Our article regarding the failed National Popular Vote proposal did not delve into the details of the two-and-half-hour floor debate. The Kennebec Journal made an attempt to, but failed drastically when they misrepresented the point legislators were trying to make.
Before delving into the KJ’s error, it’s worth noting, again the difference between a plurality of votes and a majority. A plurality simply means that one candidate received the most votes, whether that number is 10%, 20%, 40%, or any number in between. A majority means a candidate received 50% + one vote. For example, in the 2006 gubernatorial election John Baldacci won with 38% of the vote in a five-way race. He received a plurality, rather than a majority.
Many nations, and some U.S. states, require a runoff election if no candidate receives greater than 50% of the vote. In a runoff election, the top two vote-getters face each other in a subsequent round of voting. If Maine had a runoff, Baldacci would have faced Republican Chandler Woodcock, and whomever won that second round would have won the election.
During the debate over the National Popular Vote proposal, several legislators made this point. They were concerned that the NPV would encourage more presidential candidates, and that the lack of an electoral college to act as a check on this would mean that someone could get elected president with 20% of the popular vote.
However, reading the Kennebec Journal article, one would think that legislators were concerned instead about the remote possibility of an exact tie in the popular vote. Here’s the line from the KJ, with our emphasis added to the incorrect passage:
Rep. John Martin, D-Eagle Lake, who was instrumental in bringing that system online, said lawmakers were hopeful other states would follow suit — but only Nebraska did, 20 years later.
“Nobody’s going to follow us,” he said. “Clearly, that’s not in the cards.”
Several lawmakers were opposed to the bill because there was no provision for a runoff in the event of a tie. “If you want to be counting hanging chads across the country, vote for this compact,” said Rep. Lance Harvell, R-Farmington.
Indeed, the proposal does make an allowance for this unlikely event, and Representative Herb Adams (D-Portland) used this to mock the NPV. He noted that allowing for this possibility but not allowing for national recounts was an example of the impracticability of the proposal.
Of course this is especially interesting to us because traditional reporters often mock blogs. A recent Al Diamon post made this very point:
The standard response from print journalists when asked about the danger of being scooped by online news sources is that those sites simply recycle what’s already been in the newspapers.
Perhaps if the print reporters followed legislative debates more closely, it would be worth recycling their material. As it is, though, you’d often be better off just throwing it out.
