Vote

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

16 comments
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that needs to be changed in order to have a national popular vote for President. The winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes inside the state) is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is strictly a matter of state law. The winner-take-all rule was not the choice of the Founding Fathers, as indicated by the fact that the winner-take-all rule was used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789. The fact that Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district is another reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. All the U.S. Constitution says is “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.” A federal constitutional amendment is not needed to change state laws.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  6. Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.

  7. The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.

    Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).

    Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.

    The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York’s use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. 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, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming–both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.

    The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

    The National Popular Vote bill already 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. It has been enacted by Hawaii.

  8. Most of the medium-small states (with five or six electoral votes) are similarly non-competitive in presidential elections (and therefore similarly disadvantaged). In fact, of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with three, four, five, or six electoral votes), only New Hampshire (with four electoral votes), New Mexico (five electoral votes), and Nevada (five electoral votes) have been battleground states in recent elections.

    Because so few of the 22 small and medium-small states are closely divided battleground states in presidential elections, the current system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states. The New York Times reported early in 2008 (May 11, 2008) that both major political parties were already in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008 (involving only 166 of the 538 electoral votes). In other words, three-quarters of the states were to be ignored under the current system in the 2008 election. Michigan (17 electoral votes), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and Florida (27) contain over half of the electoral votes that will matter in 2008 (85 of the 166 electoral votes). There are only three battleground states among the 22 small and medium-small states (i.e., New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada). These three states contain only 14 of the 166 electoral votes. Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.

  9. The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

    Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red” states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

    Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
    ● Texas (62% Republican),
    ● New York (59% Democratic),
    ● Georgia (58% Republican),
    ● North Carolina (56% Republican),
    ● Illinois (55% Democratic),
    ● California (55% Democratic), and
    ● New Jersey (53% Democratic).

    In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
    ● Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
    ● New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
    ● Georgia — 544,634 Republican
    ● North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
    ● Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
    ● California — 1,023,560 Democratic
    ● New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic

    To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.

  10. When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

    Under a national popular vote, every vote is equally important politically. There is nothing special about a vote cast in a big city. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties know that they must seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the state in order to win the state. A vote cast in a big city is no more valuable than a vote cast in a small town or rural area.

    Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate won 100% of the votes in the nation’s top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.

    Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.

  11. Keep in mind that the main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

    For example, in California, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.

    If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

  12. 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

  13. 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.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Fatherhood Begins at Conception, but not Personhood?

In a speech given on  Father’s Day at the Apostolic Church of…

There Was No Trump Landslide

Adam Graham: President-elect Donald Trump would do well to ditch his national ball spiking tour and earn the trust of those who are skeptical about him.

A Response to USCCR’s Rebuke of Trump Administration’s Civil Rights Priorities

Two commissioners dissent from the USCCR’s statement of concern about the efficacy and priorities of the Trump Administration related to civil rights.

Steve King Defends DOMA at Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting

Congressman Steve King (R-IA) gave testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday…