1. Presented by: Kirsten Tautfest For the Stillwater League of Women Voters Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote

2.  Most states are winner take all the electors for that state.  More than 2/3 of the states are effectively ‘disenfranchised’ and receive little attention from the presidential candidates.  Not every vote is equal. A single vote is weighted differently based on what state the vote is placed in.  Artificial crises are created. The Current System of Electors is Flawed:

3. States that are NOT winner take all Maine (since 1972) Nebraska (since 1992) −Each of these states award one electoral vote to the candidate who carries each congressional district and two electoral votes to the presidential candidate carrying the state’s popular vote. These last two electoral votes correspond to the electors for the two Senate seats. −In the most recent elections, both states have not seen a split as all the congressional district winners have also matched the overall statewide popular vote.

4. ‘Disenfranchisement’ based on campaign strategies Each election cycle, a few battleground states are chosen based on both midterm elections and current polls. The two major party candidates focus the majority of their resources on these battleground states. The other states’ voters are less likely to show up to the polls on election day because they feel like their state has already decided who the electors are going to be. We here in Oklahoma feel this every cycle because it is assumed that our electors will go Republican.

5. Not every vote is weighted equally Each state gets allotted electors based on the number of Congressional seats plus two for each Senate seat. This means that the number of electors for a state can range from a minimum of 3 (VT, ND, WY, AK, DE, DC, MT, SD) to the current max of 55 (CA). OK has 7. −This is adjusted every 10 years based on the US Census. −The 2000 electoral college distribution was based on the 1990 census.

6. Your vote is not weighted equally

7.  2000 Bush v Gore.  Gore won the nationwide popular vote by 537,179.  Bush won Florida by 527 popular votes.  Bush received all of FL delegates. FL is a winner take all state. So Bush held 271 electoral votes, Gore had 269.  2004 Bush v Kerry.  Bush won the nationwide popular vote by 3,319,608 votes.  But we had to wait on OH’s outcome. Bush won there by 59,393. Not enough to change the popular vote outcome. Recent Artificial Crises If we had the nationwide popular vote instead of electors, or if a majority of the states with enough electoral votes to equal a minimum of 270 electoral votes were in a compact to assign their electors to the nationwide popular vote winner, we would have had President Gore (and a totally different race in 2004).

8. Proposed compact between the States to assign electors to the nationwide popular vote winner  Compacts are allowed by the US Constitution, so long as they do not interfere with Federal law.  Examples are for water usage, bridge maintenance, interstate lotteries  Article II of the US Constitution allows each state to decide how it will chose its presidential electors.  This compact would not do away with the electoral system. It would ensure that every vote would be equal.  It may also provide a jumping off point to get the Constitution amended to abolish the electoral system, by proving to the powers that be that this is what the people want.  If the electoral system is abolished, the compact would dissolve.

9. Other points: Voter turnout is higher in battleground states. The number of these battleground states has shrunk over the past several election cycles. Though this year it may have increased. The presidential election is the only election that does not allow the one person – one vote principal we adhere to so dearly. 72% of voters nationwide approve of a nationwide popular vote for electing our president.

10. States already approving the compact to date: MD 10 NJ15 IL21 HI4 This is 1/6 th of the total to activate the compact. The compact will not go into effect until enough states to meet the 270 electoral votes have joined the compact.

11. The National Popular Vote bill has now passed legislative chambers (not law yet) AR House (in 2007) − 6 electors CA Senate (in both 2006 and 2007) & CA Assembly (in 2006 and 2008) CA Senate (in both 2006 and 2007)CA Assembly (in 2006 and 2008) − Vetoed by governor (9/08) − 55 electors CO Senate (in both 2006 and 2007) − 9 electors ME Senate (in 2008) − 4 electors MA House (in 2008) − 12 electors NC Senate (in 2007) − 15 electors RI House (in 2008) & Senate (in 2008) RI House (in 2008) Senate (in 2008) − Governor vetoed. − 4 electors VT House (in 2008) & VT Senate (in 2008) VT House (in 2008)VT Senate (in 2008) − 3 electors − Pocket Vetoed (5/13/08) WA Senate (in 2008) − 11 electors HB 1466 (2007) and HB 2845 (2008) were introduced. The latter got to a 2 nd reading.

12. Should the League of Women Voters support this effort? +Will aid in our efforts to make every vote equal. -Does not call for a US Constitutional amendment. Does this effort fit our mission as an organization? Policy position (last revised 1982): The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that the direct-popular-vote method for electing the President and Vice-President is essential to representative government. The League of Women Voters believes, therefore, that the Electoral College should be abolished. The League also supports uniform voting qualifications and procedures for presidential elections. The League is split on whether or not to support this since it “backdoors” the effort.

13. For More Information National Popular Vote www.NationalPopularVote.com FairVote www.FairVote.org www.FairVote.org You may chose to support this effort on your own. Write your State representatives, senator and governor on the matter. Write your local newspapers.