Colorado Proposition 113: National Popular Vote

The Electoral College is from the year 1787. It’s way past time for an update.

In Brief: Passing Proposition 113 would keep Colorado as a member of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. A “yes” vote would be in support of keeping Colorado in the NPVIC, a “no” vote would support removing Colorado from the NPVIC.

Why or Why Not?: Until 2019, Colorado law required all of the state’s nine chosen Electors to cast their Electoral College votes for the winner of Colorado’s popular vote in the Presidential race. In 2019, the Colorado legislature passed and Governor Jared Polis signed into law Senate Bill 19-042, which would require Colorado’s Electors to instead vote for the winner of the national popular vote (NPV) once NPV goes into effect. But certain state bills allow opponents to file a referendum petition in efforts to overturn a law, and opponents to SB 19-042 gathered enough petition signatures to put Proposition 113 on this year’s ballot.

As the title National Popular Vote (NPV) suggests, the winner of the national popular vote would become President under NPV, but this will not be the case in 2020 no matter what happens with Proposition 113. NPV would not go into effect until enough states totaling at least 270 Electoral votes – more than half of the 538 total Electoral votes – sign on. Today, 15 states plus Washington DC are members, totaling 196 Electoral votes. If Proposition 113 fails, Colorado’s nine Electoral votes would be removed from this total, so the effort would be at 187 Electoral votes.

The NPV movement gained some publicity and momentum in 2016, when President Donald J. Trump won in the Electoral College but lost by nearly 3 million votes in the national popular vote. President George W. Bush also won in the Electoral College but lost the national popular vote in the year 2000, and over the course of U.S. history the winner in the Electoral College lost the national popular vote five times.

Individual votes carry different weights in different states, relative to Electoral votes.

Proponents of NPV say it would be fairer if each vote counted the same, no matter the person’s state of residence. This is not the case today, as the “vote weight” of individual votes relative to Electoral votes differs from state to state. For example, Colorado has a population that’s nearly 10 times that of Wyoming, but only three times the number of Electors. Look at the chart at right, and you’ll see significant differences in vote weight even between the nation’s smallest states. Colorado ranks #49 on this chart, by the way. That’s a bad ranking.

Opponents of NPV say the current Electoral College gives smaller states a stronger say in the Presidential election. The example of Wyoming and Colorado provided above also illustrates how smaller states can have more electoral power under the current system.

Richard’s Take: Vote “YES” on Proposition 113. It’s embarrassing that a person could lose the national popular vote by 3 million votes and still become President. I’ve even read some pieces saying it would be possible for Trump to lose by 5 million votes in 2020 and win in the Electoral College, which was established in 1787. This is unacceptable and it’s time for a change.

For a ton of information, read a blog post I wrote earlier this year: https://richardvalenty.com/2020/03/national-popular-vote-the-winner-ought-to-win/, but to keep it short here are my CliffsNotes observations.

Why vote Yes on 113?

• One Person, One Vote: Under NPV, everybody’s vote would count the same, no matter their state of residence.
• The Winner Wins!: I can’t say enough how embarrassing it is that a person could lose by 3 million votes and still become President. NPV would simply mean the candidate with the most popular support wins.
• Margins Would Matter: Today, most states give all their Electoral votes to the winner of the state’s popular vote, no matter the margin of victory. In 2016, California voters gave Hillary a 4 million-vote margin but she received no extra Electoral votes for the landslide victory. On the other side, Trump won all of Michigan’s Electoral votes with just more than a 10,000 vote margin. NPV would not only be more mathematical, it would also give candidates full credit for the votes they earn.
• Runner-up Votes Count: Today in most states, votes for runner-up candidates receive zero Electoral votes, in essence counting for nothing even if the race is very tight. Under NPV, these runner-up votes go into a national tally, and when added up these votes could potentially contribute to the election of a President. Briefly, this means it would be worth it for a Democrat to campaign a little harder in Texas, or a Republican to spend some time in California.
• It’s Completely Mathematical: Today, individual votes from certain state count for much more than votes from other states, relative to Electoral votes. This is called “Vote Weight,” and here’s a link to a chart showing the vast difference between states. Since Prop 113 is a Colorado ballot measure, voters should know that we rank a very poor 49th in the nation under this measure! The Electoral College is not good for Colorado right now.
• More States Would Matter in the Campaign: Today, candidates concentrate on a small number “battleground states” where polling or past history indicates a close election, since most states award all their Electoral votes to the state’s winner. This means states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin will get lots of attention, while states where the outcome is predictable will get ignored. Based on current polling, Colorado can’t be considered a battleground in 2020. Under NPV, all votes count the same, so there’s no need for a strict focus on battleground states.

