The National Popular Vote for Presidential Elections

The National Popular Vote Plan: Why Now?  Voters in two-thirds of states are ignored  Decreases turnout in these spectator states  70% of public wants a popular vote

The Current System Weakens Participation of Key Constituencies  Elections come down to fewer and fewer battlegrounds every election  National trend of “hardening” partisanship  Hurts participation of people of color and youth

Fewer and Fewer Battlegrounds  1976: 24 states in play (345 electoral votes)  2004: 13 states in play (159 electoral votes)

Partisanship is Hardening  States are becoming less and less competitive and more and more fixed in their status  Blue states becoming bluer  Red states becoming redder

Sharp Decline in Battlegrounds: Both Big and Small States Hurt 1976: 10 of 11 biggest states contested 2004: only 4 of 11 biggest states contested Ignored states include NY, CA, MA, NJ, IL, TX 1976: 5 of 13 smallest states contested 2004: only 1 of 13 biggest states contested 6 red states, 6 blue states, only one swing: New Hampshire

Impact of the Current System in 2004: Advertising and Campaign Visits Florida had more ads than 45 states and DC combined. 18 states had 0 candidate visits and TV ads Advertising by state

Racial Disparities in Battlegrounds  Whites: 30% live in battlegrounds, 70% in safe states  Blacks: 21% live in battlegrounds, 79% in safe states  Latinos: 17% live in battlegrounds, 83% in safe states

Voter Turnout Suffers  Large and persistent gap in participation  Biggest gap with youth turnout – 18% in 2004

Warping National Debate  Al Gore and 2000: “Climate change doesn’t play in the rust belt” -- key consultants  Hard line on Cuba: Cuban-Americans in Florida  High-tech industries in spectator states are ignored relative to rust belt issues

The Case for Participation With national popular vote, campaigns would no longer ignore 2/3 of our states Every vote and effort to urge others to vote is equally meaningful everywhere Encourages a culture of higher voter turnout

Why Proposed “Congressional District Systems” Fail  Some suggest dividing states’ electoral votes by congressional district  Applied nationally, district system makes it more likely for the popular vote winner to lose  In 2000 George Bush wins by 10% of electors even while losing national vote  Jimmy Carter ties or maybe loses in 1976  John Kennedy loses in 1960  80% to 90% of districts are not competitive

The Path to Victory: The National Popular Vote Compact  Constitutional basis for the proposal  How the plan works  Historical basis for states taking leadership  Campaign successes after just 20 months  Endorsements growing

Constitutional Basis for the Plan US Supreme Court “The appointment, and mode of appointment, of electors belong exclusively to the states.” US Constitution: Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….

How the Plan Works  States act on their responsibility to structure system  They join interstate compact to award their electors to the candidate winning most votes in all 50 states & DC  Compacts are legally binding contracts with the full force of the Constitution behind them  Goes into effect if and only if participating states represent a majority (270 or more) electoral votes  A blackout period for withdrawal secures plan from July of election year to inauguration of president

Bottom Line for State Lawmakers The National Popular Vote plan presents a simple policy choice:  Keep the current system exactly as it is or  Guarantee election of the national popular vote winner in 50 states

Historical Basis for State Action  Founders’ generation had no fixed system governing state rules on electors  Example of 1796 election: Adams vs. Jefferson  8 States: Electors elected entirely by state legislature  5 States: Electors elected from districts  2 States: Elected elected statewide  1 State: Electors elected indirectly with state legislature  Only by 1830s is unit rule dominant  It maximized boost to majority party in a state  It increased states’ clout by “swinging” more electors

Campaign Successes for National Popular Vote in Only 20 months  Maryland: Enacted the NPV law in April 2007  Illinois: Both houses passed in May go to governor for signature in January 2008  New Jersey: Passed assembly in 2007 and going to senate in January 2008  NC, AR, CO, HI, CA: Has passed one or two chambers. Viable for passage in all these states in  Nationally: More than 360 state legislative sponsors in 47 states; expect bills in all 50 states in

Endorsements for NPV Proposal  Organizations  Common Cause  FairVote  National Black Caucus of State Legislators  National Latino Congreso and Asian American Action Fund  Supportive reactions by many others  Editorial Endorsements  New York Times  Los Angeles Times and Sacramento Bee  Minneapolis Star-Tribune  Chicago Sun Times

Public Support Consistently Strong  Gallup: as high as 80% in recent decades  The more the question is debated, the stronger the public tends to support a popular vote.  Washington Post Poll (2007)  Support 72% Oppose 23% Don’t Know 4%  Four Polls by NPV (2005)  Michigan - 70%; Missouri - 66%; Maine - 71%; Arkansas - 74%;  NPV vs District Plan (2007)  69% of California voters favor a national popular vote  Favored NPV to District plan 58%-22%

A Roadmap for Winning Reform  Legislative victories in numerous states  State ballot measures as potential final vote  Educational efforts nationwide

For More Information National Popular Vote FairVote