I posted on this one over a year ago – and it’s still a phenomenally stupid idea today. The difference today, however, is that Colorado just ran a TV spot that used the EXACT explanation on why we shouldn’t have it, but they twisted it to instead argue why we SHOULD have it. But the math doesn’t lie. I just did it again, to be sure I wasn’t missing something… I wasn’t – the people that make these ads must figure most people won’t take the time to sort out the math. Problem is – they don’t expect people like me who eat numbers for lunch.
In the ad they say that everyone avoids all these states to focus attention on the few major population states, and the national popular vote will change that and make them all visit all of us. This is totally, completely, categorically, and unbelievably wrong. Period. It will have the opposite effect. Here’s why:
What they purposely don’t tell you is that the electoral college actually dilutes states with heavy populations, which make it more skewed to FAVOR the states with less population. Which means smaller states’ votes actually weigh slightly more than larger states’ votes. How can that be, you ask? Simple: Electoral College votes are based on 2 factors: House Seats (based on population in each state), and … and this is important … Senate seats, which EVERY state gets 2 senators, regardless of population. California gets 2 senators… Rhode Island gets 2 senators. Putting is more clearly, there are 535 electoral votes because there are 435 House members, and 100 Senate members. If we move away from this system, 44 states will suffer at the hand of 6 states!!
Put more simply (and a teeny bit exaggerated to illustrate the “buying power” point), If California has 10 people that want a steak dinner and Rhode Island only has 2 people wanting that same steak dinner, under the electoral college system Rhode Island will have as much power to buy that steak with 2 people as California has with 10 people. In a 1-vote-weighs-the-same system (National Popular Vote), California gets the steak, and Rhode Island starves. Don’t believe me yet? Here’s some math:
Today roughly 46% of the entire US registered voters live in 6 states: Calif, Texas, Florida, NY, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Got that part? Okay, let’s say 44 states all vote for a candidate by a strong 58% overall. But the other candidate spends all their time campaigning in those 6 states, and wins 60% of that overall vote. Guess what? They beat the person the other 44 states wanted to win. Knowing our national elections are much closer than that, however, if that candidate wins 53% of those 6 states and only 48% of the other 44 states, they still win overall. These numbers are based on 177M expected voters, with 82.4M of them all residing in those 6 states, according to latest state data.
The electoral college softens this out, and actually gives smaller states a slightly larger voice in elections than California and the other 5 states. It actually makes your voice MORE heard, not less! Passing a national popular vote will make it even more important for candidates to win those 6 states and to almost avoid 44 states. If anyone wants to see the math in more detail, I am far-too-happy to share it! Math never lies. Media does.