Don’t Buy These Opponent Arguments:

• The U.S. Constitution DOES NOT Say How States Should Allocate Electoral Votes: There is no Constitutional requirement saying states must give all their Electoral votes to the winner of the state popular vote. Read Article 2, Section 1 and Article 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution to verify. Instead, this is a matter for state law, and we’re voting on state law with Prop 113. Remember, it’s actually Constitutional for Electors to vote for whoever they want to, although state law can create Elector voting requirements. In 2016 seven Electoral votes went to people who weren’t even on the ballot, though they were in states without laws binding their electors. The Boulder Daily Camera editorial board and the Boulder Weekly both offered readers poor logic in their recent Prop 113 editorials, saying it would be better to have a Constitutional amendment, but ignoring that there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution on this topic to amend since Electoral vote allocation is a matter of state law. The Weekly also said we should amend the Constitution “no matter how difficult that may be,” which was disappointing because the process to amend is one state, one vote – i.e. North Dakota cancels out California – and getting the 3/4 of states necessary to abolish the Electoral College would be next to impossible.
• We’ll Still Be a Republic: People will say we’re a republic, not a democracy, but NPV would not change the U.S. from a republic to a democracy. Nothing in NPV would change our form of government – it would only change the way we elect a President. We would still have a state or district-based representative Congress, plus we would still have similar representative systems within our state governments. That’s a republic.
• California Will Not Become the Only Place that Matters: California has the largest population in the nation, but it’s also got the largest number of Electoral votes. Cali voters in 2016 cast about 10.4% of the nation’s votes, while its 55 Electoral votes are about 10.2% of the nation’s total. And Cali’s votes for Hillary only accounted for about 6.4% of the nation’s votes. Mark my words – I will never hire a campaign manager who believes you can win a popular election with 6.4% of the vote. And it took adding up the totals of the 38 largest states before Hillary had enough popular votes to overtake Trump’s eventual total.
• Colorado Won’t Be Ignored: Just no. Colorado is already ranks 21st among states in population, and we’re projected to only keep growing. We’re not a small state. Hillary won the national popular vote total in 2016 by nearly the same number of votes as Coloradans cast. Back to the campaign manager thing – I won’t accept as a winning strategy ignoring a number of votes equal to the likely margin.
• The Role of Small States Won’t Change Much: There’s one big hole in the opponent arguments saying small states would be ignored under NPV – small states are already ignored unless they’re battlegrounds. It’s 110% obvious Wyoming will go Republican in 2020, so why spend any time or resources there? On the other hand, the small state of New Hampshire went Hillary by only about 0.3% in 2016, and it got lots of attention during the campaign as a likely battleground. Under NPV, it would be worth devoting resources to population centers, no matter which state they’re located in, since each vote would count the same. For comparison, Manchester, New Hampshire, is a little bigger than Boulder, Colorado, even though Boulder is obviously the center of the universe.
• It’s Not Just Trump Sour Grapes: It’s no secret I wish Trump never became President and hope he loses in 2020, but I’d respect a legitimate popular vote victory. I’m not a Republican, but there have been six Republican popular vote victories in my lifetime and I never protested any of these outcomes – Nixon twice (1968 and 1972), Reagan twice (1980 and 1984), Bush 1 in 1988, and Bush II in 2004. A GOP popular victory could easily happen again, if more than likely not in 2020. Political leanings can be cyclical, or a strong Republican candidate could go up against a flawed Democrat, or a strong minor party or unaffiliated candidate might throw a monkey wrench into the duopoly machine. I’m definitely not counting on NPV to deliver a permanent Democratic advantage, because the future’s uncertain.

By the way, vote YES on Prop 113.