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/
Government education at its finest.
I know, get rid of super delegates. Now!
Until a a republican gets the popular vote and loses the electoral college. Then this whole mess will be a tragedy, etc.
Pal just say it already, you don’t want anyone elected to the presidency who is not a socialist/communist.
This proposal won’t get enough states to make the 270 electoral vote mark necessary to invoke the compact. Also, this would be an an unconstitutional pact between states, because it not approved by Congress.
Constitution? Tosh, who needs that ratty old thing.
Yeah, why deal with that pesky old document when you can work around it.
of course it's sarcasm.
What would Dewey DO?
Good luck doing a recount.
same plan they cycle every election, cue not this s%%* again pic
Can we bring back literacy tests too?
Can we bring back literacy tests too?
>> 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
uh... how would you “forge an agreement” if certain states disagree?
The constitution spells out how electing the President works. There is no room for such an agreement, and no way to enforce compliance from states that say “screw you, we’re not playing along”.
What a maroon.
This is HILLARY’s plan....she mentioned it the day after the last election!! HER PLAN in case Obama beats her!
We already have them.......in Spanish!
well, then i guess california and new york get to pick the president every time. That’s the EXACT reason the founding fathers made it this way, so the big states can’t run over the little states!
Interesting that they feel the Constitution that has worked for 232 years is no longer of value.
And corruption in, say, Chicago could have national implications far beyound what could happen today.
stand by for “bread and circus”
Ruefully
If this were to happen, candidates would ignore the sparsely populated states of the heartland. They would cater to the heavily urban areas of the country. No wonder New Jersey, Maryland and Illinois are interested in this.
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.