National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote (NPV) movement emerged in late 2006 and has slowly gained some steam since then. 

NPV seeks to ensure that the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide is elected president. When a state passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. 

These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact. States with electoral votes totaling 270 of the 538 electoral votes would have to pass NPV bills before the compact kicks in and any state’s bill could take effect.

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Compact ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election. The Compact is a state-based approach that preserves the Electoral College, state control of elections, and the power of the states to control how the President is elected.

The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 74 more electoral votes.  The bill has passed at least one chamber in 8 additional states with 75 more electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK).  A total of 3,408 state legislators from all 50 states have endorsed it.

The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from “winner-take-all” laws that have been enacted by state legislatures in 48 states. These laws award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state.

Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. In 2012, as shown on the map, all of the  253 general-election campaign events were in just 12 states, and two-thirds were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were completely ignored.

Here’s a map of US with state sizes based on the number of campaign events in 2012.  This is how the candidates view the relevant voters (and their issues).  Notice that 38 states are missing altogether: 

Similarly, in 2016, almost all campaign events (94%) were in the 12 states where Trump’s support was between 43% and 51%. Two-thirds of the events (273 of 399) were in just 6 states (OH, FL, VA, NC, PA, MI).

This is how the US map looks with state sizes based on the number of campaign events in 2016 (missing states received no campaign events):

State winner-take-all statutes adversely affect governance. “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Also, because of state winner-take-all statutes, five of our 45 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide.  The 2000 and 2016 elections are the most recent examples of elections in which a second-place candidate won the White House.  Near-misses are also common under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.  A shift of 59,393 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected John Kerry despite President Bush’s nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes. 

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is state law. It is not in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in 1789, and all three repealed it by 1800. It was not until the 11^th presidential election (1828) that even half the states used winner-take-all laws.

The National Popular Vote interstate compact will go into effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538).  At that time, every voter in the country will acquire a direct vote for a group of at least 270 presidential electors supporting their choice for President.  All of this group of 270+ presidential electors will be supporters of the candidate who received the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC—thus making that candidate President. 

In contrast, under the current system, a voter has a direct voice in electing only the small number of presidential electors to which their state is entitled.  Under NPV, every voter directly elects 270+ electors.

Click here for a detailed explanation of each sentence in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Bill.

Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote and at www.NationalPopularVote.com.

Learn More

Click on any of the topics below to learn more. You can also read about the numerous myths.

• Today, 48 states (all except Maine and Nebraska) have a so-called “winner-take-all” law that awards all of a state’s electors to the presidential candidate who gets the most popular votes inside each separate state.
• These winner-take-all laws are state laws—they are not part of the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all method of choosing presidential electors was never debated by the 1787 Constitutional Convention or mentioned in the Federalist Papers.
• Only three states had winner-take-all laws in the first presidential election in 1789, and all three repealed them by 1800. In 1789, electors were chosen from congressional districts in Massachusetts, from special presidential-elector districts in Virginia, and by counties in Delaware. The Governor and his Council appointed the state’s presidential electors in New Jersey. State legislatures appointed presidential electors in the other states.
• In the nation’s first competitive presidential election in 1796, Jefferson lost the Presidency by three electoral votes because presidential electors were chosen by district in the heavily Jeffersonian states of Virginia and North Carolina, and Jefferson lost one district in each state.
• On January 12, 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote James Monroe (then governor of Virginia):

“On the subject of an election by a general ticket [winner-take-all], or by districts, … all agree that an election by districts would be best, if it could be general;but while 10 states choose either by their legislatures or by a general ticket [winner-take-all],it is folly and worse than follyfor the other 6 not to do it.”

