From an e-mail sent by the Iowa Family Policy Center:
Senate Study Bill 1128, if passed by the Iowa General Assembly and signed by the Governor, will give Iowa’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
That would make Iowa irrelevant in presidential elections.
SSB 1128 will be heard in committee on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 at 2:00 pm in Room 22 at the State Capitol in Des Moines.
Your immediate action is needed to stop what will effectively grant the power to elect the President of the United States to a very few large, mostly urban states!
People who live in smaller, more rural states like Iowa tend to support family values to a greater degree than those who live in densely populated urban centers. Let’s do our part to preserve pro-family representation in the presidential election process.
The people who want to abolish the Electoral College want to consolidate the power of a centralized state by revising the way the president is elected.They have openly admitted that their efforts are designed to circumvent the US Constitution.
The founders envisioned and set up a process of fifty state elections for president as a check and balance on the power of the federal government. If you are able, please come to the meeting on Wednesday, February 18th and show your support for the Constitutional process of electing our presidents.
A group called National Popular Vote is pushing a bill in the Iowa Legislature that gives Iowa’s electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. So far New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland and Hawaii have passed laws mandating participation in a compact that goes into effect when the number of states adopting this method of assigning presidential electors reaches 271 electoral votes.
If passed, the national political machines and their operators will take whatever minimal vote they get out of a state like Iowa, and focus all their activities on the big, vote-rich urban states.
CLICK HERE to view the bill.
Please call and email the members of the Iowa Senate’s State Government Committee today with a message you can find at the end of this alert.
Iowa Senate – State Government Committee
Call the Capitol switchboard at 515-281-3371 and ask to be connected to the Senators on the committee.
Senator Email Address
You may want to use the following email template when you compose your note to the committee members. It can also be used as a script to make a phone call to the members of the Senate State Government Committee.
PLEASE: Call and/or e-mail no later than Wednesday morning, February 18.
Dear Senator ___________________________:
I urge you to oppose Senate Study Bill 1128. If passed, Senate Study Bill 1128 will give Iowa’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. That would literally turn Iowa into “fly-over country” when it comes to presidential elections.
SB 1128 attacks the federal character of the Union.
SSB 1128 creates the conditions for an urban-centric Presidency where rural states will have little influence.
It would demean the value of an Iowa citizen’s vote. Many people would stop voting.
For these and other reasons, I urge you to vote no on SSB 1128. Kill it and leave it in committee.
Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION will keep me informed of how you vote and I will remember at the ballot box.
Sincerely,
Be sure to contact them – let’s nip this in the bud before it even gets out of committee. This isn’t good for Iowa regardless of political party.
Update: Every Vote Counts… for Now – from the Iowa Senate Republican Caucus blog.
Also I e-mailed the committee regarding this and Senator Randy Feenstra (R-District 2, Hull, IA).
Dear Shane, I am absolutely against this bill. The Democrats are advocating for it.
You can read his full statement on this bill here.
2nd Update 2/18/08: Senator Jerry Behn (R-Boone) replied to me this afternoon:
Thank you for taking the time to write. I very much appreciate your input.
I agree with you. SSB 1128 is a very bad bill.
I will vote “NO” on SSB 1128 and I will work to get others to vote “NO” as well.
The very idea that candidate A could hypothetically win 100% of Iowans’ votes and our electoral votes could be awarded to Candidate B, should repulse every Iowan.
Hopefully, the more people realize how truly bad this bill is, the Democratic majority will decide to drop it
8 Responses to “Action Item: Iowa Readers Contact Iowa Senate on Senate Study Bill 1128 (2nd Update)”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
They tried that in NC last year as well, it was stopped thank goodness
I personally think that the idea of the electoral college is outdated. However, we cannot have different rules for different states. Either all 50 states has to get rid of the electoral system or none at all.
In reality, this bill is absolutely asinine. If it goes through, people in Iowa might as well not vote at all. No matter who they vote for their vote will go to whoever the other 49 states votes for on election day anyway.
Excellent, some people still had some common sense.
I agree with you that the bill is asinine. I would disagree that the electoral college is outdated though. It's purpose then, and now is to assure that particular regional voting blocs always get to choose who the president is. The President should still be affirmed by the majority of states.
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. 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.
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 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.
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 Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, 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.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
75% OF IOWA VOTERS FAVOR A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT
A survey of 800 Iowa voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President. The question was “How do you think we should elect the President when we vote in the November general election: should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote for President was 82% among Democrats, 63% among Republicans, and 77% among others.
By age, support was 76% among 18-29 year olds, 65% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 82% among women and 67% among men.
By race, support was 75% among whites (representing 93% of respondents), 65% among African Americans (representing 2% of respondents), 86% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 58% among others (representing 4% of respondents).
The survey was conducted on February 17-18, 2009, by Public Policy Polling.
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Exactly who are they surveying people who don't even have a cursory knowledge of the Constitution or American History? There is no way that this is in Iowa's best interest.
I just don't see 75% support for this and I live here. I think this poll is a bunch of bunk and hardly scientific – I mean 63% of Republicans? Come on! 80% of those older than 65? Right.