Make Every Vote Equal. Really?

Make Every Vote Equal. Really?

P. Schultz

March 5, 2013

            The following are parts of a debate I am having with a former student, Rich Rubino, who is supporting what is called the National Popular Vote Plan which is intended to guarantee that the candidate with the most popular votes for president, nation wide, is actually elected president. It does this by having states pledge to award their electoral votes to that candidate who receives the most votes nationally, regardless of how any particular state voted.

            Rich has published a book which he describes as follows on Amazon.

“Make every vote equal: What a novel idea. I published this book to promote the National Popular Vote Plan. I am convinced that the current method of electing a U.S. President is not appropriate for the times, and more importantly, fails to comport with the will of the American people. Under the current system, Presidential nominees are forced to allocate almost all of their time, energy and resources to only about ten states, the “Battleground States.” The other forty states, which represent approximately 80% of the American electorate, are largely ignored because the electoral outcome in these forty states is almost a forgone conclusion. This unfortunate situation is solely the result of the “winner-take-all” method of awarding electoral votes. Safe States (non-battleground states) “get no respect” in the Presidential election process. Presidential campaigns will from time-to-time drop into these states to do some fundraising, but the Presidential nominees rarely make an appearance in these states to discuss the issues with the voters. Trips to safe states are like trips to an ATM machine. The campaigns grab cash and flee these states as fast as they can. The quaint coffee-shop news clips that permeate the American airwaves during the election process nearly always occur in the ten battleground states, resulting in a situation wherein certain voters and constituencies get preferential treatment. This “voter bias” is detrimental to most American voters and to the reputation of our Presidential election process. For example, Presidential candidates have an electoral incentive to address the concerns of the Cuban Americans in Florida, steel workers in Ohio, and ethanol producers in Iowa, yet there is no electoral incentive to address the “catch share” regulations affecting the Massachusetts fishing industry, to address safety issues affecting coal miners in West Virginia, or the proliferation of gang violence in Chicago. Even once a President has been elected, the winner-take-all method of electoral voting still survives to maintain this biased playing field. For example, in 2011, when President Barack Obama went on a three-day bus tour to promote his Jobs Bill, he barnstormed Virginia and North Carolina, which “coincidently” are two critical battleground states. Corroborating this fact, the Washington Post reported that either President Obama or Vice President Biden has appeared in Ohio (a battleground state) during their first term in office about every three weeks since they took office. In short, it is grossly unfair and insulting that certain states garner VIP treatment simply because of their electoral geopolitical status. This outcome was “never” envisioned by the Founding Fathers who wrote our Constitution, struggling over the various elements to include.”

            Here is my response on Facebook:

“Congratulations, Rich! This is quite an accomplishment.

“BUT: [you had to suspect that was coming] Unfortunately, the plan does not, because it cannot, make every vote equal. Every election scheme favors some votes more than others and so does this one. For example, this plan would make the votes in those states currently known as "safe" more important than the votes in tightly contested states because a large margin of victory adds more to a candidate's national vote total than a narrow margin of victory in tightly contested states. So, the votes, the outcomes, in "safe" states like Massachusetts and Texas would be more important than, say, the votes, the outcomes, in Virginia or Florida because winning a contested state by a small margin would contribute less to a candidate's overall victory than winning by a huge margin in a "safe" state.

“As near as I can tell, the "electoral college" never operated as Publius argued it would, leaving aside the first two elections whose results were foregone conclusions. Everyone knew Washington would be the first president. It serves certain purposes now, both positive and negative. But so does any election scheme. There is no way to create an election scheme that is unbiased or equal, just as there is no way to create a political order that is unbiased or that treats all equally.”

            And here is Rich’s response, followed by my last response.

“Peter, This method is not perfect, but it comes closer to electoral equality as any I have seen and will certainly end the disproportionate influence of 10 states simply because of their geopolitical status. Every vote would actually matter. We can use the state as a microcosm here. Each state uses the popular vote. The result is that candidates try to cultivate every possible vote. A vote in Peru, Massachusetts is commensurate with a vote in Boston, Massachusetts. Candidates do not discriminate as to where the voters are.

“For example, on the last day of campaigning in the hotly contested 2010 Massachusetts Governors race, incumbent Deval Patrick and his Republican nominee Charlie Baker barnstormed both urban and rural areas. Patrick appeared in Boston and Marlborough, a city with a population of under 40,000. Baker made stops in the state’s largest urban centers, Boston and Worcester, as well as Wakefield, and his hometown of Swampscott, both with a population of less than 25,000. Clearly their campaign consultants have done the electoral calculations and realized that elections are not settled in urban areas alone.

“At the national level, by contrast, 80% of voters are relegated to the electoral sidelines. Their votes have little influence. In the 2012 Presidential election, after the nominating conventions, 69% of all campaign visits were in Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. Similarly, of the 13 smallest states, only New Hampshire garnered any visits. The others were ignored.

“A vote in Florida or Virginia would no longer have disproportionate influence, but neither would it have less influence. I suspect the campaigns would have field offices in both states and would try to turnout every possible vote, The goal of each campaign would be to win a numerical majority regardless of where the votes were cast. That means courting and turning out as many voters as possible. A candidate would be sagacious to deploy resources in as many parts of the country as possible under the National Popular Vote Plan.”

            And then my response:

“Well, a candidate might be encouraged to campaign widely but if s/he had the opportunity to garner a margin of, say, 100,000 votes while winning one state and only, say, 10,000 votes in winning another state, guess where the candidate goes? All this "reform" does is change which votes are worth more and which less, which as noted is all it or any electoral scheme can do. And I notice a gap in your stats from Mass. as you do not say whether the candidates spent as much time in Peru, Mass. as they did in Boston and its suburbs. As there are more voters in Boston and suburbs than Peru or even Worcester, I don't need stats to know how the candidates behaved or where they spent the most money. Unless they are just politically challenged, candidates always go more often to where they can garner more rather than fewer votes.”