• As a result, Virginia quickly passed a winner-take-all law in time for the 1800 election—thereby assuring Jefferson of all the state’s electoral votes.
• Meanwhile, the Federalist majority in the legislature of John Adam’s home state of Massachusetts—alarmed by rising support for Jefferson in the state—repealed the state’s district system—thereby assuring John Adams of all the state’s electoral votes in 1800.
• This triggered a domino effect in which each state’s dominant political party adopted winner-take-all so that it could deliver the maximum number of electoral votes to its party’s nominee. Ten states enacted winner-take-all by 1824 when Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said:

now existing in 10 States was … not [the offspring] of any disposition to give fair play to the will of the people. It was adopted by the leading men of those states, to enable them to consolidate the vote of the State.”

• By 1836, all but one state had enacted laws specifying that their state’s voters would vote for presidential electors on a winner-take-all basis. By 1880, all states were using this system.
• In 1888, incumbent Democratic President Cleveland won the national popular vote, but lost the electoral vote. When Democrats won control of the legislature in the then-regularly-Republican state of Michigan in 1890, they replaced winner-take-all with district election of presidential electors. The Republicans challenged the Democrat’s change. In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld district elections and ruled in McPherson v. Blacker:

“The constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket [i.e., the winner-take-all rule], nor that the majority of those who exercise the elective franchise can alone choose the electors. … In short, the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.”

• The Republicans restored winner-take-all in Michigan as soon as they regained control of the state legislature.
• Maine adopted district elections for its electors in 1969, and Nebraska did so in 1992.
• Massachusetts has changed its method of appointing electors 11 times.

Contrary to what some may think, the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes decreases the political clout of small states in presidential elections.

• The eight smallest states (i.e., those with three electoral votes, including DC) together received only one of the nation’s 952 general-election campaign events in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections. In contrast, the closely divided battleground state of Wisconsin (with about the same population as the eight smallest states) received 40 events. Wisconsin received more attention despite having only 10 electoral votes—compared to 24 electoral votes for the eight states.

• Presidential candidates ignore the smallest states—not because they are small—but because they are one-party states in presidential elections. Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes political power comes from being a closely divided battleground state.
• The 13 smallest states (i.e., those with three or four electoral votes, including DC) are not predominantly Republican in presidential elections. In fact, these 13 jurisdictions have split 7-to-6 (or 8-to-5) in favor of the Democrats in all but one presidential election since 1992 (and 6-to-7 Republicans once).

• President Trump did not win the Electoral College in 2016 because of small states. All of the 13 smallest states gave their electoral votes to the same party in 2016, 2012, 2008, and 2004 (except for President Trump receiving one electoral vote in Maine by winning its 2^nd congressional district). Even if the 25 smallest states are considered, Iowa was the only state to switch parties between 2012 and 2016, and Iowa’s six electoral votes alone did not elect Trump.
• The fact that the small states are disadvantaged by the current state-by-state winner-take-all system has been long recognized by prominent officials from these states. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly small states in an effort to get state winner-take-all laws declared unconstitutional.
• Another indication that small states do not benefit from the current system is that Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia are among the 16 jurisdictions that have enacted the National Popular Vote interstate compact into law.
• The current state-by-state winner-take-all system actually shifts power from small and medium-sized states to an accidental handful of closely divided battleground states.
• A nationwide vote for President offers a way for small states to become relevant in presidential elections by making every one of their voters count directly toward the presidential candidate of their choice.

For more details, see this memo and read about the small state myths.

How would candidates campaign in a nationwide election for President in which every vote is equal and the winner is the candidate receiving the most popular votes throughout the entire United States?

Some people have speculated that a national popular vote for President would cause campaigns to concentrate disproportionately on heavily populated metropolitan areas and ignore rural areas.

However, there is no need to speculate about whether candidates would do this.

If there were any tendency for candidates to overemphasize big cities or ignore rural areas, we would see evidence of that tendency in the way campaigns are actually conducted today in the dozen or so closely divided “battleground” states where presidential campaigns take place.

Here are the facts as to how candidates actually campaigned for the votes of the 95 million people living inside the dozen closely divided battleground states:

• The biggest metro areas of the battleground states actually received a combined total of 191 general-election campaign visits— compared to 188 if visits had been based strictly on population.
• The areas outside each state’s biggest metro area received 427 visits— compared to 430 if visits had been based strictly on population.

In other words, real-world candidates hew closely to population when allocating campaign visits within battleground states—indeed they did so with almost surgical precision. Presidential candidates—advised by the nation’s most astute political strategists—campaign in this manner because every vote inside a battleground state is equal, and because the candidate receiving the most popular votes inside the state wins everything. There is no evidence that big metro areas exert any magnetic or intoxicating attraction causing candidates to concentrate disproportionately on heavily populated metropolitan areas or ignore rural areas.

For more details on how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run, see this memo.

Large cities will not dominate a national popular vote – they are simply not as large as some people think compared to the entire population of the country:

• The biggest 100 cities contain just one-sixth of the U.S. population (16%), and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
• The rural areas (i.e., places outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas) contain one-sixth of the U.S. population, and they voted 60% Republican in 2004. That is, the biggest cities are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.
• The remaining two thirds of the U.S. population live inside a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), but outside the central city. These suburban areas are evenly divided politically.

You can read more about the myths of big cities. As was discussed in the previous section, a close analogy for a national campaign is studying presidential campaigns in battleground states, where they do indeed campaign in cities, suburban and rural areas. While rural areas have lower population density, advertising and campaigning costs in those areas tend to be significantly lower than urban areas. The candidates need to win votes in all those areas to succeed overall.

Here are the number of general-election presidential campaign events (between the party convention and the general election) by state for the 2008, 2012 and 2016 elections:

Electoral votes	State	2008 events	2012 events	2016 events
9	Alabama
3	Alaska
11	Arizona			10
6	Arkansas
55	California			1
9	Colorado	20	23	19
7	Connecticut			1
3	D.C.	1
3	Delaware
29	Florida	46	40	71
16	Georgia			3
4	Hawaii
4	Idaho
20	Illinois			1
11	Indiana	9		2
6	Iowa	7	27	21
6	Kansas
8	Kentucky
8	Louisiana
4	Maine	2		3
10	Maryland
11	Massachusetts
16	Michigan	10	1	22
10	Minnesota	2	1	2
6	Mississippi			1
10	Missouri	21		2
3	Montana
5	Nebraska			2
6	Nevada	12	13	17
4	New Hampshire	12	13	21
14	New Jersey
5	New Mexico	8		3
29	New York
15	North Carolina	15	3	55
3	North Dakota
18	Ohio	62	73	48
7	Oklahoma
7	Oregon
20	Pennsylvania	40	5	54
4	Rhode Island
9	South Carolina
3	South Dakota
11	Tennessee	1
38	Texas			1
6	Utah			1
3	Vermont
13	Virginia	23	36	23
12	Washington			1
5	West Virginia	1
10	Wisconsin	8	18	14
3	Wyoming
538	Total	300	253	399

• In 2008, only 3 of the 13 smallest states (3 or 4 electoral votes) received any of the 300 general-election campaign events. The closely divided battleground state of New Hampshire received 12 events. Maine (which awards electoral votes by congressional district) received 2 events. The District of Columbia received one event. All the other states in this group were ignored. The small states are ignored not because they are small, but because (except for New Hampshire), they are one-party states in presidential elections.
• In 2008, only 7 of the 25 smallest states (7 or fewer electoral votes) received any of the general-election campaign events. New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada each received a substantial number of events (12, 7, and 12, respectively). New Mexico (a battleground state at the time) received 8 events. West Virginia and the District of Columbia received 1 event each. All the other small states in this group were ignored.
• In 2012, only 1 of the 13 smallest states (3 or 4 electoral votes) received any of the 253 general-election campaign events, namely the closely divided battleground state of New Hampshire. All the other states in this group were ignored.
• In 2012, only 3 of the 25 smallest states (7 or fewer electoral votes) received any of the general-election campaign events. All the other small states were ignored. The 3 states that received attention were the closely divided battleground states of New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada. All the other states in this group were ignored.
• In 2016, only 2 of the 13 smallest states (3 or 4 electoral votes) received any of the 399 general-election campaign events. New Hampshire received 21 because it was a closely divided battleground state. Maine (which awards electoral votes by congressional district) received 3 campaign events because its 2^nd congressional district was closely divided (and, indeed, Trump carried it). All the other states in this group were ignored.
• In 2016, only 9 of the 25 smallest states (7 or fewer electoral votes) received any general-election campaign events. New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada received attention because they were closely divided battleground states. Maine and Nebraska (which award electoral votes by congressional district) received some attention, since one of their congressional districts was closely divided. New Mexico received some attention (from the Republican campaign only) because former New Mexico Governor Johnson was running for President and it appeared his strong home-state support might make the state competitive. Utah received some attention from Republicans because the McMullin candidacy might have made the state competitive. Connecticut and Mississippi also received one campaign event. All the other small states in this group were ignored.

Another way to look at why states are ignored in presidential elections is to see which states consistently vote for one party or the other. This table shows that 16 states voted Democratic and 22 states voted Republican in all five presidential elections from 2000–2016. Because of the winner-take-all approach that states use to assign their electoral votes, these states, plus some of the others, are almost certain to deliver all their electoral votes to one candidate or the other, and therefore are ignored by the candidates.

Dem 5/5 16 states	Dem 4/5 5 states	Dem 3/5 4 states	Dem 2/5 2 states	Dem 1/5 2 states	Dem 0/5 22 states
CA (55)	MI (16)	VA (13)	FL (29)	IN (11)	AL (9)
CT (7)	NH (4)	CO (9)	OH (18)	NC (15)	AK (3)
DE (3)	NM (5)	NV (6)			AR (6)
DC (3)	PA (20)	IA (6)			AZ (11)
HI (4)	WI (10)				GA (16)
IL (20)					ID (4)
MA (11)					KS (6)
ME (4)					KY (8)
MD (10)					LA (8)
MN (10)					MO (10)
NJ (14)					MS (6)
NY (29)					MT (3)
OR (7)					NE (5)
RI (4)					ND (3)
VT (3)					OK (7)
WA (12)					SC (9)
					SD (3)
					TN (11)
					TX (38)
					UT (6)
					WY (3)
					WV (5)
196 EV	55 EV	34 EV	47 EV	26 EV	180 EV

Note: The number of electoral votes shown are for 2012, 2016, and 2020 elections. DC is counted as a state for purposes of this chart.

The states are listed below in order of Romney’s 2012 percentage—with the most Republican (red) states at the top. All of the 253 General-Election Campaign Events in 2012 occurred in states where Romney’s percentage of the two-party vote was between 45% and 51%.

The second column shows the total number of general-election campaign events for each state (out of a nationwide total of 253).

The only states that received any campaign events (second column) and any significant ad money (third column) were the 12 states (shown in black in the middle of the table) where the Romney received between 45% and 51% of the vote—that is, within 3 points of his nationwide percentage of 48%. Only 8 states received more than a handful of campaign events.

Only 1 of the 13 smallest states (with 3 or 4 electoral votes) received any of the 253 general-election campaign events, namely the closely divided battleground state of New Hampshire. All the other states in this group were ignored. Only 3 of the 25 smallest states (with 7 or fewer electoral votes) received any of the general-election campaign events. All the other small states were ignored. The 3 states that received attention were the closely divided battleground states of New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada.

The fourth column in the table shows donations from each state (scroll the table left to see all the columns).

	Romney Percent	Campaign events	TV ad spending	Donations	State	Romney (R)	Obama (D)	R-Margin	D-Margin	R-EV	D-EV
	75%	0	$0	$11,230,092	Utah	740,600	251,813	488,787		6
	71%	0	$0	$2,225,204	Wyoming	170,962	69,286	101,676		3
	67%	0	$1,300	$7,129,393	Oklahoma	891,325	443,547	447,778		7
	66%	0	$290	$3,586,883	Idaho	420,911	212,787	208,124		4
	64%	0	$100	$1,985,666	WV	417,584	238,230	179,354		5
	62%	0	$0	$3,296,533	Arkansas	647,744	394,409	253,335		6
	62%	0	$400	$6,079,673	Kentucky	1,087,190	679,370	407,820		8
	61%	0	$80	$6,736,196	Alabama	1,255,925	795,696	460,229		9
	61%	0	$0	$4,796,947	Kansas	692,634	440,726	251,908		6
	61%	0	$0	$3,128,691	Nebraska	475,064	302,081	172,983		5
	60%	0	$346,490	$844,129	ND	188,320	124,966	63,354		3
	60%	0	$1,440	$11,967,542	Tennessee	1,462,330	960,709	501,621		11
	59%	0	$3,990	$7,510,687	Louisiana	1,152,262	809,141	343,121		8
	59%	0	$1,810	$1,267,192	SD	210,610	145,039	65,571		3
	58%	0	$2,570	$64,044,620	Texas	4,569,843	3,308,124	1,261,719		38
	57%	0	$0	$2,153,869	Alaska	164,676	122,640	42,036		3
	57%	0	$0	$2,295,005	Montana	267,928	201,839	66,089		3
	56%	0	$0	$3,525,145	Mississippi	710,746	562,949	147,797		6
	55%	0	$40,350	$14,631,204	Arizona	1,233,654	1,025,232	208,422		11
	55%	0	$300	$8,210,564	Indiana	1,420,543	1,152,887	267,656		11
	55%	0	$127,560	$11,512,255	Missouri	1,482,440	1,223,796	258,644		10
	55%	0	$710	$6,686,788	SC	1,071,645	865,941	205,704		9
	54%	0	$6,020	$21,906,923	Georgia	2,078,688	1,773,827	304,861		16
	51%	3	$80,000,000	$18,658,894	NC	2,270,395	2,178,391	92,004		15
	50%	40	$175,776,780	$56,863,167	Florida	4,162,341	4,235,965		73,624		29
	48%	73	$148,000,000	$20,654,423	Ohio	2,661,407	2,827,621		166,214		18
	48%	36	$127,000,000	$32,428,002	Virginia	1,822,522	1,971,820		149,298		13
	47%	23	$71,000,000	$20,695,557	Colorado	1,185,050	1,322,998		137,948		9
	47%	27	$52,194,330	$4,780,400	Iowa	730,617	822,544		91,927		6
	47%	13	$55,000,000	$6,717,552	Nevada	463,567	531,373		67,806		6
	47%	13	$34,000,000	$4,389,577	NH	329,918	369,561		39,643		4
	47%	5	$31,000,000	$27,661,702	Pennsylvania	2,680,434	2,990,274		309,840		20
	47%	18	$40,000,000	$10,011,235	Wisconsin	1,410,966	1,620,985		210,019		10
	46%	1	$0	$11,112,922	Minnesota	1,320,225	1,546,167		225,942		10
	45%	1	$15,186,750	$19,917,206	Michigan	2,115,256	2,564,569		449,313		16
	45%	0	$1,162,000	$5,770,738	New Mexico	335,788	415,335		79,547		5
	44%	0	$460	$10,463,528	Oregon	754,175	970,488		216,313		7
	42%	0	$195,610	$3,452,126	Maine	292,276	401,306		109,030		4
	42%	0	$0	$23,600,404	Washington	1,290,670	1,755,396		464,726		12
	41%	0	$330	$18,644,901	Connecticut	634,892	905,083		270,191		7
	41%	0	$0	$2,141,203	Delaware	165,484	242,584		77,100		3
	41%	0	$270	$107,928,359	Illinois	2,135,216	3,019,512		884,296		20
	41%	0	$0	$24,062,220	New Jersey	1,478,088	2,122,786		644,698		14
	38%	0	$320	$137,804,736	California	4,839,958	7,854,285		3,014,327		55
	38%	0	$0	$35,927,766	Mass	1,188,314	1,921,290		732,976		11
	37%	0	$1,120	$25,579,933	Maryland	971,869	1,677,844		705,975		10
	36%	0	$55,600	$76,743,682	New York	2,485,432	4,471,871		1,986,439		29
	36%	0	$0	$2,226,963	Rhode Island	157,204	279,677		122,473		4
	32%	0	$0	$2,732,572	Vermont	92,698	199,239		106,541		3
	28%	0	$0	$3,217,863	Hawaii	121,015	306,658		185,643		4
	7%	0	$0	$16,670,938	DC	21,381	267,070		245,689		3
	48.0%	253	$831,106,980	$937,609,770	Total	60,930,782	65,897,727			206	332

