Senator Howard Stephenson (R-Draper) has introduced S.B. 63, which proposes that Utah join with a coalition of other states totaling 270 electoral votes in order to allocate them as a block to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote. This coalition, called the National Popular Vote, would effectively change the way we elect a President when the electors meet after Election Day in December at the state capitols (constitutionally, that’s when it’s decided). In fact, if this system had been in place in the 2000 election, Utah would have been helped make Al Gore the President — despite the fact a majority of Utahns voted for George W. Bush.
The National Popular Vote law has been enacted by states possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate it.
In an e-mail to constituents, Rep. Greg Hughes supported S.B. 63, saying:
The electoral system does create some unintended side effects. Since the number of electors varies greatly by state (Utah has 6, Florida 29, California 55) consistently red or blue states are accepted as such, and taken for granted in a presidential race. For example, no Republican candidate spends much time in California, and no Democrat candidate spends much time in Utah. As a matter of fact, no candidate spends much time in a state that has historically leaned strongly to either party, instead dedicating most of their time to the eleven or so swing states which could go either way and deliver large numbers of electoral votes. As a consequence, smaller states get ignored –along with states whose majority can be easily predicted. That’s two strikes against a state like Utah.
If the focus were on individual votes (which a mechanism like S.B. 63 would provide) instead of ten swing states, “fly-over land” would suddenly become infinitely more valuable.
S.B. 63 raises an interesting constitutional question.
How can a coalition of states do this without a constitutional amendment that would allow for direct election of the President? States have the right to set the rules governing electors, who are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President. Utah’s electors are not bound to follow the majority popular vote. However, electors traditionally vote for the winning candidate in their state. The few who have broken this unwritten rule are referred to as “faithless electors”.
Given the difficulty of amending the Constitution, it makes sense to try to reform the electoral system on the state level. The National Popular Vote coalition would ensure that that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election. OTOH you can say the new system would be as undemocratic as the present system, and an election such as the 2000 election would still be highly controversial, except in a different way.
Under the proposed new system, presidential candidates would likely concentrate their campaign efforts in the most populous states instead of the swing states. Utah would not be totally ignored any longer (and would keep its disproportionate 6 electoral votes), but the two major party candidates still might not come here.
Utah Democrats and progressives could go to the polls in the knowledge that their votes might make a difference. At the same time, third-party candidates might lose votes. Voters could worry that voting third-party might hurt the chances of one of the major-party candidates.
Is S.B. 63 a good idea? Any thoughts?
#1 by Sponge Bob on February 14, 2012 - 1:40 pm
Like that has a snowballs chance in hell of passing in Utah.
#2 by oldgulph on February 14, 2012 - 4:18 pm
A survey of Utah voters conducted on May 19–20, 2009 showed 70% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Voters were asked:
“How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”
Then, voters were asked a second question that emphasized that Utah’s electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not Utah, vote. In this second question, 66% of Utah voters favored a national popular vote.
“Do you think it more important that a state’s electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?”
The results of the first question, by political affiliation, was 82% among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, and 75% among others. By gender, support was 78% among women and 60% among men. By age, support was 70% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 68% for those older than 65.
The results of the second question, by political affiliation, was 77% among Democrats, 63% among Republicans, and 62% among others. By gender, support was 72% among women and 58% among men. By age, support was 61% among 18-29 year olds, 64% among 30-45 year olds, 68% among 46-65 year olds, and 66% for those older than 65.
NationalPopularVote
#3 by oldgulph on February 14, 2012 - 4:24 pm
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
#4 by cav on February 14, 2012 - 5:28 pm
Could someone please phrase all of that in ‘baby talk’? And if the popular vote is going to rule, why not save what chunk of the precious budget is going to the superfluousness Electoral College?
#5 by Larry Bergan on February 14, 2012 - 6:47 pm
I don’t know the history of the electoral college, but I can’t think of a reason for it’s existence other then to allow people with more power then the rest of us to finagle an election.
In fact, representative Tom Feeney of Florida, who won honors for being one of the most corrupt in the nation, was making plans to have “the college” give the presidency to Bush, even if Gore’s votes had been counted and he were certified to have won Florida.
Scalia and friends made sure that wasn’t necessary because Scalia even said he didn’t think Americans necessarily had the right to pick their president.
I’m for the bill 100%
#6 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2012 - 7:01 pm
cav–
It would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral College.
What I find odd is that Republicans are keen on passing a law that is likely to increase the turnout of Dems at the Utah polls in presidential election years. Maybe they are hoping that more Republicans will vote in the blue states.
#7 by cav on February 14, 2012 - 7:19 pm
Perhaps I should have addressed oldgulph specifically. Thanks in advance.
#8 by Karmen on February 15, 2012 - 4:43 pm
If I understand the bill and what you said correctly and hypothetically apply it to the 2000 election, Utah’s electoral votes would have gone to Al Gore. Did I do it right?
#9 by cav on February 15, 2012 - 6:09 pm
President Gore needs a greater array of exercise equipment.
The Ron Paul contingency in Maine are holding out for a ‘complete’ vote count in their little election the other day to determine which candidate the electors will be assigned to.
Certainly a different message than that of Florida in 2000.
#10 by Larry Bergan on February 15, 2012 - 7:10 pm
My fear is that 99% of the 99% will go to the voting booth and they will only get 49% of the vote, even though everything points to a glacial landslide for democracy.
Our elections are simply being declared and frozen in time, not counted.
#11 by cav on February 15, 2012 - 10:45 pm
Unbelievable!
#12 by Richard Warnick on February 16, 2012 - 9:38 am
I believe that’s correct, hypothetically of course.
#13 by Mark on March 7, 2012 - 7:33 am
If the people of Utah want the festering, populous urban centers of the East and California to dominate elections and select the President who will tell Utahns how to run their lives, then they should support SB 63. If Utahns want the majority views of their neighbors to dictate how their presidential votes are allocated, they should be vigorously AGAINST SB 63. I, for one, do not believe I wnat the throngs of the folks on the Right and Left Coasts to tell me who I get for President. I don’t understand how any Republican can support this bill!
#14 by Shane on March 7, 2012 - 8:13 am
So Mark, to sum up your view, majority of Utahns want something it is good, majority of Americans want something, bad…?
Tell me, why is the national majority different than the local in deserving support? What is to stop us from taking your argument another step and assigning electoral votes by county?
If the people of carbon county want the festering northern population centers to determine presidents and tell them how to run their lives…
At some point you have ask what the “states rights” talk is really saying. The logical end point is sitting in your bedroom saying “what does the opinion of family members have to do with my household choices?” and then the rest of us realize that the so called “libertarian” states rights thinking is just a group of people bitter about the social contract. We are all on the planet together.
#15 by Mark on March 7, 2012 - 11:05 am
Shane, I disagree that your reply accurately “sums up my view”. I did not say that what the majority of Utahns want is “good” and what the majority of Americans want is “bad”. It’s just that occasionally, what the majority of Utahns want will be radically DIFFERENT from what the national majority of Americans want. Utahns should not have to throw-in their dissenting presidential vote just to go along with the rest of the gang. Their presidential vote should say that they emphatically disagree, if/when that is in fact the case.
I also disagree that “states rights” advocates are just a bunch of people “embittered about the social contract”. I think most of them understand that representative government is good and necessary at some level – the question is simply a matter of where the most effective level lies. Below the state level, many functions of government become wholly impractical, and varying policies at those levels can make life as a local citizen immensely complicated – imagine for example, if driver’s licenses were not honored from county to county. At the other end, one-size-fits-all micromanagement at the federal level is impractical because it does not account for regional variations in geography and culture which persist even today. The founders recognized this when they developed a representative system that expressly limited powers and functions at the federal level and placed the majority of governmental functions in the hands of the states.
So, to sum up your argument, if the residents of New York City and San Francisco obtain a simple population majority over the residents of the “flyover-country” states (e.g. Utah and Wyoming), and they vote for a vegan, PETA-member president who wants to use executive control over the FDA & EPA, et al, to ban animal husbandry and meat-eating nationwide, the people of Utah should have to “vote” for that candidate with their electors, even if less than 5% of Utahns would agree with that legislative agenda – just to go along with the popular favorite.
As it stands now, the electoral process is part of a system that helps to preserve some regional control over government that better accounts for regional variations in living conditions and cultural preferences. It’s what allows a person fed-up with approaches to government in one state to “vote with their feet” and move to a state where policies are more to their liking. Bypassing the role of state electors in favor of what is essentially a nationwide popular referendum is yet another attempt to nullify regional differences in favor of one-size-fits-all federal rule.
#16 by Trent on March 11, 2012 - 2:03 pm
Ya. Lets follow California on how every vote counts. I seem to remember a vote a few years ago that was decided by the people, only to be overturned by a judge. Why would I want my vote to go for someone that was least popular in my state. Give each state the same amount of electoral votes.
#17 by Tom on October 5, 2012 - 9:46 am
We should make the constitutional amendment and hold elections by popular vote. There is no reason to continue the electoral college. More people would vote because they now believe their vote is counted.