FairVote.org - Why NPV makes sense (for Utah)

  • 33,003 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: News & Politics
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
33,003
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
16

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. In 2008, one lucky state—Ohio—received moreattention than the 25 smallest states* combined. Share of Population, Share of Post-Convention Share of Post-Convention 2008 Estimates Campaign Visits, 2008 Campaign Money, 2008 25 25 25 25 Smallest States Ohio 1 Smallest States Ohio Smallest States OhioRather than boost small states, current ElectoralCollege rules marginalize nearly all of them. * The 25 smallest states are: Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Vermont, District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Iowa, Connecticut, Oregon.
  • 2. Defenders of the Electoral College’s rules claimbattleground states* change, eventually givingeach state its moment in the political spotlight. 99 consecutive UT years of irrelevancyBut the people of Utah know better. Their statehasn’t been a battleground since 1912. * A "battleground state " is defined as a state that was won by less than six percentage points.
  • 3. Defenders of the Electoral College’s rules claimswing states* change, eventually giving each stateits moment in the political spotlight. 55 consecutive RI years of irrelevancyBut the people of Rhode Island know better. Theirstate hasn’t been a swing state since 1956. * A "swing state " is defined as a state with a partisanship rating between 47% and 53%, meaning that if a presidential election were highly competitive nationally, the outcome in the state might determine who wins the White House.
  • 4. With National Popular Vote, candidates will notignore small states. In 2004, seven rural Westernstates* yielded a bigger margin for George Bushthan California did for John Kerry—despiteCalifornias population being three times larger.WY, UT, MT, NE, ID, ND, SD CA1.27 million 1.24 millionBush margin Kerry marginYou neednt be big in order to generate attractivevote margins. NPV would place this unexploredelectoral frontier back on the map. •The seven states included are: Idaho (228,137 margin for Bush in 2004), Montana (92,353), Nebraska (258,486), North Dakota (85,599), South Dakota (83,340), Utah (422,543), Wyoming (96,853).