Whose Swing Bites The Most?
The Article: Paul Begala On Which Swing Voters Will Pick The President by Paul Begala in The Daily Beast.
The Text: We donāt have a national election for president. We all know that. Thanks to one of the few boneheaded moves by the Founding Fathers, we have 50 statewide elections for presidential electors, who in turn pick our president. The Electoral College means that if you live in California or New York or Illinois (all certain to break for Obama) or Texas (overwhelmingly Republican), your vote essentially doesnāt matter. So right off the bat, 95.4 million Americans can be taken for grantedānearly a third of our population.
And thatās just for starters. If you live in Alaska, youāre in the bag for Romney; Hawaii, mahalo, is for Barack. Utah is Romneyland, and Massachusetts, where Romney was allegedly governor, is solidly for Obama. The truth is, the election has already been decided in perhaps as many as 44 states, with the final result coming down to the half-dozen states that remain: Virginia and Florida on the Atlantic Coast, Ohio and Iowa in the Midwest, and New Mexico and Colorado in the Southwest.
But of course not everyone in those closely divided states will make an electoral difference. We can almost guarantee that 48 percent of each stateās voters will go for Obama, and another 48 percent will decide for Romney. And so the whole shootinā match comes down to around 4 percent of the voters in six states.
I did the math so you wonāt have to. Four percent of the presidential vote in Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado is 916,643 people. Thatās it. The American president will be selected by fewer than half the number of people who paid to get into a Houston Astros home game last yearāand my beloved Astros sucked last year; they were the worst team in baseball. Put another way, there are about as many people in San Jose as there are swing voters who will decide this election. Thatās not even as many people as attended Puerto Rican cockfights in the past yearā-although there are obvious similarities.
And, oh, the lengths we will go to reach those magical 916,643. The political parties, the campaigns, the super PACs (one of which, the pro-Obama Priorities USA Action, I advise), will spend in excess of $2 billionāmostly just to reach those precious few. That works out to $2,181.87 per voterāor as Mitt Romney might call it, pocket change.
Who are these people, these few, these proud? Well, pollsters tell us swing voters are mostly women. They are youngerāwhich blows away the myth that the president has the youth vote locked up. Older voters, like older consumers, are just more set in their ways. Young people are more persuadable about nearly everything. Many swing voters have a high-school diploma but no college degree. And a chunk of them are Hispanic.
So forget about your Uncle Carl, the older white guy who complains endlessly about Obama being a Muslim Marxist. And ignore Aunt Clara, who pines for single-payer health care and is suspicious of Romneyās religion. Focus instead on their daughter-in-law Carlotta, the younger Latina who hasnāt been able to afford college because sheās working her rear off and raising kids. Romneyās message to her is āObama messed up your life. He has squandered billions and left you worse off. Iām a businessman and I can set things right.ā So far, so good.
Where Romney veers off course is when he personally attacks the president, and especially when he refuses to offer a clear economic program for the future. It may be enough to be the anti-Obama, but I wouldnāt bet the presidency on it.
Obamaās message to that same high-school-educated Latina working mom is āI inherited a mess. Weāve begun to turn things around, saving the auto industry, passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and creating 4.3 million jobs. But if we elect Romney, we will go back to the old, failed policies of more tax cuts for the rich (did I mention he made millions laying people off?) and gutting education, Medicare, and everything else the middle class depends on.ā Where Obama risks losing this swing voter is when he begins to brag about his accomplishments. When times are tough, people donāt want to hear about what a great job youāve done. They want to know what youāre going to do for them. Here again, the forward-looking agenda is critical.
Donāt expect this swing voter to move any time soon. She knows the election isnāt until November, and sheās not riveted to every gaffe and poll like political junkies are. Sheāll watch clips of the conventions, snippets of the debates, and on Nov. 6 sheāll ask herself which candidate can fix our economy for middle-class families like hers. All in all, my guess is she would prefer if the candidates canceled their commercials and just gave her the $2,181.87.
Presidential elections don’t have to be this way.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the
candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every
vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in
presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue
state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states
where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in
more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and
ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by
states possessing a majority of the electoral votes- enough electoral
votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from
the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who
receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The
bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the
Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for
President.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure
democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote
on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United
States would still be a representative republic, in which citizens
continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes
by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in
the periods between elections.
Historically, virtually all of the
major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending
the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote
and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by
state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about
20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a
state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the
most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10%
undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among
Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every
demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in
closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI –
73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM- 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA –
78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes):
AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH –
69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT –
75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,,
KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA –
74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT –
74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans
believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The
bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill
has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49%
of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc