Letter: Election problem justifies change

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to an issue of growing concern and confusion. First, the recent party primary elections produced abysmal turnout — 10 percent of the Democrats voted while less than 25 percent of Republicans came out to help choose its party’s candidate. That alone is cause for concern. However it is even more alarming when I consider the fact that in November, a majority of those who do choose to vote on Election Day may find themselves casting meaningless votes.

“Meaningless” in the sense that in a very real scenario, Louisiana may be forced to delegate all of its eight Electoral College votes to a candidate who doesn’t even get a majority of the vote in Louisiana, much less throughout the country. That’s right! It doesn’t matter who gets the most votes on Election Day, it simply matters who gets the most Electoral College votes.

Remember what happened in 2000? George Bush won the state of Florida by 537 votes, thus giving all 25 of that state’s Electoral College votes and the presidency was awarded to him even though he didn’t receive the most votes across the country. Four years later, had the state of Ohio voted for John Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have been declared president even though Bush had a few million more votes nationwide. And don’t forget the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot, which almost threw the election into turmoil, which would have forced the U.S. House of Representatives to choose our president!

Under the current system, as few as a dozen states can determine who the president of the United States will be based on their Electoral College clout. Given these truly alarming facts, I think it is time Louisiana’s Legislature looked at the National Popular Vote Initiative —- whoever gets the most votes nationwide should be elected president. Simple enough?

Emily Davenport

public relations consultant

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by CaptainHaddock - 08/05/2012

Is 'lil booby' racist? I dont see how. Juvenile, for sure, but not racist. But no matter - I think you've made some real progress - recognizing knuckleheaded frat-boy-level idiocy in others ('Piyush' for instance, when every one knows him as Bobby) is a very important step in recognizing your own struggles with the embarrassing dimwittery of casual racism. Now, for the next step. Making actual comments that merit the act of logging in (rather than saying 'nice comments' to whichever right winger is logged in at any giventime). Remember - 'regressive' need not be a bad thing!

2) Comment by 8point6 - 07/05/2012

I just love the "casual racism" remark. Um. "lil booby" "Pyish"?? Wait a minute......"Pyish" is Jinda's "first" name". I love my "progressive" friends' racism....

3) Comment by kohler - 07/05/2012

A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. & & & The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. & & & Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. That majority of Electoral College votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

4) Comment by kohler - 07/05/2012

8point6 - Neither candidate is targeting his campaign at states like CA and NY, that have many electoral college votes, to get re-elected. & & & In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Those 12 states will determine the election. Candidates will not care about at least 76% of the voters- voters-in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. & & & 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, like California and New York and Louisiana. & & & Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states, like California and New York and Louisiana, are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

5) Comment by kohler - 07/05/2012

SuzanneMS - With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes! & & & But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, like the 13 smallest states, rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two 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. & & & Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states: * Texas (62% Republican), * New York (59% Democratic), * Georgia (58% Republican), * North Carolina (56% Republican), * Illinois (55% Democratic), * California (55% Democratic), and * New Jersey (53% Democratic). & & & In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states: * Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican * New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic * Georgia -- 544,634 Republican * North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican * Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic * California -- 1,023,560 Democratic * New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic & & & To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). 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).

6) Comment by kohler - 07/05/2012

SuzanneMS - With the current system, Louisiana is, has, and will be ignored by presidential candidates after the conventions, along with more than 2/3rds of the states and voters in the country. & & & Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most. & & & Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander. & & & 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 nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions. & & & Of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes) 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post- convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - New Hampshire (12 events), New Mexico (8 events), Nevada (12 events), and Iowa (7 events) - got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country. & & & In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

7) Comment by kohler - 07/05/2012

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not control the outcome. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican. & & & Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. & & & If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city. & & & A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. & & & The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere. & & & With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Louisiana, or for a Republican to try it in Louisiana or Vermont. & & & Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election. In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California. & & & Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston. There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states. & & & The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as soccer mom voters in Ohio.

