March 11, 2008 - 12:19am

Growing NPV movement stalls in Maine Senate

The Maine Senate could not either pass or not pass a bill Monday that would allow the state to participate in the National Popular Vote interstate compact.

The compact would bind Maine’s four electorates to the national popular vote in presidential elections. The bill would only take effect if states with enough delegates – 270 -- to form a majority vote for president agree to it.

Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii have already passed the act, and it is pending in several other states.

Maine’s system for allocating the four electorates is already unique. Instead of the winner-take-all systems used in every state except Nebraska, only two of the four delegates are given to the state’s overall winner. The other two are proportioned by congressional district.

The 50-state effort is a way to circumvent the Electoral College system – something many have tried and failed to do away with on the national level.

Monday’s 17 to 17 vote fell mainly along party lines – Democrats for and Republicans against. Sen. David Hastings III, R-Fryeburg, was absent. It has been tabled for further discussion.

With different arguments, both sides drove home the same point – under the opposing side’s system, Maine will be forgotten by presidential candidates.

Sen. Bill Diamond, D-Windham, was the lone Democrat against the bill. Diamond, a former Secretary of State, said he oversaw the Electoral College process in two elections. While he described the process as “chilling”, he just doesn’t see a compelling reason to change it, he said.

Sen. Debra Plowman, R-Hampden, was the first and most vocal dissenter. Why not just call this the “small state irrelevancy act”, she said. Presidential candidates won’t pay attention to Maine because they don’t have the population base.

She brought the following scenario up for her colleagues, if NPV was in place in November: “Maine could have its votes come out in favor of a democratic nominee, but pledged to John McCain,” she said.

Sen. Ethan Strimling, D-Portland and a congressional candidate, countered: “Maine has been irrelevant in the last two elections,” he said. “They don’t come here because there isn’t enough weight because there aren’t enough delegates.”

It’s a simple concept: One person, one vote. The current system: It’s absurd, Strimling said.

“The populous gets it,” Strimling said. “Every vote should count equally.”

But Maine hasn’t been ignored, noted Sen. Karl Turner, R-Cumberland. President Bush came, along with high-level surrogates for other candidates. The Constitutional Convention is the means for getting rid of the Electoral College – a debate that has been had and couldn’t stand up to the scrutiny, Turner said.

Sen. John Martin, D-Eagle Lake, was the bill’s sponsor. He said the system is outdated – originally designed to prevent the masses from voting. But states have the power to distribute their Electoral College votes.

Now, under the system, the 12 smallest states are ignored, while campaigns spend millions in the big states, he said.

 

Comments

Making a vote in Maine as important as a vote in Ohio


The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President arises from the winner-take-all rule (currently used on statewide basis by 48 of 50 states, and on a congressional district basis in Maine and Nebraska). Under this rule, electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state or district involved. If the state or district is not close, no amount of campaigning during the general election campaign for President is realistically going to reverse the outcome.

 

As a result, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns in voters of areas where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Instead, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 88% of the money and visits (and attention) is focused on just 9 states. Fully 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. More than two-thirds of the country, including Maine, is left out.

 

A typical congressional district in Ohio gets an average of 6 visits by each presidential candidate. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The National Popular Vote bill would make every vote matter in a presidential campaign. A vote in Maine would become as important as a vote in Ohio.

 

The National Popular Vote 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 is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

 

Another benefit of the National Popular Vote bill is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. Also, a presidential election could not be thrown into the U.S. Congress because the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide would be guaranteed enough electoral votes to win the Presidency.

 

The National Popular Vote bill has 419 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland and New Jersey. Since its introduction in February 2006, the bill has passed by 14 legislative houses (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).

 

See www.NationalPopularVote.com

03/11/08 12:22 pm

National Popular Vote


This seems to be a pretty straightforward proposition:
1) Make sure the candidate with the most votes actually gets elected. No more repeats of 2000.
2) Make every vote equal. Why should a vote in Ohio or Florida be more valuable or important than a vote in Bangor or Fryeberg?
3) Force candidates to campaign everywhere and not just in the "battleground" states. Maine should be less important simply because it is a solidly blue state?

I don't think that Rep. Plowman makes a lot of sense. Small states are already irrelevant. The Electoral College may mathematically help small states, but not in the real world of political relevancy.

Also, I am more concerned with who gets elected to the White House than who wins Maine. I take no solace in the fact that our electoral votes went to Kerry or Gore. Bush won those elections and that is the bottom line.

Hopefully they will debate this again. Call or e-mail your Senator to make sure they support this bill (particularly if you live in Sen. Diamond's or a Republican district).

03/11/08 3:35 pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <b> <i> <p> <br> <span> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.