What a preposterous idea!
"Ridiculous" is the way Joe King, a former state legislator from Vancouver, describes it.
But if lawmakers such as state Sen. Craig Pridemore, D-Vancouver, have their way, this goofy idea will be back on the legislative agenda next month.
What you just read is pure sarcasm, inspired by a statement made by Joe King to a Columbian editorial writer two weeks ago. Now a resident of Tenino, Wash., and a lobbyist, King's clients include an organization called National Popular Vote. King sarcastically summarized its mission:
"National Popular Vote is dedicated to the ridiculous proposition that the person who gets the most votes for president ought to be the next president. What a novel idea."
That's the same notion Washington voters had last month when they wisely did away with the super majority requirement for school levies.
Without turning this into a term paper on the Electoral College system by which we elect presidents, consider:
Four presidents, so far, were not first-place finishers in the vote of the people but became president anyway. They were:
John Quincy Adams in 1824. (Andrew Jackson had more votes); Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 (Samuel Tilden outpolled him); Benjamin Harrison in 1888 (voters preferred Grover Cleveland); and George W. Bush in 2000 (Al Gore won more votes).
It nearly happened in 2004, but that time Bush would have been the victim instead of the victor. John Kerry narrowly lost Ohio to Bush. If Kerry had eked out the victory in that state and nothing else changed, all of Ohio's electoral votes would have gone to Kerry and he would have been the president despite losing to Bush nationally by 3 million votes.
Here and in 47 other states, the presidential candidate with the most votes, even if the margin of victory is razor thin, gets every one of that state's electoral votes (equal to the state's members of Congress; we have 11).
National Popular Vote ( www.nationalpopularvote.com ) is trying to get states to require their electors to vote for whichever candidate wins the national popular vote, regardless of how their own state voted. The arrangement would become effective only after enough states pass the same law that they have a majority (270) or more total electoral votes. So far, only Maryland has enacted it, but several others are trying and support is growing. State Sen. Pridemore says he will again be a sponsor in Olympia, where it died on the Senate floor last session.
This deserves to become law. After all, is it ridiculous and preposterous for the person with the most votes to be the winner?
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.