Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:02:51 PM
This essay examines for truthfulness Colorado State Senator Ken Gordon's arguments for his Senate Bill 46, "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote."
1. Currently, almost all states are taken for granted or ignored by presidential campaigns, because they are not "in play" and the winner-take-all method of allocating votes makes it irrelevant whether a candidate wins a state by taking 55 percent of the vote or 65 percent. The only states in which campaigns advertise, poll, spend money or visit are "battleground states." In 2004, 76 percent of campaign spending and candidate visits were confined to just five states - Ohio, Florida, Minnesota, Iowa and Pennsylvania. If every vote counted equally, then campaigns would have to run truly national campaigns.
What Senator Gordon doesn't want you to think about is that his system would merely shift the emphasis of the campaigns. In a popular election, rather than an electoral election, the emphasis would be on population centers. Instead of Ohio, Florida, Minnesota, Iowa and Pennsylvania, selecting our President, it would be strictly the east coast and the west coast. Substitute New York and California for Ohio, Florida, Minnesota and Iowa.
A vote in Limon or Grand Junction would count as much as a vote in Houston or Philadelphia. Instead of campaigns being distorted to address issues that are of particular relevance to the "battleground states" like trade with Cuba in South Florida or ethanol in Iowa, the campaigns would have to address national issues.
A vote in Limon or Grand Junction already counts for more than a vote in Houston or Philadelphia because the electors corresponding to senators are spread more thinly in Texas and Pennsylvania. If Gordon had wanted to be truthful, he would have said "this bill makes a vote in Philadelphia count as much as a vote in Limon."
2. Although it has happened only once in the last 118 years, under our current system the candidate who receives the largest number of popular votes might not win the election. This discrepancy is caused by the winner-take-all method used by 48 states, which fails to accurately reflect the level of a candidate's support. The president leads us in war, makes decisions that affect the economy, education and taxes. The president should be the person most Americans support.
Senator Gordon's system almost ensures that the United States will have multiple parties. If he really wants the President to be "the person most Americans support," he shouldn't be trying to set up a system where the President is the person who can capture 27% of the vote and win the popular vote. That is exactly what will happen with his system.
3. Currently, small states have a disproportionate number of electoral votes. (Colorado, however, is not a small state anymore. We have a slightly larger percentage of the popular vote than we do of the Electoral College. This discrepancy will increase as Colorado's population increases faster than the national average.) Even if you support it, the advantage that small states have is illusory. Because of the concentration on the "battleground states," almost every small state and the issues important to them are completely ignored by presidential campaigns.
Until a state has 12 or more electoral votes, it is a small state. Colorado has 9. There are 51 "states" and 578 electoral votes. meaning that a state that has fewer than 11.33 electoral votes doesn't qualify as a large state. I have no idea where Gordon learned math, but he needs a refresher.
Again Gordon is trying to imply that the politicians will not pay attention to the population centers to the expense of the small states. The fact is that he wants small states to surrender the advantage that they gained at the Constitutional Convention, but he isn't honest enough to admit it.
The bill follows the Constitution. The winner-take-all method of distributing electoral votes is not in our founding document. Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2 gives to the state legislatures the authority to decide how electors are chosen. Senate Bill 46 abides by this provision.
Three Sentences, all true. However, when the US Supreme Court told the Florida Supreme Court that it had no (US) Constitutional authority to make the rules, you can bet that Senator Gordon didn't agree. He and others in his party continue to make mischief because of the outcome of that election, and SB 46 is simply more mischief.
Senate Bill 46 would result in the president of the United States being the person who gets the most votes for that office. The governor of Colorado is the person who receives the most votes in Colorado. The president of the United States should be the person who receives the most votes in the United States.
Again true. Think of the possibilities: President Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and any future demagogue who can get over 25% of the popular vote. Even the electoral college doesn't prevent multiple candidates, but years like 1860 are the exception. Under this law, they would become the rule.