FairVote.org - Why NPV makes sense (for Utah)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


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






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



21 Embeds 26,402

http://www.fairvote.org 26334
http://www.archive.fairvote.org 13
http://fvo.upgrade.wellfireinteractive.com 12
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 10
http://www.google.com 9
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 3
http://www.coveroregon.com 2
http://loc-wm.archive.org 2
http://wwww.fairvote.org 2
http://wellfire.ss3 2
http://www.instantrunoff.com 2
http://www.peakinternet.com 2
https://trading.scottrade.com 1
http://www.archives.fairvote.org 1
http://learning.semo.edu 1
http://arhive.fairvote.org 1
http://www.arhive.fairvote.org 1
http://ww.fairvote.org 1
http://www.bing.com 1
http://anonymouse.org 1
http://www.google.co.uk 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

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