Two-Thirds of the States Were Ignored in 2008 Presidential Election

Electoral College Meets on December 15

The Electoral College meets on December 15, 2008. This ceremonial event in each state capital provides a good reminder of the shortcomings of the current system of electing the President of the United States.

Under the current system, two thirds of the states are ignored by the presidential campaign; turnout is depressed in the spectator states; a second-place candidate can win the Presidency; and every vote is not equal.

According to data just released by FairVote (the electoral research group), 98% of the campaign events between the 2008 Republican National Convention and election day 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 the same 15 "battleground" states. This means that two thirds of the states were ignored by the presidential campaigns.

Similarly, 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.

Voter turnout in the "battleground" states was 67%, while turnout in the "spectator" states was 61%.

Ohio has 11.4 million people. The 13 smallest states also have 11.4 people. However, there were 62 campaign events in Ohio (more than a fifth of all events), while the 13 small population states received only 12 events. Tellingly, all 12 of these events were concentrated in the sole closely-divided small state, namely New Hampshire.

The shortcomings of the current system are caused by 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 separate state). Because of the winner-take-all rule, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or pay attention to voter concerns in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Instead, candidates concentrate their attention on a small handful of closely divided "battleground" states.

Another shortcoming of the current system caused by the winner-take-all rule is that a candidate can win the Presidency without receiving the most popular votes nationwide. There have been four "wrong winner" elections out of the nation’s 55 presidential elections. This is a failure rate of 1 in 14.

But because half of American presidential elections are landslides (i.e., a margin of greater than 10% between the first- and second-place candidates), the failure rate is actually 1 in 7 among the non-landslide elections.

Given that we are currently in an era of non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008), it is not surprising that we have already had one "wrong winner" election in this recent string of six close elections.

Moreover, a shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in five of the last 12 presidential elections. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected Kerry, even though President Bush was ahead by 3,500,000 votes nationwide.

There is a simple remedy to the shortcomings of the current system of electing the President. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia should win the Presidency.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The bill has been introduced in 47 states legislatures. The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by states possessing 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. The four states are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey. The bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public have 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% supporting a national popular vote 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 Vermont (75%), Maine (71%), Arkansas (74%), California (70%), Connecticut (73%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Missouri (70%), North Carolina (62%), Rhode Island (74%), and Washington (77%). Details of these polls are available on our web site.

The U.S. Constitution gives the states exclusive and plenary control over the manner of awarding their electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founder’s choice (having been used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election). Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district—a reminder that a federal constitutional amendment is not required to change the way the President is elected.

The National Popular Vote 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 is in effect, all the electoral votes from the states that enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, and Sacramento Bee, Common Cause and Fair Vote.

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell (R–California), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators Birch Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).

Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote (available for reading or downloading for free at our web site).