Thanks for Commenting
New Mexico is entering full economic crisis mode. We're facing a half a billion dollar budget shortfall
Are you thinking that $500 million is a lot of money? It's not.
The last time I checked there were a million people in NM (there are probably more now, that was long ago) so we're talking about less than five hundred bucks apiece.
Three trillion dollars is what a famous economist estimated as the cost of our decision to go to war with Iraq. The last time I looked there were about 300 million people in the US. That's about ten thousand bucks per person.
So here's each person's share:
NM deficit: $500
Iraq invasion: $10,000
I wish the NM budget shortage was the worst economic problem we faced.
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.
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 53
. 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 bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, 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
The national popular vote would mean that small states would be ignored entirely.
As it is, yes, a majority in California and New York gets huge numbers of votes... winner take all.
Dividing those votes up might seem like a good plan.... but it's just about as good for small states as if Senate seats were allocated by population... and North Dakota and New Mexico suddenly have one Senator each and California has 50. That would be fair, right? That's proportionate to the population, right?
People now vote nearly half and half and our whole system is designed to promote that. Both sides have to get the middle. Why should any candidate set foot in New Mexico when the difference of a few percent of the popular vote means only a few percent of the popular vote?
They just won't.
Doing away with the electoral college means that candidates don't have to bother with fly over states if they can pull super-majorities in the most populated states. Do you really think that the interests of New Mexicans or folks in Wyoming or Nebraska or Utah over lap all that much with people on the coasts?
As it was... it seemed to me that the national candidates were in New Mexico every other week this last time around.
Something like this passes and wave goodbye.
"The national popular vote would mean that small states would be ignored entirely."
This hasn't been a problem since television was invented.
You're assuming, ched, that people from small states have the same interests of large states.
Getting to watch politicians on television fight over the issues important to large coastal states is a thin consolation.
Commenting by HaloScan
