An Ordinary Person

National Popular Vote Q&A

I was interested in the National Popular Vote effort being conducted by FairVote, the electoral reform organization. I had a few questions and the folks at FairVote were kind enough to answer them. Without further adieu, here’s my Q&A on the National Popular Vote!

How did the idea for NPV come about? Has anything like it been done before in the past?

Dr. John Koza, a Stanford University computer science professor, conceived of the idea as a way to do away with the current division of the country into safe states and battleground states. Currently, 2/3 of our states get absolutely no attention by presidential campaigns. The principle behind it is not new at all. Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution gives state exclusive power over how to award their electoral votes. That is why we see Maine and Nebraska using a different method than 48 states. Under NPV, states join an interstate compact to agree to give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in all fifty states. The compact goes into effect when enough states have joined to add up to 270 electoral votes, or a majority in the Electoral College.

The nationwide scope of the NPV effort is impressive. What are the primary difficulties a campaign of this magnitude faced with? And how do you overcome them?

Our biggest asset is the huge percentage of Americans who favor a national popular vote for President. Ever since the Gallup poll began to ask the question, it has gotten 70%-80% of the public’s support, and that holds true today, in every single state. We’ve taken advantage of that and now have bills in 47 states with over 350 legislative sponsors. Even in states that may benefit from the winner-take-all rule for award electoral votes that NPV is looking to change, you will find that constituents overwhelmingly favor the idea of a popular vote.

Playing devil’s advocate: one argument against NPV says under a national popular vote system, people living in smaller, more sparsely populated states will be at a disadvantage because more votes will come from densely populated states and coastal regions. Those regions tend to have more Democratic-liberal leaning voters. Candidates and campaigns will thus, tend to focus their resources and efforts primarily in these densely populated regions. How do you respond to the criticism that NPV will put smaller, more sparsely populated (and Republican-leaning) states at a disadvantage?

I am always amazed that this is brought up. A national popular vote is a reform that helps small states and empowers rural areas.

Right now, on the other hand, the smallest states in the country are severely disadvantaged by the current system. Of all the 13 states with 4 electoral votes or fewer, six are red and six are blue, and only a one – New Hampshire – is a swing state. The rest of the states are totally locked out. Campaigns don’t poll them, spend money there, advertise, visit, or campaign there.

Just consider the math. Those 12 smallest states have about 40 electoral votes and 11 million people. Ohio also has 11 million people, but only 20 electoral votes. Does the small state bonus make candidates go to the small states? Not at all. They go to Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, the biggest of the swing states. Even Iowa, which is a swing state, finds itself ignored toward the end because regardless of how that state votes, Ohio is the true kingmaker because of its size.

A popular vote makes every vote equal, and candidates will vie for every vote they can. In other popular elections for governor, candidates campaign in every part of the state. If cities always controlled and election, we might have nothing but Democratic governors. But that doesn’t hold true. Gov. Schwarzenegger, for example, did not win by carrying San Francisco and Los Angeles, nor did Bush win the state of Ohio in 2004 by carrying Cincinnati and Cleveland.

To win a popular vote election, you simply need to campaign everywhere. If you do not, you will lose. Low population areas will never the be center of the universe, but they will at least be included in the universe, and have reason to activate their local party organizations and be heard by the national parties. As things stand, candidates can ignore all but a handful of, and within that category, pay attention to the biggest.

Playing devil’s advocate: one criticism of NPV (and which was used by Arnold Schwarzenegger in his veto of the bill) was that if candidate A won the national popular vote but candidate B won the state’s popular vote, shouldn’t the state’s electoral votes go to the winner of that state? How do you respond to that argument?

Nobody who votes for president ever wakes up the day after Election Day and says, “Hurray! My candidate didn’t become president, but he won my state!”

The issue is not who wins which state, but who becomes President of the United States. In Utah, there are plenty of Democrats whose votes don’t count. In California, there are plenty of Republicans whose votes don’t count. In fact, not only are they failing to help elect the candidate they voted for, but they are in effect having their votes cast for the opposite party. So we must not forget that the issue cuts both ways.

At the end of the day, only a national popular vote makes every vote count the same, and count exactly for the candidate for whom it was cast.

Playing devil’s advocate: one argument that has been advanced about NPV is that it is not a comprehensive reform effort. They say NPV, for example, is not intended to mitigate majority parties’ control of election rules nor is it designed to bring improvements to or eliminate problems resulting from campaign financing. Why NPV rather than some other type of reform?

The National Popular Vote plan is intended to make every vote equal, make every state important, and make sure the candidate with the most votes wins the presidency. It may have other salutary effects, such as impelling states to protect their voting process and get more voters to turn out to vote. However, it’s main goal is to make the election of the president fairer at a basic level.

For election reform in general, there is no silver bullet. Campaign finance reform will not clean up politics in a comprehensive way, nor would redistricting reform, or so on. That doesn’t mean they are not worthy efforts. We need to pursue good policies across the board.

Making sure we have a president accountable to all 50 states and all Americans, however, seems like an ambitious effort all by itself!

If you can say anything to ordinary people (Democrat, Republican, Independent, liberal, conservative, etc.) to elicit their support for the NPV effort what would it be?

If you believe in the principle of one person one vote, and your vote should count no matter where you happen to live, then you should support a national popular vote for president.

Anything else you’d like to add?

With all the partisan gaming out there, it’s time we work toward goals that benefit the country universally. The National Popular Vote campaign ( www.nationalpopularvote.com) does just this. Thank you for taking an interest in this important issue.

---