http://archive3.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/presidential-elections/2012chart

In 2016, there were 399 general-election campaign events. Almost all campaign events (94%) were in the 12 states where Trump’s support was between 47% and 55% of the two-party vote. Two-thirds of the events (273 of 399) were in just 6 states (OH, FL, VA, NC, PA, MI).

12 battleground states in 2016 accounting for 94% of the campaign events (375 of 399)

Trump %	Events	State	Trump	Clinton	R-Margin	D-Margin	R-EV	D-EV	Population
55%	21	Iowa	800,983	653,669	147,314		6		3,053,787
54%	48	Ohio	2,841,006	2,394,169	446,837		18		11,568,495
52%	55	North Carolina	2,362,631	2,189,316	173,315		15		9,565,781
52%	10	Arizona	1,252,401	1,161,167	91,234		11		6,412,700
51%	71	Florida	4,617,886	4,504,975	112,911		29		18,900,773
50%	14	Wisconsin	1,405,284	1,382,536	22,748		10		5,698,230
50%	54	Pennsylvania	2,970,733	2,926,441	44,292		20		12,734,905
50%	22	Michigan	2,279,543	2,268,839	10,704		16		9,911,626
49.8%	21	New Hampshire	345,790	348,526		2,736		4	1,321,445
49%	17	Nevada	512,058	539,260		27,202		6	2,709,432
47%	19	Colorado	1,202,484	1,338,870		136,386		9	5,044,930
47%	23	Virginia	1,769,443	1,981,473		212,030		13	8,037,736
51%	375		22,360,242	21,689,241			125	32	94,959,840

Notes: (1) Trump percentage is of the two-party vote (2) Population is from 2010 census.

Only 2 of the 13 smallest states (with 3 or 4 electoral votes) received any of the 399 general-election campaign events. New Hampshire received 21 because it was a closely divided battleground state. Maine (which awards electoral votes by congressional district) received 3 campaign events because its 2nd congressional district was closely divided (and, indeed, Trump carried it). All the other states in this group were ignored.

Only 9 of the 25 smallest states (with 7 or fewer electoral votes) received any general-election campaign events. New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada received attention because they were closely divided battleground states. Maine and Nebraska (which award electoral votes by congressional district) received some attention since just one of their congressional districts was closely divided. New Mexico received some attention (from the Republican campaign only) because former New Mexico Governor Johnson was running for President and it appeared his strong home-state support might make the state competitive. Utah received some attention from Republicans because the McMullin candidacy might have made the state competitive. Connecticut and Mississippi also received one campaign event. All the other small states in this group were ignored.

