Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Nabber

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states.

12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections Despite the fact that these 12 lowest population states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.

These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.

In 2004, Bush’s cumulative vote lead of 650,421 in the 6 then reliably Republican states only got him 19 electoral votes, while Kerry’s cumulative vote lead of 444,115 in the 6 then reliably Democratic states, got him 21 electoral votes.

Senator Robert E. Dole of Kansas, the Republican nominee for President in 1996 and Republican nominee for Vice President in 1976, stated in a 1979 floor speech:
“Many persons have the impression that the electoral college benefits those persons living in small states. I feel that this is somewhat of a misconception. Through my experience with the Republican National Committee and as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1976, it became very clear that the populous states with their large blocks of electoral votes were the crucial states. It was in these states that we focused our efforts.
“Were we to switch to a system of direct election, I think we would see a resulting change in the nature of campaigning. While urban areas will still be important campaigning centers, there will be a new emphasis given to smaller states. Candidates will soon realize that all votes are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as votes from large states. That to me is one of the major attractions of direct election. Each vote carries equal importance.
“Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in States that are perceived to be single party states.

The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware —75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire —69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont — 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.

In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.


63 posted on 06/24/2011 9:49:52 AM PDT by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: mvymvy

I think you’re missing something — margin of the popular vote. There’s no way around this: campaiging by radical leftists (you know, the ones who control the Democrat Party?) in primarily the 30 biggest cities (read: MSMAs) of the Megalopolis and the Left Coast could produce an undeniable lead in the popular vote. All socialists would have to do is keep it reasonably close in the red-state areas. Once the unwashed masses realize they can vote themselves the purse-strings (bread and circuses), the game is over.

I’m also a little suspicious of NPV partisans who were upset by Al-Gore’s loss even though he won the popular vote — because if you are not mortified by the specter of a Gore Presidency, you are probably a loon, or DUmmy.


94 posted on 06/25/2011 8:46:22 AM PDT by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson