Washington state signs onto ‘popular vote’ compact
Published: April 28, 2009
Updated 1 year ago
Washington state has passed a law requiring it’s electoral college votes to be cast in favor of the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote nation-wide.
“Gov. Chris Gregoire signed the bill Tuesday, but it doesn’t take effect until enough states sign on to account for 270 electoral votes - the number it takes to win the White House. Washington has 11 electoral votes,” reported the Associated Press.
“This is a big victory for the over three-quarters of Washington voters who would prefer a national popular vote for president, and indeed for all voters who are now one step closer to having their voices heard equally in our presidential elections,” said Nathan Newman, director of the Progressive States Network.
The organization promoting the national popular vote compacts lists 27 legislative chambers as supportive of the measure.
“Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time,” explains National Popular Vote. ” Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).”
“Democrats, still mewling over the 2000 election in which Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote, have come up with this end-run on the Constitution,” opined Thomas Mitchell in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “If enough states with a majority of votes embrace this plan — dubbed National Popular Vote — it will take effect.
“Close the polls and save the money, because someone in California, Texas, New York or Florida will be casting your vote.”
“Clearly, a large majority of citizens have come to recognize that the Electoral College is a flawed method of electing presidents,” counters Washington state paper The Daily News. “In each state, electors equal to the state’s number of representatives, plus its two senators, are chosen either by voters of the legislature. In all but two states — Maine and Nebraska — the presidential candidate who wins the state’s popular vote is awarded all of that state’s electors. This winner-take-all rule marginalizes millions of voters. Votes for losing candidates in Washington and 47 other states simply do not count in the election’s outcome.”
In passing the compact, Washington state joins Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland and New Jersey in allocating it’s electoral votes in accordance with the popular totals.
6 comments
Printer Friendly |
Email
| Get breaking news alerts: Email/mobile |
wow, way to have your vote NOT counted. this is why we are a REPUBLIC which actually protects the rights and sanctity of the minority: if this measure were to pass, the election will be INDEED COMPLETELY decided by NY, CA, FL, & TX. Period. End of story.
If that happens, you can say good bye to those quaint times of the year where Iowa, and New Hampshire matter the most. I personally ENJOY it, and WE NEED to see the zeitgeist of where small independent states like NH, VT, & IA stand.
This is a PERFECT textbook example of tyranny of good intentions. DO NOT FALL for it!
We are a *democratic* republic. Says so in the Constitution.
On first reading, I thought WA’s idea was not a good thing. After thinking about it, maybe it’s smarter than I thought it was. What it does is it short-circuit’s the Electoral College, if only a little bit.
Nebraska and Maine have a better plan, in which their Electoral College votes are split, depending upon how the popular vote falls in their own states.
Wildcat
Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but shouldn’t WA’s electorial vote go to the popular vote win in WA and not the nation?
“Close the polls and save the money, because someone in California, Texas, New York or Florida will be casting your vote.”
Or, in the case of 2000 in Florida, none of the voter’s ballots mattered because the LEGISLATURE decided where to toss those electoral votes, not the citizens of Florida.
And, weshallremain, the flaw in your position is that only “4 states matter” (perhaps in the electoral sense, but that is the fundamental problem right there, that is an outdated scheme created when getting vote counts/ballots to Washington took days upon days, not micro-seconds).
You’re also failing to see that the “national popular vote” drives the electoral casting of various States, which means those electoral votes aren’t cast until after everyone in the nation has had their individual vote counted.. Once the NATION has stated its desire, those “big States” will simply ensure the will of the masses is adhered to (in elections for office).
That’s much closer to Democracy than what we have now. In the modern age, there is no good reason not to have a full Democratic Process to elect officials. Those officials being sent to Washington in proportion to State size makes sense, but the President? Who represents _all citizens_? Why can’t they all have a fair say in who their leader is?
——-
downriverdem, the point is that the electoral college system is antiquated and broken. So, the State of Washington (and others) have decided to help respect the will of the “nation” by making sure they back the nation’s choice, not just their State’s choice. When it comes to laws and reps in D.C., they get the same proportion as everyone else, so in “practicle terms”, everyone is still “represented” in the same way as today… the only difference is, the President and Vice President, who represent everyone, will be put into office based on a general consensus of the entire nation, not some bullshit game played by the politicians of one State, like in 2000 when we have no idea what Floridians wanted, but we sure know what their Republican Legislature wanted..
Juries still out for me, but this plan has some really flawed assumptions. I read the whole thing.
Savanster, I think you forget about voter apathy and media influence.
Also, a pop vote is a city issues vs rural issues. Just look at New York. The state goes through that all the time. The majority of the states surface area constantly complains they don’t get their way in a simple majority vote. NYC always gets what it wants. As a result, voter turnout is low upstate on state issues. Next, look at Illinois. They constantly complain Chicago get’s everything it wants.
Know the solution? It’s to tax urban dwellers more to make them pay for their increased infrastructure needs. Both Il and NY do it.
At least with the current battleground states scenario, they tend to be states with a combination of rural and urban issues. Yeah, it sucks that it’s a sampling of states, and lately it’s been the same ones over and over, but it presents a lot broader spectrum of issues than this plan will.
So far I agree with above:
“textbook example of tyranny of good intentions”
I have to disagree with some of what you said, damix.. First, the rural folks benefit just as much as the city folks for that infrastructure, it’s just not as directly obvious. For example, the companies that manage to get the food and machinery to the rural areas for sale are run from the urban centers.
Additionally, urban centers already generate a lot more revenue for the State because that’s where the majority of the wealth sits, and is exchanged (with a sales tax on it). Taxing them higher doesn’t come out as “fair”, either.
And when the bulk of a State complains because the “city folk” get “what they want”, one also has to consider the possibility that the rural folks just might not be educated enough to understand some of the things the “more educated” urban types might.
And we’re talking about differences between how a State runs, and how the President of the United States is elected. One has nothing to do with the other. While you might have some valid criticisms of the “majority take all in State Government is problematic”, that same line of reasoning doesn’t hold in the Presidential election..
When you’re talking about the President (who represents everyone), then everyone should get the exact same input, which means a 100% popular vote.