Only six states matter in 2008 presidential election

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: National Popular Vote

Only 6 States Matter in 2008 Presidential Election

Newsletter no. 33 October 7, 2008

Despite the fact that Americans are watching the presidential debates in record numbers, only about six closely divided battleground states matter in the 2008 presidential election.

This harsh political reality became clear last week when McCain's Michigan state director Al Ribeiro explained McCain's abrupt cessation of campaigning in Michigan:

"The campaign must decide where it can best utilize its limited resources with the goal of winning nationally."

Although Michigan is seemingly important (with 8 million people and 17 electoral votes) and was receiving an enormous amount of attention from presidential candidates until last week, presidential candidates simply have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or pay attention to the concerns of states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. As Emmet County Republican Chairman Jack Waldvogel said:

"We feel abandoned, we are disappointed, and we are heartsick to know that we aren't important enough for him to fight for."

Of course, 36 of the 50 states never mattered in the 2008 presidential election. Michigan just discovered the harsh political reality a little later than the 36 other states. As early as spring 2008, the New York Times reported (May 11, 2008) that both major political parties were in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008 (involving only 166 of the 538 electoral votes).

In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states. The 2008 presidential campaign is now centered on six closely divided battleground states: Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire.

The reason that three-quarters of the states don't matter in presidential elections stems from the winner-take-all rule. The winner-take-all rule awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state. The winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution, but simply state law.

The way to fix our broken system of electing the President is to change state law. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). Under the National Popular Vote bill, there would be no red states, no blue states, and no battleground states. Every person's vote, in every state, would be equally important throughout the United States. Every vote would be equal, and every vote would matter.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President in the Electoral College (270 of 538). When the bill is in effect, all the electoral votes from the states that enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia).

The National Popular Vote bill has already been enacted by states possessing 50 electoral votes. This is almost 20% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to bring the law into effect. The four states are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey. The bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The U.S. Constitution gives the states exclusive and plenary control over the manner of awarding of their electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule was not the Founder's choice (having been used by only three states in the nation's first presidential election). Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by district — a reminder that a federal constitutional amendment is not required to change the way the President is elected.

The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, and Sacramento Bee, Common Cause and Fair Vote.

A recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% of Americans support nationwide election of the President. Recent polls in individual states show a similar high level of support: Vermont (75%), Maine (71%), Rhode Island (74%), Arkansas (74%), California (69%), Connecticut (73%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (70%), and Missouri (70%).

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), 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).

Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote (available on-line at our web site or from Amazon).


>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw