Three months after the state legislature and Gov. Rod Blagojevich enacted the National Popular Vote bill in Illinois, the Tribune's
Buoyed by a long presidential primary season that focused attention on states that usually are overlooked in the calculus of winning a nomination, states as far-flung as Massachusetts and Hawaii have passed or are considering legislation that would guarantee that the candidate who got the most votes nationwide would win the White House.
That would have the effect, advocates say, of creating a truly national presidential election campaign.
Four states, including Illinois, have agreed to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote, and similar bills have been introduced in 43 other states. In Massachusetts, the Senate is to debate the measure after it recently received overwhelming support in the House of Representatives.
The piece tries to present both sides of the debate, quoting opponents like the American Enterprise Institute's Walter Berns, who argues the current system helps small states keep their issues in the national spotlight:
"Why should Nevada give up its votes to California?" said Berns, pointing to the proposal to build a radioactive waste storage site at Yucca Mountain, which is widely opposed in Nevada. "That's a state interest that's not likely to survive in the case of a national popular vote. If you ask me where that stuff should go, I'm likely to say, What better place than in the desert?"
But as we pointed out at the time of the bill's passage in Illinois, this argument simply doesn't hold up.
Why? Because 12 of the 13 least populous states are non-competitive in presidential elections; so the Electoral College disadvantages them already. Also important to remember is that the current system ensures that a shrinking number of battleground states play a role at the presidential level, which diminishes the number of issues debated and depresses turnout. Simply put, it's time for the antiquated system to go.
