National Conference of State Legislatures Debates National Popular Vote Bill

A panel discussion was held at the recent meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures on the movement to award the Presidency to the candidate winning the most votes in all 50 states. You can watch this video on the C-SPAN web site or purchase a tape or DVD from C-SPAN.

The panel was chaired by New Mexico House Speaker Edward Sandoval and included Dr. John R. Koza from National Popular Vote, Maryland Delegate Jon Cardin (Chair of the subcommittee that handled the recently enacted National Popular Vote bill in the Maryland House), and John Samples of The Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency. The bill enacts an interstate compact called the “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.” Under the compact, all of the electoral votes of a member state would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes. Thus, when the compact takes effect, it would guarantee the White House to the candidate with the most votes in all 50 states.

10% of the state legislators in the country are now either sponsors of the National Popular Vote bill or have cast a recorded vote in favor of the bill in committee or on the floor of their respective legislative chambers. The National Popular Vote bill now has 364 sponsors in 47 states. In addition, 405 other state legislators have voted YES on the bill. This total of 769 is more than 10% of the 7,410 state legislators in the country. The bill has been formally introduced in 42 states and is awaiting introduction in the remaining states.

The National Popular Vote bill has now passed 11 legislative chambers since it was first announced at a press conference in February 2006, including

• Arkansas House (in 2007)
• California Senate (in both 2006 and 2007)
• California Assembly (in 2006)
• Colorado Senate (in both 2006 and 2007)
• Hawaii House (in 2007)
• Hawaii Senate (in 2007)
• Illinois House (in 2007)
• Illinois Senate (in 2007)
• Maryland House (in 2007)
• Maryland Senate (in 2007)
• North Carolina Senate

Maryland became the first state to enact the National Popular Vote bill when Governor Martin O’Malley signed the bill into law on April 10, 2007. During the debate in Maryland, former Congressmen John Buchanan (R–Alabama) addressed the Republican Caucus of the Maryland legislature and former U.S. Senator Birch Bayh (D–Indiana) addressed the Democratic Caucus. Both are Maryland residents. There are 538 electoral votes in total, and a majority is 270 electoral votes. Maryland has 10 electoral votes.

The enactment in Maryland came only 411 days after National Popular Vote held its initial press conference on February 23, 2006. This initial press conference featured former Congressmen John Anderson and John Buchanan, former U.S. Senator Birch Bayh, Dr. John R. Koza (originator of the proposal), Barry Fadem (President of National Popular Vote), Chellie Pingree (then President of Common Cause), Rob Richie (Executive Director of Fair Vote), and Kirk Clay (Common Cause).

The National Popular Vote bill is described in detail in our 620-page book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote (available for free reading or downloading from www.every-vote-equal.com or for purchase at Amazon).

The bill has been endorsed in editorials by newspapers such as the New York Times, Chicago Sun Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and Sacramento Bee and endorsed by organizations such as Common Cause and Fair Vote.

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former congressmen John Anderson (R-Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R-Alabama-the first Republican elected to represent Birmingham), Tom Campbell (R-California), and Tom Downey (D-New York), and former Senators Birch Bayh (D-Indiana), David Durenberger (R-Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R-Utah).

The current system of electing the President has several shortcomings—all stemming from the winner-take-all rule that awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state.

Under the winner-take-all rule, candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns of voters of states that they cannot possibly win or lose. A major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that voters in two thirds of the states are effectively disenfranchised in presidential elections because candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of “battleground” states. Candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their advertising money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in just nine states; and over 99% of their advertising money in just 16 states. The number of battleground states has been shrinking for many decades. The spectator states in presidential elections include 12 of the 13 least populous states (all but New Hampshire); 7 of the nation’s 11 most populous states (California, Texas, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Georgia).

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio would have elected Kerry in 2004, even though President Bush was ahead by 3,500,000 votes nationwide. A shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in five of the last 12 presidential elections. A second-place candidate won in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.

The Founding Fathers gave the states exclusive and plenary (complete) control over the manner of awarding of their electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election. It is now used by all states today. Maine and Nebraska currently award some of their electoral votes by congressional districts. States may change the manner of allocating their electoral votes at any time by changing their state laws. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.” The current system was not installed by a federal constitutional amendment, and there is no need for an amendment to change the current state laws on allocating electoral votes.

Small states are especially disadvantaged by the current system of electing the President. Twelve of 13 smallest states are almost totally ignored in presidential elections because they are politically non-competitive. Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, these 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make all of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.

70% of the public has long supported nationwide election of the president.

The National Popular Vote bill is at various stages of consideration in numerous states, as shown on our web site at www.NationalPopularVote.com.