Vote Anti Incumbent

Anti incumbent and anti-establishment voting issues and candidates

National Popular Vote Bill


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).

The bill has been enacted by states possessing 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to activate the law (Hawaii, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland).

The bill has passed 29 legislative chambers in 19 states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington).

The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by 1,777 state legislators.

The shortcomings of the current system stem from the winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state).

Because of the winner-take-all rule, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 56 presidential elections (and 1 in 7 of the non-landslide elections). A shift of fewer than 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.

Another shortcoming of the winner-take-all rule is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, or organize in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign visits and ad money in just six closely divided “battleground” states. A total of 98% went to just 15 states. In other words, voters in two thirds of the states were essentially spectators to the election.

The U.S. Constitution gives the states exclusive and plenary control over the manner of awarding their electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founder’s choice (having been used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789). The fact that Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes by district is a reminder that a amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The 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 (270 of 538).

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

State polls (mostly taken in 2009) show strong support for a national popular vote (AR–80%, CA–70%, CO–68%, CT–73%, DE–75%, ID–77%, IA–75%, KY–80%, ME–77%, MA–73%, MI–73%, MS–77%, MO–70%, NH–69%, NE–74%, NV–72%, NM–76%, NY–79%, NC–74%, OH–70%, OK–81%, PA–78%, RI–74%, SD–75%, UT–70%, VT–75%, VA–74%, WA–77%, and WI–71%). Support is strong in every partisan and demographic group surveyed.

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 and at www.NationalPopularVote.com.

2 Responses to “National Popular Vote Bill”

  1. Rick Says:

    The National Popular Vote movement would guarantee the party that spent the most for advertising in the 12 to 15 largests cities would over rule the rest of small city & rural America. Unless your going to allow “fly-over country” sucession out of the USA, this is a terrible idea. The Electoral College is the only thing saving us from a total socialist state.

  2. Independent-voter Says:

    Rick I see your point but I think it is misguided.It is framed just like I think a Neal Boortz, Sean or Rush would do it.

    But consider if you are in a state like Georgia, your vote doesn’t count at all unless you vote right wing Republican on everything. During the Presidential race the candidates don’t even bother coming to your state. They know how the majority is going to vote so one begins to feel disenfranchised and asks yourself why even vote since the outcome is certain that the electoral votes are going all in for the other side. So it may be 45% not voting with the majority but their votes mean nothing.

    On the other hand, with the National Popular Vote I know my vote will count, no matter how my state votes. The Govenor elections are run for popular vote, why not the Presidential.

    I don’t agree with your idea that the cities will deliver the outcome. Atlanta is by far the biggest city in Georgia but the Governor, elected by popular vote always comes from the rural areas, just like the current Governor Sonny Perdue from South Georgia.

Leave a Reply


 

Follow Me On Twitter