39 spectator states in 2016 accounting for 6% of the campaign events (24 of 399)

Trump %	Events	State	Trump	Clinton	R-Margin	D-Margin	R-EV	D-EV	Population
76%	0	Wyoming	174,419	55,973	118,446		3		568,300
72%	0	West Virginia	489,371	188,794	300,577		5		1,859,815
70%	0	North Dakota	216,794	93,758	123,036		3		675,905
69%	0	Oklahoma	949,136	420,375	528,761		7		3,764,882
68%	0	Idaho	409,055	189,765	219,290		4		1,573,499
66%	0	South Dakota	227,721	117,458	110,263		3		819,761
66%	0	Kentucky	1,202,971	628,854	574,117		8		4,350,606
64%	0	Alabama	1,318,255	729,547	588,708		9		4,802,982
64%	0	Arkansas	684,872	380,494	304,378		6		2,926,229
64%	0	Tennessee	1,522,925	870,695	652,230		11		6,375,431
64%	2	Nebraska	495,961	284,494	211,467		5		1,831,825
62%	1	Utah	515,231	310,676	204,555		6		2,770,765
61%	0	Kansas	671,018	427,005	244,013		6		2,863,813
61%	0	Montana	279,240	177,709	101,531		3		994,416
60%	0	Louisiana	1,178,638	780,154	398,484		8		4,553,962
60%	2	Indiana	1,557,286	1,033,126	524,160		11		6,501,582
60%	2	Missouri	1,594,511	1,071,068	523,443		10		6,011,478
59%	1	Mississippi	700,714	485,131	215,583		6		2,978,240
58%	0	Alaska	163,387	116,454	46,933		3		721,523
57%	0	South Carolina	1,155,389	855,373	300,016		9		4,645,975
55%	1	Texas	4,685,047	3,877,868	807,179		38		25,268,418
53%	3	Georgia	2,089,104	1,877,963	211,141		16		9,727,566
49%	2	Minnesota	1,323,232	1,367,825		44,593		10	5,314,879
48%	3	Maine	335,593	357,735		22,142	1	3	1,333,074
45%	3	New Mexico	319,667	385,234		65,567		5	2,067,273
44%	0	Delaware	185,127	235,603		50,476		3	900,877
44%	0	Oregon	782,403	1,002,106		219,703		7	3,848,606
43%	1	Connecticut	673,215	897,572		224,357		7	3,581,628
43%	0	New Jersey	1,601,933	2,148,278		546,345		14	8,807,501
42%	0	Rhode Island	180,543	252,525		71,982		4	1,055,247
41%	1	Washington	1,221,747	1,742,718		520,971		12	6,753,369
41%	1	Illinois	2,146,015	3,090,729		944,714		20	12,864,380
38%	0	New York	2,819,557	4,556,142		1,736,585		29	19,421,055
36%	0	Maryland	943,169	1,677,928		734,759		10	5,789,929
35%	0	Massachusetts	1,090,893	1,995,196		904,303		11	6,559,644
35%	0	Vermont	95,369	178,573		83,204		3	630,337
34%	1	California	4,483,814	8,753,792		4,269,978		55	37,341,989
33%	0	Hawaii	128,847	266,891		138,044		4	1,366,862
4%	0	D.C.	12,723	282,830		270,107		3	601,723
48%	24		40,624,892	44,164,411			181	200	214,825,346

Notes: (1) Trump percentage is of the two-party vote (2) Population is from 2010 census.

Next Statewide Election
May 19, 2020 Primary​ Election

“Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.” –Franklin Roosevelt

In 2020 there will be two major elections at the national level: the primary, and the General Election. One of the key platforms of the League of Women Voters is voting: access to the ballot, fair and transparent elections, voter participation at the highest level.

Voting Rights are important in every election, especially a presidential election. The LWV doesn’t endorse any candidate or political party. Instead, the LWV seeks to promote voting as a civil, political, and democratic right for everyone.

As the LWV states, “Voting is a fundamental right and all eligible voters should have the equal opportunity to exercise that right. We are dedicated to ensuring that our elections remain free, fair and accessible.”

voting in Oregon

Here in Oregon, voting is done completely by mail. See our pages for further information on the voting process. You should also visit the Oregon Secretary of State’s web page to check your registration status.

Did you know?

Registering to vote in Oregon is quick and simple. Oregonians can register:

Online using My Vote.

By mail using a voter registration form​ (PDF). This form also is available en Español.

In person at the county elections office.

The deadline to register is 21 days before Election Day.

To register to vote in Oregon, you must be a U.S. citizen, an Oregon resident and at least 16 years old. Online registration requires a current Oregon drivers license or state ID card.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Oregon has the most convenient voting system in the country. Since adopting vote-by-mail, Oregon consistently ranks as a national leader in voter turnout.

Registered voters receive a ballot two to three weeks before an election, giving time to research issues or candidates.

Voters also receive an official ballot to complete and insert into the security envelope which is placed in the ballot return envelope and signed by the voter. The ballot return envelope can be stamped and mailed or dropped off at any official drop box​ across the state. If a voter casts their ballot after the Wednesday before an election, the ballot should be left at a drop box site to ensure it’s counted.

Ballots must be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day.​​​​​​​​

You should update your registration if you move, change your name or mailing address, or want to select or change a political party.​

You can update your voter registration information, until 8 p.m. on Election Day and still cast a ballot. However, if your registration is updated close to an election, your ballot might have to be issued at the county elections office.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Students attending an out-of-state college or voters traveling during an election can still receive a ballot.

Protecting the Integrity of Elections

Oregon has a proud tradition of open, accessible and fair elections. Voter fraud is rare but taken seriously.

If you believe someone has violated Oregon elections law, contact the Elections Division. Every complaint will be investigated, and violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Oregon supports unparalleled transparency. Contact your county elections office to observe the election process.​​​​​​

We’re in the news today! We are happy to see this story in the local Herald & News describing our recent efforts on our 100th anniversary celebration.

herald & news : November 7, 2019 Link here.

Dust off those old family recipes. The League of Women’s Voters of Klamath County is gearing up to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote in 1920. One way they’re celebrating the anniversary is with the publishing of a cookbook containing recipes submitted by locals either with a family tie or worthy of passing down to future generations.

The deadline to submit the recipes is Nov. 25, and the cookbook will go on sale Feb. 1, 2020 for $20. The book will be called “The Great Fight to Win the Vote.” Find the order form HERE.

“Cooking was a traditionally female domain. We’re talking about women’s history and one part of women’s history was cooking. It was always a way to share among family, friends and communities and I think just remembering good cooking, interesting recipes, old recipes, things that women shared, again, I know that’s maybe not the way we look at it anymore but it certainly was for a very long time,” said Emily Strauss, board member of the LWVKC. “It was a way of women working together.”

“It was a way of meeting with other women,” said Sue Fortune, president of LWVKC.

The organization is aiming for 100 recipes and had 82 as of Wednesday, said Leslie Lowe, LWVKC treasurer. They can accept as many as 150.

People wanting to submit recipes can email them to lenny5155@aol.com, along with a couple of sentences about why the recipe is significant to them.

The cookbook will also feature passages about the history of women’s right to vote and photos from the time. Funds raised from the cookbook sales will go toward other 100th anniversary events.

Although the league has the word “Women” in its name, Lowe said they’re not limiting recipes or involvement in their events to only women. Men are also welcome to participate in the events and in the League of Women Voters, as Lowe said the organization has expanded to include all voters and voter education in general. Lowe said they already have a few recipes submitted from men in the community, including one from Klamath County Commissioner Derrick DeGroot. The recipe is one of his Oma’s — which is Dutch for grandmother — for Loempia, a kind of deep-fried spring roll which he said is a traditional dish from the Netherlands, introduced by Indonesian immigrants.

“The League of Women Voters started just for women, but it has become the League of All Voters,” Lowe said.

According to the group’s website, “LWVKC joins more than 700 other local and state chapters to celebrate these historic milestones.”

For more information on the League of Women Voters visit lwvklamath.org. Those looking to buy a cookbook can call Lowe or email her at inharmony46@charter.net.

The League of Women Voters is celebrating its 100th anniversary as a national organization in February of 2020 and in August will celebrate the anniversary of the 19th Amendment.