Electoral College ReformLetter to the Editor
By Rob Richie
Published April 17th 2007 in The New York Times
Maryland indeed has shown great leadership in advancing the National Popular Vote plan to have elections where candidates must reach out to all Americans (“Maryland Takes the Lead,” editorial, April 14).
The current system does not benefit small-population states, however. While such states have fewer people per electoral vote than big states, there’s a reason for the conventional wisdom that the 2004 election came down to winning two of the big battlegrounds of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.
A gain of 5,000 votes in New Mexico might help swing five electoral votes in your favor. But that exact same vote gain in Florida could swing 25 electoral votes. When weighing where to focus resources, campaigns gravitate to the big swing states.
The current system’s real divide is between the declining number of swing states and the rest of the country. For spectator states, size doesn’t matter: their people’s interests are equally irrelevant to the presidential candidates.
Rob Richie, Executive Director
Fair Vote
Takoma Park, Md., April 14, 2007
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.