8) Comment by kohler - 07/05/2012

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 the candidates, after the primaries, will not reach out to about 76% of the states, like Louisiana, 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. & & & Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium- small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states. & & & More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections, like Louisiana. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most. & & & Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states, like Lousiana, are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing. & & & The number and population of battleground states is shrinking as the U.S. population grows. As of March 10th, some pundits think there will be only Six States That Will Likely Decide The 2012 Election http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-six-states-that-will-likely- decide-the-2012-election/

9) Comment by kohler - 07/05/2012

John Yuma National Popular Vote preserves running presidential elections state by state, keeps election administration local and decentralized—no presidential appointee is in charge of presidential elections. Nothing in the National Popular Vote compact that would force state election laws to become identical. The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and preserves state control of elections.

10) Comment by kohler - 07/05/2012

Tea Slayer Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin. If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state. The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide. If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269– 269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote. A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal. It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon). Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate. A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

11) Comment by DMJ - 07/05/2012

I'm game. Perhaps it's time we do away with the Electoral College...

12) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 07/05/2012

This fix should satisfy most of you (RW or LW): Keep the electoral college but use the popular vote of each state to divvy up that state's electoral votes. For example, Louisiana has 8 electoral votes (due to the 2010 Census). Let's say in the general election, Obama gets 38% of the vote and Romney gets 62%. Under my proposal, Romney would take 5 (4.96) electoral votes and Obama would take 3 (3.04). (The majority winner would get his electoral votes rounded up.) This way there are assurances that every vote ACTUALLY matters but still keeps the more populous states from dominating the election.

13) Comment by John Yuma - 07/05/2012

A different take: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/george-soros-supports-tea-party_590271.html “What NPV would really do is to wipe away state lines in presidential campaigns, turning the nation into one giant “single-member district.” This would radically change the political landscape, but rather than equalizing voters it would simply shift political power. Because the majority of America’s population resides in the 40 largest metropolitan areas, the short-term effect of NPV would be to benefit left leaning urban political machines, at the expense of more conservative voters in less densely populated areas. NPV would also clear the way to consolidate more control over elections in Washington, D.C.—an item on the agenda of many left leaning “good government” groups. Shocking—left wing donors and organizations are behind an effort to shift power toward their own constituencies and ideological objectives! The Electoral College benefits voters across the political spectrum. All Americans are better off with a system that ensures political parties build truly national coalitions, where presidential candidates succeed only by winning simultaneous victories in states across the nation. Running presidential elections state by state keeps election administration local and decentralized—no presidential appointee is in charge of presidential elections.”

14) Comment by SuzanneMS - 07/05/2012

Electoral votes will go to the candidate who gets a majority of the votes cast. True, that may not be more than 50%, but it will be the candidate who gets more of the votes than anyone else. Actually, the Electoral College is what gives smaller states some say. The "winner takes all" electoral method is the only reason that candidates bother with any of the smaller states -- they can pick up all of the electoral delegates with a simply majority of the popular vote. A national popular vote would allow the largest states to dominate every national election. Candidates would concentrate on the 15 or so largest states that include more than 75% of the total population and ignore the rest, since getting even 100% of the votes in all of those small states would not give them the election.

15) Comment by CaptainHaddock - 07/05/2012

Casual racism is the best! 'Hussein' is the presidents middle name, even though noone ever uses it, unless they want to remind the reader that Obama is kinda different from them in one very specific way. Can you guess what way? A clue - Hussein is a common name in arab countries, and arabs, even american ones, are, well, you know, sinister, and smelly, and cruel, and muslim, and not really proper americans. Just like the president. Can I be a casual racist too? It makes you seem smart, witty, and attractive to women. Stupid women, that is.

16) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 07/05/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

17) Comment by 8point6 - 07/05/2012

"whoever gets the most votes nationwide should be elected president. " Agreed. However, that won't happen this year. hussein is well aware of the electoral vote, hence, he is targeting his campaign at states like CA and NY, that have many electoral college votes, to get re-elected. JMO. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/2012-Electoral- Votes-By-State.htm

18) Comment by Terd Handler - 07/05/2012

Anybody who uses George Bush as an argument to abandon the electoral college needs to be horsewhipped.