Comments about ‘My view: Support the National Popular Vote Bill’

So, Anthony Panek and Aaron Miles wants to change the method of awarding electoral votes for President in order to make Utah a potential 'battleground state' where candidates will come here to Utah and pay attention to us. Well Anthony and Aaron, here is the problem with that logic and why Utah will never become a battleground state:

1. In 2008, Utah's influence in that election, compared to California's influence, amounted to just 7% of the total California vote.

2. Nationally, Utah's influence was less than 0.75% of the total popular vote. California's total popular vote was just over 10% of the total national vote.

The Bottom Line: There is no way Utah will ever become a battleground state when the large majority of the population (that would win the election under your plan) reside in the larger states like California.

Could it be?

A Republican and a Democrat agreeing on a position that is good for the country.

Unfortunately this is rare in the states, and grounds for removal at the national level.

I have no opinion on this bill. But I am pleased to see these two groups coming together to work for something they see as important. It gives me hope about our young folks. We could learn from them.

The National Popular Vote Bill is a really bad idea. It would lead to Utah getting even LESS attention during a presidential election, not more. Frankly I'm surprised that it has been pushed by a few Utah lawmakers that I consider conservative.

This bill would also encourage more widespread voter fraud, because overzealous campaigns would know that any phony vote anywhere in the nation would help them. Under the current system, in most states it's already clear which way the state is going, so voter fraud will not usually help (and thus the incentive is less). Rather, most voter fraud (for the presidential election, that is) is currently limited to the few battleground states. This makes it easier to detect and prosecute.

There is no such thing as "national popular vote" and never has been. It is only a matter of curiosity that we aggregate the popular vote of the states, even though the popular vote has no force of law. That is by design because we have a great constitutional republic with some democratic institutions. Small population states would have less influence compared to California and New York.

It's sad that supposedly college educated people don't understand the reasons we have an electoral college. It's probably due to the fact that the entire education establishment is overwhelmingly dominated by the left. Then they pass on their liberal bias to the students.

Using your same logic, California, the largest state, too, is a "flyover" state. It safely leans Democratic in a general election and the margin of victory in favor of a Democratic candidate in just that one state alone would totally consume all Republican votes even if every man, woman, child, and farm animal in the State of Utah were counted as a Republican vote in that election.

Worse still, your misunderstanding of the American system is sorely exposed. We are the United States, not the United People of the States. The president is not a governor nor a mayor. He or she is the President of the United States, not the President of the People of the United States. It was a convention of delegates from Thirteen separate political entities that created the United States and that entered into a compact to form a Union of States. Each state has a voice (remember the electoral college?). Remember the Senate (two senators from each state).

Electing a president by popular vote both ignores the nature of our federal system and invites the complete annihilation of Utah's voters' voice. Right now your Utah votes is worth more than a Californian's.

"It's sad that supposedly college educated people don't understand the reasons we have an electoral college.

Well Mark, I would bet that these college educated people understand perfectly. And many of the reasons why the electoral college came about are no longer valid.

Just because we have always done it that way, does not mean things cannot change or improve. Does that make me a "progressive"?

Certainly they understand that there has never been a "national popular vote".
Does that mean that there never could be?

Personally, I think it is a great idea with little downside.

Voting in a presidential election in Utah and many other states, while noble for many reasons, makes not one bit of difference in the outcome of the election.

What these people are proposing makes Every vote count.

In a popular vote States would be irrevelant. The President would be determined by the 12 largest cities. That is where all the campaigning and promised pork would go.

This opinion piece is a complete misrepresentation of everything the Founding Fathers stood for. The real issue is not that this is a bipartisan idea, the real issue is that it is a terrible idea.

The Fathers knew that the general public was simply not educated and informed enough to pick a President. That is why they established the electoral college. If anything, the wisom of the Fathers is even more true today than it was in their day.

A national popular vote would completely dillute to votes of the small states. Presidential canidates would only pander to the voters on the coasts,

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founders 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.

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

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), ensures that candidates, after the primaries, in 2012 will not care about 76% of the states, like Utah, where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states, like Utah, aren't as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

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

The Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased if electors are selected along state boundary lines, or national lines (as with NPV).

Now Utah has NO influence and gets NO attention, after the primaries, in presidential elections.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 19 of the 22 lowest population states are not competitive and ignored. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 57% of events were in just 4 states states (OH, FL, PA, VA). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in the 15 "battleground" states.

Now votes beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah 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).

Among the 4 largest states, the 2 largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

I like the idea. What further shows the idea, one man, one vote?

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?"

*

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." The Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia contain the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.

National Popular Vote is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President.

A survey of Utah voters conducted on May 19–20, 2009 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?"

Support by political affiliation, was 82% among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, and 75% among others.
By gender, support was 78% among women and 60% among men.
By age, support was 70% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 68% for those older than 65.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

The bill has been enacted by states with 49% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to bring the law into effect.

NationalPopularVote

Few states would benefit more from the National Popular Vote Plan than Utah. The state has not voted for a Democratic Presidential nominee since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. In 2008, Republican nominee John McCain carried the state with 62.3% of the vote without making a single campaign stop.

Because of the states status as a Republican citadel, candidates make the electoral calculation to not even attempt to court their votes. In 1996, Democrat Bill Clinton designated 1.7 million acres of canyon land located in Utah as a national monument and thus making this property off-limits to development. Clinton did this despite widespread opposition from the entire Utah Congressional delegation and the state’s voters. Interestingly, Mr. Clinton signed the order not in Utah, but in Arizona, a showdown state where the move was popular. Clinton had conceded Utah before the election season began.

Re: oldgulph: You trumpet the "fact" that a high percentage of Utahns support a popular vote. But the wording of that particular poll question skews the outcome, and determines the results in advance, so it's not an honest poll. Most people will simplify that question in their mind ("Should the one who gets the most votes become president?"), and, of course, the majority will say yes.

I wonder who conducted the poll that you refer to. Either this question was innocently worded very poorly, or it was intentionally worded to get a desired result. Some poll questions, in order to be honest and objective, require a brief, clear, unbiased explanation before the actual question is asked. That's the case here.

I maintain that National Popular Vote is a very bad idea.

Popular elections mean the candidates are going to spend their time and money in population centers, where they get the most bang for the buck. Guess what, we are not a big population center, so I doubt we would see them any more under a popular election than we do now under the electoral college.

And why would I want to give up the advantage I have over voters in California? The voters in each congressional district elect one elector in the electoral college (congressman), but state-wide voters elect TWO electors (senators). So while we are equal in voting for one congressman, I am one of only 3 million voting for two senators, while Californians are 1 of 55 million voting for their two senators. My vote counts more.

A couple of problems with the theory from these authors:

1) The local problem- this plan does NOTHING for Utah in making it a battleground state. This state leans so heavily to the Republican side that the Republican candidates know they will win the state without even trying. The Democratic candidates know they will lose the state, so they won't bother trying.

2) The national problem- If you go with the popular vote plan, even states with large populations such as New York and California can lose. Why? Smart candidates will realize they only need to concentrate on major Metropolitan areas to win elections. The top 20 metropolitan areas in the U.S. by population, (covering approximately 21 states) account for 115,000,000 people out of about 310,000,000. The top 30 Metro areas account for 137,000,000. (The Salt Lake Metro area is #50 in population) Appeal to big city issues, ignore "small" cities, suburban and rural areas and you win.

I agree with the original letter writers and I have been urging this for years. Several people above give a list of reasons why the proposed change is a bad idea, but these are all worn-out arguments. When something doesn't work (for example, slavery was legal under the constitution and a slave counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of counting population) then it can be changed (thank goodness slavery is no longer legal - even though it was clearly "constitutional"). The electoral college is outdated and should be replaced. Despite the fact made above that Utah is not a large population center, we would get a lot more attention than we currently do where neither the Democratic or Republican candidate even care about Utah because both know it is going Republican.

@conservative scientist

You call arguments against a national popular vote worn-out, but then provide no arguments explaining why other than to point to the slavery issue and say it didn't work or calling the Electoral College outdated. Why is it outdated? Why doesn't it work? Provide evidence? I'm not saying it's perfect, but why a popular vote?

Utah WOULDN'T get a lot more attention than we currently do. We have a small population (2.8 million, ranked 34th among states and territories- Puerto Rico has a larger population than Utah) which leans heavily Republican (meaning Republican candidates can count on our votes without doing a thing).

In a national popular vote, states with large populations would be focused on, and even more, the 20-30 large metropolitan areas are far more valuable in terms of time and money spent than trying hit 100-200 campaign stops. As far as media markets go, money is better spent in large metro areas on advertising campaigns that will reach far more people. Any campaign manager worth their salt, looking at a national campaign, will focus their attention on the areas with the greatest returns for the amount of money and resources used.