a national popular vote election to be as
      easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the
      1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

      Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for
      vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers
      thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?” 

      • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

        Democrats in states where they have large majorities have no reason to pad their own numbers even though they have all the opportunity since they run the voting system.  However if we had a strict popular vote they’d have the motive as well as the opportunity. 

  • Bat One

    s e,  Thanks so much for the history lessons.  I’m deeply appreciative, and will check the veracity of what you’ve written as I have the time.  Personally, I am still unconvinced that our process for electing the president should be changed, but please feel free to continue posting comments.

  • awfulorv

    Of course if we were to add a minimal IQ number, or an easy to execute test, such as turning a light switch on or off, to the voting rules, something they might have done had IQ tests, and electricity, existed at the time,  the Democrats would lose votes by the millions…

  • Sparkie Arbuckle

    Hint:  You don’t need to worry about it because it doesn’t matter.  

    And facts about the popular vote from 1932 randomly thrown in?  Who wrote this?  Abysmal congerie of random junk.  If that’s what it takes to reassure, then uh oh.

  • Sparkie Arbuckle

    Btw, you guys are already getting to loose abysmally?  Wow.

    Any plans to move to Australia?

    • mickey_moussaoui

      …or someplace where they know the difference between “loose” and “lose”

      • Sparkie Arbuckle

        Ha!  Where’s that?  You’re screwed ma man!

      • Sparkie Arbuckle

        That’s right, you’re already ‘loose.’  Woops.

    • Jfisher17

      “Any plans to move to Australia”? No, I don’t think so. From what I hear, in many ways they’re becoming as socialistic as the US under Obama.  

  • Jay

    We’re not going to have a national popular vote (thank God). Leave the constitutional provision for selecting Presidents alone and focus on things people actually give a good goddamn about–namely jobs and the economy.

  • Singlefather1956

    And again they keep talking against “winner take all” yet if you read the plan it states that the person with most vote national will “take all” electoral votes”. Winner take in reverse. Additionally, this means that every man woman and child in ND vote for one person and all of ND electoral votes would go to the other person. This is a power grab nothing more, a door to door sales trick.

    • Gern Blanston

      Further to that point (or just restated): Why would the ND Legislature support a change where the vote of very North Dakotan could be thrown out because of a law that states ND’s electors shall go to the person with the largest national popular vote?

      • http://twitter.com/oldgulph s e

        Americans believe
        that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
        Most Americans 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 directly and equally
        counted and mattered to their candidate.  Most Americans think it’s wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in
        any other election in our representative republic.
        In state polls of voters each with a second question
        that specifically emphasized that their state’s electoral votes would be
        awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not
        necessarily their state’s winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

        Question 1: “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?”

        Question 2: “Do you think it more important that
        a state’s electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives
        the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that
        the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes
        president?”

        Support for a National Popular Vote

        South Dakota — 75% for Question
        1, 67% for Question 2. 
        see http://tinyurl.com/3jdkx7x

        Connecticut — 74% for Question
        1, 68% for Question 2. 
        see http://tinyurl.com/3nv8djt

        Utah — 70% for Question 1, 66%
        for Question 2. 
        see http://tinyurl.com/3vrfxyh

Top