Posted on 02/10/2008 6:30:24 PM PST by neverdem
If John R. Koza gets his way, American voters will never again have to wonder about the workings of the Electoral College and why it decides who sits in the White House.
Koza is behind a push to have states circumvent the odd political math of the Electoral College and ensure that the presidency always goes to the winner of the popular vote.
Basically, states would promise to award their electoral votes to the candidate with the most support nationwide, regardless of who carries each particular state.
"We're just coming along and saying, 'Why not add up the votes of all 50 states and award the electoral votes to the 50-state winner?'" said Koza, chairman of National Popular Vote Inc. "I think that the candidate who gets the most votes should win the office."
The proposal is aimed at preventing a repeat of the 2000 election, when Al Gore got the most votes nationwide but George W. Bush put together enough victories in key states to win a majority in the Electoral College and capture the White House.
So far, Maryland and New Jersey have signed up for the plan. Legislation that would include Illinois is on the governor's desk. But dozens more states would have to join before the plan could take effect.
The idea is a long shot. But it appears to be easier than the approach tried previously _ amending the Constitution, which takes approval by Congress and then ratification by 38 states.
The Electoral College was set up to make the final decision on who becomes president. Each state has a certain number of votes in the college based on the size of its congressional delegation.
Often, all of a state's electoral votes are given to whomever wins that state's popular vote. For instance, even someone who wins New York by a single percentage point, 51-49, would get all 31 of the state's electoral votes.
This creates some problems.
One is that candidates can ignore voters in states that aren't competitive. If the Democrat is clearly going to win a state, the Republican has no reason to court its minority of GOP voters there and instead will focus on other states.
Another problem is the possibility of a result like that in 2000, where one candidate gets more votes overall but the other candidate gets narrow victories in just the right states to eke out a majority in the Electoral College.
National Popular Vote says its plan would change all that.
"What's important to the country is that it would make presidential campaigns a 50-state exercise," said Koza, a Stanford University computer science professor.
Here's how it would work:
States forge an agreement to change the way they allocate general election votes. The agreement would take effect once it's been approved by states with a majority in the Electoral College, or 270 votes.
At that point, the states would begin awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who carries each state.
If the candidates tied in the popular vote, each state would give its electoral votes to the candidate who carried that particular state _ basically the same system used now.
There are critics. The downside, they argue, is that a close presidential election would require recounts not just in one or two key states, but throughout the entire country.
They also say it would further reduce the influence of small states as politicians focus on such places as voter-rich California, New York and Texas.
"Any way you look at it, I think smaller populations have a greater voice under the current system than they would under a national popular vote system," said North Dakota state Rep. Lawrence Klemin, a Republican who voted against joining his state in National Popular Vote's agreement.
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has not decided whether to sign his state's legislation to join the plan, his office said. When he was in Congress, Blagojevich co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College in 2000.
Legislation endorsing the National Popular Vote plan was passed in California and Hawaii but vetoed by their governors. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said it would run "counter to the tradition of our great nation, which honors states' rights and the unique pride and identity of each state."
Koza believes the agreement proposal would standardize the way states award their electoral votes, give every voter equal influence and keep candidates from ignoring some states in favor of battleground states like Ohio and Florida.
He noted that neither presidential candidate visited Illinois in 2004, even though it has a population of about 12.8 million.
"The Republicans wrote it off and the Democrats took it for granted," Koza said, "and that's typical of two-thirds of the states."
On the Net:
National Popular Vote: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Sooo, a couple population centers will speak for everyone across the American landscape?
That’s stupid.
I propose a an electoral college at the State county level. Every county gets 1 delegate regardless of population.
That way MY plan favors Republicans and follows the concept of a representative republic.
Well, there’s that, plus the antiquated notion that the electoral college was setup to guarantee the SOVEREIGNTY OF EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE.
friggen morons....mutters off to bed.
What a maroon.
Yeah, sure, if and only if the folks in New York and Florida are going to let the Virginia legislature levy taxes on the folks in New York and Florida!
Progressives are so stupid when you get right down to it.
What will they do about voter fraud which is almost entirely Democratic? (nothing)
Yes, and bread and circuses for all as we trundle off to the new dark ages the same way Rome did, bribe the mob with the sweat of the productive until there is only the mob.
I thought this was a “Hillary Recipe.”
Get out your confederate money, boys. The South is going to rise again! this time with the northern, mid-western, mountain, and western states save for their metropolitan areas.
Basically, this person is showing his innumeracy.
Semi-educated idiot.
Proof that the Dems are STILL trying to find new ways to win and Albert Gore, Junior, is STILL upset he is not eating pizza and drinking diet cokes in the WH right now.
Let all the “progressive” states do that . . . and the red states not . . . everytime we win it will be with 100% of the electoral college and we’ll never win the popular vote without winning the Presidency. : )
I would rather go in the opposite direction like Maine and Nebraska have with 1 EV / Congressional district and 2 at large for the state. That way one district's "creative" vote tally can only effect 3 EVs.
Actually before the 00 election it was thought that Gore would win the electoral college but lose the popular vote. We were lectured how Republicans would scream bloody murder but we had to abide by the results. Of course due to uncounted absentee votes and major Dem vote fraud it turned out the opposite and Dems have something to scream about.
So every time there was a recount, you’d have to recount every vote in the country?
“What’s important to the country is that it would make presidential campaigns a 50-state exercise,”
If campaign stops in Wyoming and North Dakota are rare now - a telephone call will be rare in the future. Some of these rural states have a hard enough time getting their voice heard in Washington - I doubt they’ll give up their right to elect a president.
The winner would have no standing to demand a breakdown of what votes he got. The most he's entitled to is being declared the "winner".
A candidate ranked #3 and below would have standing to demand a recount, but would only have standing to demand the separation of votes for the #1 and #2 candidates if his own tally was at least half that of the top two combined (which would imply that he was erroneously ranked as #3, and might not even be below #1).
The #2 candidate would have standing to demand an itemization of votes between himself and #1, but in some cases might not want it. For example, if he would win the EC despite losing the state, he would be 1,000,000 votes ahead in the popular vote without the state, and he guesses that he lost the state by 2,000,000 votes, he would be well-advised not to have the state publish the exact figures. In that case, it would be impossible for the other states to tell who won the popular vote until after the EC vote.
This guy makes computer scientists look bad.
-Bill (Computer Science student)
But what about the economic impact? You’d lose the revenue from “Don’t blame me, I’m from [Massachusetts]” bumper stickers, like they had back in ‘72 when Nixon cleaned McGovern’s clock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.