One of the curious facts about the primary process is that it forces the candidates to indulge in phony battles. Consider the Illinois primary as an example. The Republicans have zero chance of getting the electoral votes of Illinois in the general election; everybody knows that. Similarly, they have no chance in New York or California. Yet they are compelled to campaign in these states in order to gain delegate votes in the hope of gaining the Republican nomination. What sense does it make to woo voters who cannot help you in the general election? The same can be said for contests in Puerto Rico or Guam; they are irrelevant. You might as well hold a primary contest for grade schoolers.
Why should Republicans waste treasure and effort campaigning in states whose electoral votes can confidently be put in one column or the other? It would make more practical sense to campaign only in the battleground states. The ability to get votes in New York or Mississippi is completely irrelevant to the outcome.
This tells us -- or at least should tell us -- what is wrong with the electoral system. It is a fact borne out by the Florida 2000 fiasco that convincing one Floridian has more political value than convincing 1000 Californians. Al Gore would have won the presidency had he been able to trade 500,000 California votes for 500 Florida votes.
It is time to dump the electoral system in favor of a popular vote. The founding fathers got a lot of things right when they wrote the Constitution, but they failed miserably when they fashioned the electoral college. Their failure is understandable, given the politics and the communications of the day. They had to fashion a government that would be acceptable to all the states of the nascent republic. But this model no longer makes sense.
Many of the facts and figures in this diary are drawn from this site.
The reader might find the following spreadsheet helpful in understanding this essay. It is drawn from a variety of sources. Let's take a look at the states (plus DC) listed by population: The right-hand column indicates which states are considered "safe" for each party. Column D (Voter Impact) displays the ratio of Electoral votes per citizen, normalized to California. Thus, a voter in Wyoming has as much electoral might in the presidential race as 3.63 California voters.
The objections to the current system are many. First, it effectively disfranchises 61% of the electorate, according to the spreadsheet above. You might disagree with the list of safe states -- it's partly a matter of opinion, and partly what parameters you use to determine what is "safe". But the bottom line is that over half the voters have no chance at all of affecting the outcome. This is borne out by the fact that In the 2004 race:
A study by FairVote reported that the 2004 candidates devoted three quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states, while the other 45 states got very little attention. The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV advertising. This may mean that swing state issues receive more attention while issues important to other states are largely ignored
Consider the consequences. Had we adopted a popular vote for president, we would not have elected GWB. We would not have had the disastrous Bush tax cuts, nor the near-depression that ensued as a consequence. Had we adopted a popular vote, candidates would be obliged to court all voters, not just the voters in "battleground" states.
Constitutional amendments are very difficult to pass, and in many respects this is a good thing. But the amendment to switch to a popular vote would -- or at least should -- find favor with a majority of states. It should find favor with those states that are now effectively disfranchised. The arguments for switching to popular vote are overwhelming in terms of theory and fairness.
The call for this change is quadrennial. The problem is that a constitutional amendment would require bipartisan support in Congress. Good luck with that. It would also require 38 of the states to ratify it. But it turns out that the 21 least populous states, with a combined population less than that of California, control 92 electoral votes, compared to California's 55. So, in practical terms, a constitutional amendment is dead in the water; it just won't happen.
As an aside, this situation illustrates one unfortunate aspect of our form of government. Although the principle of electing the president by popular vote has wide support, it is not generally seen by voters as a high priority issue. This is understandable; the popular vote winner is almost always the electoral vote winner, so what's the problem? Politicians can ignore the clear will of the people in order to pursue their partisan agenda. And they do so with relative impunity.
So, is the idea of electing the president by popular vote a dead issue? It turns out that there is another way -- the National Popular Vote Plan. The idea is a fascinating one. There are eleven states that could elect a president: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois,, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, and New Jersey. These 11 states control 270 electoral votes. The idea is that if these 11 were to agree in advance to cast all their electoral votes for the popular vote winner, then it would be assured that the popular vote winner would be elected.
Of course, it's not necessary to get these particular 11 states to agree to the plan; any combination of states that controls 270 electoral votes will do. Is this idea legal? Is it constitutional? Apparently, it is. The constitution leaves to the states how they choose electors -- they can do it any way they please. It is not written in stone that all of the state's electors vote for the same candidate. In fact, two states (Maine and Nebraska) don't follow the "winner take all" rule.
The plan would rely on the participating states to enact legislation that binds all of its electors to vote for the popular vote winner. The agreement would not take effect until enough states passed the required legislation to total 270 EV.
This plan would equalize the voices of all voters. A voter in California would have exactly the same voice in electing the president as a Wyoming voter. But the plan, in spite of being introduced to most of the state legislatures, is floundering. Since 1944, polls have shown that an impressive majority (most recently, 72%) of Americans favor using the popular vote, yet only nine states have subscribed to it: Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Vermont, and California.
It may be significant that all nine states that have joined the compact are relatively safe Democratic states. While I am disappointed that there are not more blue states that have passed this legislation (Where are NY, DE, CT and RI?), it is notable that not a single red state has done so. Not one, in spite of the fact that 72% of Americans are in favor of direct election. I don't believe that political leaders should always choose the most popular view on every issue, but on this issue I believe it is a slam dunk. It is aptly summarized by the slogan "One person, one vote".
But apparently, to the leaders of 41 of our 50 states, partisan political advantage is more important than equality in the voting booth. In the swing states there might also be an economic advantage: more political pandering attention to the needs of Floridians than to the needs of New Yorkers, for example.
The plan would change the political equation for the better, at least in my view. I think it deserves serious consideration.