Debate over the National Popular Vote Compact Today in Waltham

Looks interesting:

Today at 7-9 PM in the Lecture Room of the Waltham Public Library: should the popular vote determine the outcome of national elections? Pam Wilmot, Executive Director of Common Cause, and Dr. Alexander Belenky, a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Engineering Systems Fundamentals at MIT’s Engineering Systems Division, will be debating over whether Massachusetts should join the National Popular Vote Compact.


5 thoughts on “Debate over the National Popular Vote Compact Today in Waltham”

  1. The NPV is stupid. It would dramatically raise the cost for candidates to compete in elections (read: the bulk of advertising would now be purchased in extremely high-cost advertising areas as opposed to being put in low-cost areas as it is in many places now). That’s only the least of its problems.

    Furthermore, if you are so against small states having disproportionate power -> why aren’t you crusading to remove the senate and simply have another exactly proportionate legislative body rather than the “unfair” system of small states having disproportionate power? Is it not ok for the presidency to be unfairly decided, but its peachy for the senate to exist?


    A survey of 800 Massachusetts voters conducted on June 3, 2008 showed 73% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

    By party, support was 82% among Democrats, 66% among independents, and 54% among Republicans.

    By age, support was 74% among 18-29 year olds, 69% among 30-45 year olds, 72% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.

    By gender, support was 80% among women and 63% among men.

    By race, support was 75% among whites (representing 88% of respondents), 59% among African-Americans (representing 4% of respondents), 66% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 57% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).


  3. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

    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). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

    The bill is currently endorsed by 1,512 state legislators in 48 states.
    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 25 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.


  4. The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Massachusetts is not one. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
    Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

    Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

    In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

Comments are closed.