Legislature approves National Popular Vote

[hrmjustin]

Jessica Alaimo

ALBANY—The New York Legislature approved a bill tonight that would award the state's presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, if enough states agree to do the same.

Both the Assembly and Senate overwhelmingly approved a measure that would allow the state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which seeks to circumvent the Electoral College.

With New York’s 29 electors, the interstate compact would have 160 electors, or the 60 percent of the 270 it needs to take effect.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2014/03/8542603/legislature-approves-national-popular-vote?top-featured-2

[yeoman6987]

1. I am not complaining

However, don't they always go with Democrats which end up going towards the President. I think the only time they went Republican was 1984 when Reagan won his second term. Otherwise always Democrat. Why do you think it was necessary to have legislation for this?

[hrmjustin]

2. NY used to be a swing state in presidential years.

Went Gop in 1972, 1980, and 1984. I agree this was not a good idea.

[mvymvy]

4. States' Partisanship is Hardening

80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. 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 non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

In 1960, presidential campaigns paid attention to 35 states.
In 2008, Obama only campaigned in 14 states after being nominated.
In 2012, the presidential campaigns only cared about 9 swing states.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

States' partisanship is hardening.

19 states (including California with 55 electoral votes) with a total of 242 electoral votes, have voted Democratic, 1992-2012
13 states with 102 electoral votes have voted Republican, 1992-2012

Some states have not been been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position. In a study before the 2012 election:
• 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2008
• 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2008
• 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2008
• 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2008
• 9 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
• 15 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

[hrmjustin]

7. I think a popular vote election would be interesting and bring more people out to vote.

[mvymvy]

8. Yes

With National Popular Vote, there wouldn't be distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every popular vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every voter is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

When and where voters matter, then so do the issues they care about most.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. 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).

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

If presidential campaigns did not ignore more than 200,000,000 of 300,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.

[hrmjustin]

9. Well I think eventually that we will go to a popular vote.

[mvymvy]

3. 79% of New York Voters Support a National Popular Vote

A survey of New York voters showed 79% overall support for a national popular vote for
President.

By gender, support was 89% among women and 69% among men.

By age, support was 60% among 18-29 year olds, 74% among 30-45 year olds, 85% among 46-65 year olds, and 82% for those older than 65.

Support was 86% among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, 78% among Independence Party members (representing 8% of respondents), 50% among Conservative Party members (representing 3% of respondents), 100% among Working Families Party members (representing 2% of respondents), and 7% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls

in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;

in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;

in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and

in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

NationalPopularVote

[liberal N proud]

5. Not sure national popular vote is the answer everyone thinks it is.

[hrmjustin]

6. Well it eould likely get a highrr turnout nationwide.

[Gothmog]

10. Yeah

I am hoping that we can do away with the electoral college

[hrmjustin]

11. I 5hink in the next 10 to 20 years th at will hsppen.

[Polybius]

12. Since all of these states doing this are deep Blue...

What happens if in 2028, in a three way race with a Green getting 4% in CA, Ted Cruz barely has the most votes, but Vice President O'Rourke is the clear winner in the Electoral College? Then we get screwed again?