Lawmakers Say Oregon Should Count More In Presidential Elections

The state of Oregon is one step closer to joining the national movement to elect the President of the United States by popular vote.

Supporters of the plan say it’s a way to even the playing field and give smaller states more say in who becomes President.

The Oregon House approved the plan Thursday.  Salem correspondent Chris Lehman has more.


Here’s how it would work.  Any state that signs up with the National Popular Vote movement pledges to give its Electoral College votes to the Presidential candidate who wins the most overall votes nationwide.  

If enough states agree, the U.S. would avoid situations like what happened in 2000 when George W. Bush won the Electoral College vote despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore.

Backers of the plan say there’s another benefit.

Republican Representative Vicki Berger of Salem says Oregon voters would have the same clout as people in more populated states.

Vicki Berger:  “Part of the problem is that during election time, when all issues are put on the table, we simply don’t count.  Florida counts.  Ohio counts.  Pennsylvania counts.  Oregon -- not so much.”

Opponents said the plan violates the U.S. Constitution.  Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii have already joined the compact. The Oregon bill now heads to the Senate.


Online:

Oregon House Bill 2588

Comments

March 12, 2009
3:08 p.m.
In fact, the U.S. Constitution says "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." The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes. 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 a reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. A federal constitutional amendment is not needed to change state laws.

— Posted by mvymvy

March 12, 2009
3:09 p.m.
76% OF OREGON VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL A survey of 800 Oregon voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 76% overall support for a national popular vote for President. Support was 82% among Democrats, 70% among Republicans, and 72% among independents. By age, support was 67% among 18-29 year olds, 68% among 30-45 year olds, 82% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65. By gender, support was 81% among women and 71% among men. By race, support was 87% among whites (representing 89% of respondents), 59% among African-Americans (representing 3% of respondents), and 80% among Hispanics (representing 2% of respondents), and 69% among Others (representing 6% of respondents). see www.NationalPopularVote.com

— Posted by mvymvy

March 12, 2009
3:10 p.m.
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.

— Posted by mvymvy

March 12, 2009
3:12 p.m.
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. 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 closely divided battleground states: Colorado — 68%, Iowa — 75%, Michigan — 73%, Missouri — 70%, New Hampshire — 69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, North Carolina — 74%, Ohio — 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware — 75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire — 69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas —80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi —77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 24 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, 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

— Posted by mvymvy


Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post.

Login or register to set up an account.

© 2009, Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Search · Inside OPB · Report Reception Problems · Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Contact Us · Pressroom · Employment · Community · Audio Streams · RSS Feeds


PBSNPRPRIBBC