By Clay Mulford
Published September 24th 2006 in Los Angeles Daily News
AS he took the oath of office as California's new governor in November 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger said his election "was about changing the entire political climate of our state." The governor now has a historic opportunity to improve the political climate of California and the entire nation - and reach out to the rising number of independent voters eager to support real reformers.
Awaiting his signature is AB 2948, a bill to add California to the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote." Under this plan, states agree to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with the agreement going into effect only after states that together represent a majority of the Electoral College sign on.
Similar legislation is currently pending in five other states, and dozens more will debate the proposal next year. Schwarzenegger's policy choice is simple: act to make it possible to have a national popular vote for president, as most Americans want, or keep the current state-by-state system that makes the views of Californians meaningless in presidential elections.
The move to a national popular vote for president is long overdue. Under the current, state-by-state Electoral College system, two-thirds of states, including California, are totally ignored by presidential candidates because they are "safe" for one party. All that matters in modern presidential elections is whether a state is considered a "battleground." Every campaign dollar, candidate attention and policy consideration is showered on a shrinking number of states "in play." In contrast, under a national popular vote, every voter in every state would matter, and every effort to persuade a neighbor to vote would be meaningful. That explains why, since the 1940s, a majority of Americans has consistently favored a popular vote for president. As recently as 2004, Gallup found that 66 percent of registered independents favor moving to popular election of the president, eager to move beyond the artificial divisions of "red" and "blue" states in the selection of the one person who represents all Americans.
When I managed Ross Perot's campaign in 1992, I experienced this again and again - strong crowd support for his call for national presidential elections where every vote is equal. The current Electoral College system is not what the founders intended. In 1800, for example, only two states used today's dominant model of awarding all electoral votes to the statewide popular-vote winner. It wasn't until the Civil War that every state even used a popular vote to award their electoral votes.
Our founders certainly did not intend for voters in a majority of states to have no meaningful role in selecting the president. It is incomprehensible that a state as important and diverse as California is completely ignored in presidential elections except as an ATM machine for candidates.
The bottom line is this: If you live in a battleground state, your vote is sought after and it matters. But if you live anywhere else, you are ignored. We must do better. By entering California into the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote," Gov. Schwarzenegger would fulfill the nation's largest state's obligation to allocate electors in the best interests of California.
Clay Mulford served as general counsel and campaign manager of Ross Perot's 1992 presidential campaign.
Awaiting his signature is AB 2948, a bill to add California to the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote." Under this plan, states agree to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with the agreement going into effect only after states that together represent a majority of the Electoral College sign on.
Similar legislation is currently pending in five other states, and dozens more will debate the proposal next year. Schwarzenegger's policy choice is simple: act to make it possible to have a national popular vote for president, as most Americans want, or keep the current state-by-state system that makes the views of Californians meaningless in presidential elections.
The move to a national popular vote for president is long overdue. Under the current, state-by-state Electoral College system, two-thirds of states, including California, are totally ignored by presidential candidates because they are "safe" for one party. All that matters in modern presidential elections is whether a state is considered a "battleground." Every campaign dollar, candidate attention and policy consideration is showered on a shrinking number of states "in play." In contrast, under a national popular vote, every voter in every state would matter, and every effort to persuade a neighbor to vote would be meaningful. That explains why, since the 1940s, a majority of Americans has consistently favored a popular vote for president. As recently as 2004, Gallup found that 66 percent of registered independents favor moving to popular election of the president, eager to move beyond the artificial divisions of "red" and "blue" states in the selection of the one person who represents all Americans.
When I managed Ross Perot's campaign in 1992, I experienced this again and again - strong crowd support for his call for national presidential elections where every vote is equal. The current Electoral College system is not what the founders intended. In 1800, for example, only two states used today's dominant model of awarding all electoral votes to the statewide popular-vote winner. It wasn't until the Civil War that every state even used a popular vote to award their electoral votes.
Our founders certainly did not intend for voters in a majority of states to have no meaningful role in selecting the president. It is incomprehensible that a state as important and diverse as California is completely ignored in presidential elections except as an ATM machine for candidates.
The bottom line is this: If you live in a battleground state, your vote is sought after and it matters. But if you live anywhere else, you are ignored. We must do better. By entering California into the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote," Gov. Schwarzenegger would fulfill the nation's largest state's obligation to allocate electors in the best interests of California.
Clay Mulford served as general counsel and campaign manager of Ross Perot's 1992 presidential campaign.
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.