2. Myths about Small States
2.1 MYTH: The small states would be disadvantaged by a national popular vote.
The small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
Although the small states theoretically benefit from receiving two extra electoral votes corresponding to their U.S. Senators, this "bonus" does not, in practice, translate into political power. Political power in presidential elections comes from being a closely divided battleground state—not from the two-vote bonus conferred on the small states in the Electoral College.
Under the winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state), candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or pay attention to the concerns of states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Instead, candidates concentrate their attention on a small handful of battleground states. This means that voters in the vast majority of the states are ignored in presidential elections. In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just states, and 98% in just 15 states.20
The reason that the small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system is that almost all of them are one-party states in terms of presidential elections. In the last six presidential elections (1988 through 2008), six of the 13 least populous states (i.e., those with three or four electoral votes) have regularly gone Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota). Six others (Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware, and the District of Columbia) have regularly gone Democratic.21 New Hampshire has been the only battleground state among the 13 smallest states.
The 12 smallest non-competitive states have a combined population of 11.4 million. Because of the bonus of two electoral votes that every state receives, these 12 small states have 40 electoral votes. Coincidentally, Ohio has 11.4 million people. Ohio has 20 electoral votes. That is, the 11 million people in Ohio have "only" 20 electoral votes, whereas the 11 million people in the 12 smallest non-competitive states have 40 electoral votes. However, political power does not arise from the number of electoral votes that a state possesses, but, instead, from whether the state is a closely divided battleground state. The battleground state of Ohio (with "only" 20 electoral votes) received 62 visits in the 2008 presidential election. However, the 12 non-battlegound small states (with their 40 electoral votes) were politically irrelevant. In 2008, the 12 small non-competitive states received no visits, advertising, polling, or policy consideration by presidential candidates because the outcome of the presidential race in those states is generally a foregone conclusion. The winner-take-all rule makes the 11 million people in the closely divided battleground state of Ohio crucial in presidential races, while rendering the 11 million people in the nation's smallest states irrelevant. This is a situation in which 20 is much more than 40. A national popular vote would make every vote equal throughout the United States. A national popular vote would make a vote cast in a small state as important as a vote cast in Ohio.
Most of the states with five or six electoral votes are similarly non-competitive in presidential elections (and therefore similarly disadvantaged). In fact, of the 22 least populous states (i.e. those with between three and six electoral votes), only New Hampshire (four electoral votes), New Mexico (five electoral votes), and Nevada (five electoral votes) have been battleground states in recent elections.
The fact that the small states are disadvantaged by the current system has been recognized by prominent officials from smaller states. In a 1979 Senate speech, Senator Henry Bellmon (R–Oklahoma) described how his views on the Electoral College had changed as a result of serving as National Campaign Director for Richard Nixon and a member of the American Bar Association's commission studying electoral reform.
"While the consideration of the electoral college began—and I am a little embarrassed to admit this—I was convinced, as are many residents of smaller States, that the present system is a considerable advantage to less populous States such as Oklahoma. … As the deliberations of the American Bar Association Commission proceeded and as more facts became known, I came to the realization that the present electoral system does not give an advantage to the voters from the less populous States. Rather, it works to the disadvantage of small State voters who are largely ignored in the general election for President."22 [Emphasis added]
Senator Robert E. Dole of Kansas, the Republican nominee for President in 1996 and Republican nominee for Vice President in 1976, stated:
"Many persons have the impression that the electoral college benefits those persons living in small states. I feel that this is somewhat of a misconception. Through my experience with the Republican National Committee and as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1976, it became very clear that the populous states with their large blocks of electoral votes were the crucial states. It was in these states that we focused our efforts.
"Were we to switch to a system of direct election, I think we would see a resulting change in the nature of campaigning. While urban areas will still be important campaigning centers, there will be a new emphasis given to smaller states. Candidates will soon realize that all votes are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as votes from large states. That to me is one of the major attractions of direct election. Each vote carries equal importance.
"Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in States that are perceived to be single party states.23 [Emphasis added]
Because so few of the least populous states are battleground states in presidential elections, the current system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-sized states to voters in a handful of big states. As early as the spring of 2008, both major political parties acknowledged that there would be at most 14 battleground states (involving only 166 of the 538 electoral votes) in the 2008 presidential election.24 In other words, two-thirds of the states were regarded as irrelevant under the current system. Among this group of 14 battleground states, Michigan (17 electoral votes), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and Florida (27) contain over half (85) of the 166 electoral votes. Among the 22 least populous states, only three (i.e., New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada) were among this group of 14 battleground states. These three states contain only 14 of the 166 electoral votes. The net result is that the current system shifts power from voters in the least populous states to voters in a handful of closely divided battleground states (almost all of which are big states).
2.2 MYTH: The small states oppose a national popular vote.
The facts speak for themselves. Hawaii was the fourth state to enact the National Popular Vote bill. As of 2008, the bill has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically "radioactive" in small states. Indeed, the concept of a national popular vote for President is popular in small states. Polls in 2008 showed a high level of support for a nationwide election for President in small states such as Vermont (75%), Maine (71%), New Hampshire (69%), and Rhode Island (74%).25 These results are consistent with the fact that more than 70% of the American people have favored a nationwide election for President since the Gallup poll started asking this question in 1944. The Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll in 2007 showed 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This recent national result is similar to recent statewide polls in Arkansas (74%), California (70%), Connecticut (73%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Missouri (70%), and Washington (77%). In short, there is very little difference in the level of political support for a national popular vote in small, medium-sized, and large states.
