New Mexico House is 23rd State Legislative Chamber to Pass National Popular Vote Bill

The New Mexico House of Representatives has become the 23rd state legislative chamber in the U.S. to approve the National Popular Vote bill. The bill now goes to the state Senate.

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 23 state legislative chambers that have approved the bill include one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Vermont. A map on our web site shows the progress of the bill in each state.

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 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 (4 electoral votes), Illinois (21), Maryland (10), and New Jersey (15).

76% of New Mexico Voters Favor National Popular Vote

A survey of 800 New Mexico voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 76% overall support for a national popular vote for President. Support was 84% among Democrats, 64% among Republicans, and 68% among independents. By age, support was 73% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 78% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65. By gender, support was 84% among women and 66% among men. By race, support was 73% among whites (representing 55% of respondents), 83% among Hispanics (representing 38% of respondents), and 57% among others (representing 7% of respondents). The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 1/2%.

Voters in Battleground States, Small States, Southern and Border States, and Other States Strongly Support a National Popular Vote for President

The New Mexico poll result is similar to recent state-level polls (most taken after the November 2008 election) showing strong support for a national popular vote for President in battleground states, small states, Southern and border states, and other states across the country. Support is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and independents as well as every demographic groups surveyed.

Support for a national popular vote for President among voters in closely divided battleground states was 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%. Support in smaller states polled (3 to 5 electoral votes) was Delaware — 75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire — 69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%. Support in Southern and border states polled was Arkansas —80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi —77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%. Support in other states polled was California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%. Details of the polls are available on our web site.

The Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll showed 72% of the American people support for direct nationwide election of the President in 2007.

Background

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 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).

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

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. 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 in 2008. The same was true in 2004 when 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.

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 56 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.

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

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 bill has been introduced in 48 states legislatures. The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, 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).