I don't WANT this much power

The Mrs. and I just got back from voting here in Northern Kentucky. As we were leaving, I asked the polling place workers how turnout had been. The comments ranged from "better than we expected" to "but still less than 100". Now, I'm not sure exactly how many people are in this polling precinct, but the registration book they have on the table is rather thick.  If I were to guess, I'm going to put turnout at less than 15% for our area. The Secretary of State is predicting 10 - 12% voter turnout, while the county clerks in Northern Kentucky are expecting 7 - 20% turnout.

So, why does this concern me? It's only the primaries, right? First, Kentucky is a closed primary state, so there is no crossing over to vote in the other party's primary. Second, there were three races I could vote in today: Presidential, U.S. Congress 4th District, and State Senate 11th District. There are candidates from both parties in the Presidential and Congressional races. However, there are no Democratic party challengers in the State Senatorial race. This is not really surprising considering that Northern Kentucky is a heavy Republican area. In fact, my county is one of the few one by the Republican candidate in the latest gubernatorial race.

So, what does all this mean? It means that the State Senator for the 11th District will be picked by an exceedingly small minority of the individuals represented by that seat. Turnout will be less than 15%, and only a portion of that 15% (granted, a majority of it, but still) will be allowed to vote for the candidate. The winner of the primary will be the winner of the general election.

There is also a state congressional race in this area today, but for another portion of the county. Again, in that race there is no Democratic candidate. The winner of the Republican primary will be the winner of the general election.

To those who say "my vote doesn't count", I say Balderdash!!! Local and regional elections are typically more important anyways, and with the history of low voter turnouts, especially in non-Presidential election years, your vote absolutely does count.

I don't WANT this much power, but I don't dare not vote.

Problems With The National Popular Vote Act

I really wasn't planning on getting into the National Popular Vote Act. My intent yesterday was merely to highlight similarities in though processes in very different political arenas. However, a comment was left defending it yesterday, and I wanted to highlight some of the misapprehensions.

Before starting, though, I do want to reiterate that the Constitution grants states the power to determine how they will choose their electors. So, there are no direct Constitutional concerns with the NPVA. That being said, our system of electing the President is not one of direct election. We have the electoral college. When a citizen casts a vote, it is only nominally for the candidate. In reality, it is for an elector pledged to that candidate. The NPVA is trying to do an end-run on the electoral college system. If you want direct elections of the president, then amend the Constitution. But keep in mind that the United States was intended to be an amalgamation of states with loose federal control. The House of Representatives provides proportional membership, to keep the more populous states from running roughshod over everyone else, and the Electoral College provided the same protections for the electorate.

Now, let's start taking a look at the comment that was left.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. No voter is disenfranchised. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

Every vote, everywhere today is politically relevant. Again, each STATE is electing a slate of electors that then vote for the President. We do not have direct elections. If you feel that voters are being disenfranchised under the current system, then propose that states adopt a proportional allocation of electors instead of using a "first past the post" all-or-nothing allocation. Further, from what I can see, the NPVA does not require a majority the popular vote, merely a plurality. So even if a candidate only receives 40% of the popular vote, with two other candidates each receiving 30%, the NPVA guarantees that he will win a majority of the electoral votes. Talk about the ultimate in disenfranchisement.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. Talk about disenfranchisement.

NPVA merely stands this argument on its head, potentially taking the voice away from the majority party voters in a state, by allocating their votes to the "national winner", even if he was different than the state winner. That's the travesty of NPVA. Again, the better way to fix this is to encourage states to adopt a proportional elector allocation. This would most likely achieve the goals of the NPVA (to guarantee that the electoral college winner and the national popular vote winner are the same) while still retaining the veracity of local votes.

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).

This does not mean that the NPVA is the answer. Again, not to flagellate a deceased equine or anything, but it seems the problem is more with a first past the post, winner takes all allocation of electoral votes. Fix that instead of telling me that my vote vote for a slate of electors (see, I'm not voting for the candidate, I'm voting for electors) could be rendered meaningless by a high-population state.

I will have more to say about some of their numbers-based arguments once I have a chance to pull together some statistics. But, work calls and I have to pay the bills first.