The small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system (as discussed in section 10.2.1 of this book). The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states is not a new revelation. This fact has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (including North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Iowa) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court. These states argued that New York's use of the winner-take-all rule effectively disenfranchised voters in their states.26 The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, the defendant (New York) is no longer an influential battleground state (as it was in the 1960s). Today, New York suffers the very same disenfranchisement as most of the less populous states because it too has become politically non-competitive. Today, a vote in New York is equal to a vote in Wyoming—votes in both are equally irrelevant in presidential elections.
The Electoral College is not the bulwark of influence for the small states in the U.S. Constitution. The 13 smallest states (with 3% of the nation's population) have 25% of the votes in the U.S. Senate—a very significant source of political clout. However, the 13 smallest states (i.e., those with three or four electoral votes) have only 26 extra votes in the Electoral College by virtue of the two-vote bonus—not a large number in relation to the total of 538 electoral votes. Although the 13 smallest states cast 3% of the nation's popular vote while possessing 6% of the electoral votes, the extra 3% is a minor numerical factor in the context of a presidential election. More significantly, this small theoretical advantage is eradicated by the fact that the small states are equally divided between the two major political parties and because the one-party character of the small states makes 12 out of 13 of them irrelevant in presidential elections. In fact, the bulwark of influence for the small states is the equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate—not the small number of additional electoral votes that they have in the Electoral College.
2.3 MYTH: The National Popular Vote bill threatens the equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate.
Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. This feature of the U.S. Constitution cannot be changed by state law. In fact, it may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Instead, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by unanimous consent of all 50 states.27 In contrast, the U.S. Constitution explicitly assigns the power to choose the manner of electing the President to the state legislatures. The adoption by a state legislature of the National Popular Vote bill is an exercise of a legislature's existing powers under the U.S. Constitution. Such action has no impact or bearing on the constitutional provisions concerning representation in the U.S. Senate.
2.4 MYTH: A national popular vote would undermine a partisan advantage in favor of the Republican Party in the small states.
The small state issue sometimes serves as a surrogate for the unstated political concern (and misconception) that the small states confer a partisan advantage in favor of the Republican Party. However, this belief does not reflect current political reality. In the last six presidential elections (1988 through 2008), six of the 13 least populous states have regularly gone Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), while six others (Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware, and the District of Columbia) have regularly gone Democratic.28 New Hampshire has been, in recent years, the one closely divided battleground state among the 13 smallest states (having supported the Democrat in 1992 and 1996, the Republican in 2000, and the Democrat in 2004 and 2008).
Interestingly, the 12 smallest non-competitive states actually confer a slight political advantage on the Democratic presidential candidate. For example, in 2004, John Kerry won 21 electoral votes from his 444,115-vote lead in the six non-competitive Democratic small states, whereas George W. Bush won only 19 electoral votes from his 650,421-vote lead in the six non-competitive Republican small states. The reason that the Democrats enjoy a partisan advantage in presidential elections in the smallest states is that the six regularly Republican small states are very heavily Republican (Alaska 64%, Idaho 69%, Montana 61%, Wyoming 70%, North Dakota 64%, and South Dakota 61%). In contrast, the Democrats carried three of their six small states (Delaware, Hawaii, and Maine) with only 54% of the vote. A 54% margin is generally viewed as placing a state safely out of reach for the opposition during a typical presidential campaign;29 however, 54% is considerably less than the Republican Party's margin in their six small states. In two additional states (Vermont and Rhode Island), the Democrats won with 60% of the vote (again a smaller margin than the Republican Party's margin in their six small states). If the boundaries of the small states had been recently drawn, there would be accusations that the boundaries were a Democratic gerrymander.
20 http://fairvote.org/tracker/?page=27&pressmode=showspecific&showarticle=230.
21 Among the six regularly Republican-leaning small states Clinton carried Montana in 1992 (presumably due to Perot's presence on the ballot). Among the six Democratic-leaning small states, George H. W. Bush carried Delaware, Maine, and Vermont in 1988.
22 Congressional Record. July 10, 1979. Page 17748.
23 Congressional Record. January 14, 1979. Page 309.
24 "Already, Obama and McCain Map Fall Strategies." New York Times. May 11, 2008.
25 These polls (and many others) are available on National Popular Vote's web site at http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#2007WPKHU.
26 Information about State of Delaware v. State of New York (and links to the pleadings) may be found at http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/de_lawsuit.php.
27 Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides: "No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
28 Among the six regularly Republican-leaning small states, Clinton carried Montana in 1992 (presumably due to Perot's presence on the ballot). Among the six Democratic-leaning small states, George H. W. Bush carried Delaware, Maine, and Vermont in 1988.
29 Although there is no universally accepted definition of a battleground state, battleground states are, more or less, those in which the spread between the top two candidates is less than 8%.
