Wednesday, October 8 ----- 6 States Determine Election

National Popular Vote
October 7, 2008


Only 6 States Matter in 2008 Presidential Election


Despite the fact that Americans are watching the presidential debates
in record numbers, only about six closely divided battleground states
matter in the 2008 presidential election.

This harsh political reality became clear last week when McCain's
Michigan state director Al Ribeiro explained McCain's abrupt cessation
of campaigning in Michigan:

"The campaign must decide where it can best utilize its limited
resources with the goal of winning nationally."

Although Michigan is seemingly important (with 8 million people and 17
electoral votes) and was receiving an enormous amount of attention
from presidential candidates until last week, presidential candidates
simply have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or pay
attention to the concerns of states where they are comfortably ahead
or hopelessly behind. As Emmet County Republican Chairman Jack
Waldvogel said:

"We feel abandoned, we are disappointed, and we are heartsick
to know that we aren't important enough for him to fight for."

Of course, 36 of the 50 states never mattered in the 2008 presidential
election. Michigan just discovered the harsh political reality a
little later than the 36 other states. As early as spring 2008, the
New York Times reported (May 11, 2008) that both major political
parties were in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground
states in 2008 (involving only 166 of the 538 electoral votes).

In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and
campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in nine states; and over
99% of their money in 16 states. The 2008 presidential campaign is
now centered on six closely divided battleground states: Ohio,
Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire.

The reason that three-quarters of the states don't matter in
presidential elections stems from the winner-take-all rule. The
winner-take-all rule awards all of a state's electoral votes to the
candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state. The
winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution, but simply state
law.

The way to fix our broken system of electing the President is to
change state law. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the
Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all
50 states (and the District of Columbia). Under the National Popular
Vote bill, there would be no red states, no blue states, and no
battleground states. Every person's vote, in every state, would be
equally important throughout the United States. Every vote would be
equal, and every vote would matter.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted by
states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough
electoral votes to elect a President in the Electoral College (270 of
538). When the bill is in effect, all the electoral votes from the
states that enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the
presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50
states (and the District of Columbia).

The National Popular Vote bill has already been enacted by states
possessing 50 electoral votes. This is almost 20% of the 270 electoral
votes necessary to bring the law into effect. The four states are
Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey. The bill has passed 21
state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado,
Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California,
Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
and Vermont. The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state
legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742
legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The U.S. Constitution gives the states exclusive and plenary control
over the manner of awarding of their electoral votes. The
winner-take-all rule was not the Founder's choice (having been used by
only three states in the nation's first presidential election). Maine
and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by district — a reminder
that a federal constitutional amendment is not required to change the
way the President is elected.

The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York
Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times,
Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, and Sacramento Bee, Common Cause and
Fair Vote.

A recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard
University poll shows 72% of Americans support nationwide election of
the President. Recent polls in individual states show a similar high
level of support: Vermont (75%), Maine (71%), Rhode Island (74%),
Arkansas (74%), California (69%), Connecticut (73%), Massachusetts
(73%), Michigan (70%), and Missouri (70%).

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former
congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent
presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell
(R–California), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators Birch
Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn
(R–Utah).

Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A
State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote
(available on-line at our web site or from Amazon).


______________________________________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this
message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the
following link:
http://cts.vresp.com/u?c55ce14d87/e6a4c27e1b/c993afd

______________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by National Popular Vote using VerticalResponse

National Popular Vote
990 Villa Street—Suite 213
Mountain View, California 94041

Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy:
http://www.verticalresponse.com/content/pm_policy.html