The American Prospect: Would the National Popular Vote Advantage Red State Republicans?

[marmar]

Would the National Popular Vote Advantage Red State Republicans?

Republican states seem to suffer the worst from the vicissitudes of the Electoral College, but it is red-state Republican politicians who are the least interested in switching to a national popular vote.

Ben Adler | January 9, 2009 | web only



If you thought the presidential election was decided back in November, you were wrong. On Thursday, Jan. 8, the Electoral College's votes for president were counted by Congress. In theory, those 538 obscure individuals could have decided to make John McCain, or, for that matter, Bob Barr, the next president. They did nothing of the sort. But, just to be on the safe side, perhaps it is time to get rid of this arcane institution?

Shortly before Election Day, The Washington Post published a map of presidential-candidate visits by state. It showed the attention paid to states was not just a reflection of their population. California, Texas, and New York received hardly any love from Barack Obama or John McCain. And while perennial favorites Ohio and Pennsylvania battled for the top slot, relatively tiny states such as New Hampshire received more visits than any of the nation's three largest. Some medium-sized non-swing states, such as Mississippi and Kentucky did not see a single appearance by Obama or McCain. All of this is thanks to the Electoral College.

Ad spending shows a similar trend. Purple Pennsylvania received more than $10 million in spending on campaign advertisements, while its blue neighbor New Jersey received not a single dollar, according to CNN. (This presumably ignores the fact that some South Jersey residents get Philadelphia television and radio stations.) But the contrasts between Republican-leaning states and swing states was every bit as stark. Colorado had more than $10 million in ads while Utah had less than $1 million. Vast swaths of the country such as the Great Plains from Oklahoma to North Dakota, and most of the South and Appalachia, including sizable states such as Tennessee and Louisiana, received less than $1 million in advertising each while every Upper Midwest State, save for Illinois, received more than $5 million, and all of those except Minnesota got more than $10 million.

But, while Republican states seem to suffer the worst from the vicissitudes of the Electoral College, it is red state Republican politicians who are the least interested in the increasingly discussed solution of switching to a national popular vote. While polls show replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote is as popular in Mississippi as it is in Michigan, the state Houses that have passed bills in support of the switch are dominated by Democrats. That's because the movement to abolish the Electoral College, spearheaded by the National Popular Vote Initiative (NPVI), a California-based nonprofit, is largely associated with the left -- and dismissed by the right as a Democratic power grab. But could it actually benefit red-state Republicans as much or more than blue-state Democrats? And if so, why have so few Republicans and conservatives embraced it? ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=would_the_national_popular_vote_advantage_red_state_republicans

[BlueManDude]

1. I will read the article but the fact is the Elec College helps the GOP

the spending on advertsisng is irrelevant. What matters is which party is helped more by the Elec College. The GOP gains an advantage with the EC and that's why they are most opposed to its abolition.

[exboyfil]

2. I would like to see the following modification

Direct allocation of votes by Congressional district with an extra two votes going to the winner of a particular state.

The advantage of such an approach is isolating potential national recounts to a particular state. I could not imagine the circus a national recount would create.

The two extra votes is a tip to the hat to the concept of Federalism and the fact that individual states should still have meaning in our country.

I could be convinced to go with no state bonus of two votes. That would have the added benefit of confining recounts to a Congressional district further reducing the time and expense of a recount. I just don't think you could fit all the lawyers in that Congressional district - you would have to stack them two deep.

Which major democracies directly elect their chief Executive with popular vote?

Mexico which had a Tribunal decide the election in 2006
France uses a run off for its President but it has 1/5th the population of the U.S.

We need to get away from our current system though. It is not healthy to exclude large portions of the country (both red and blue) from the political debate during Presidential campaigns.

Western Europe mostly uses a Parliamentary system to select its chief executives.

[Chemical Bill]

3. Let's play along so that they think it will...

then we can get it into law. First though, I would be happy if all the votes were counted.

Bill