Target: North Carolina
NPV has made North Carolina one of its targets for 2010. Yet North Carolina is a great example of the weakness of one of NPVâ€™s key arguments.
NPV points out that presidential candidates spend most of their time and resources in â€śbattleground states.â€ť Thatâ€™s true. But what is often ignored is that states are not permanently â€śsafeâ€ť or â€śswing.â€ť
A brochure by FairVote of North Carolina quotes Meredith College professor Clyde Frazier.
“The last time presidential candidates actively campaigned in North Carolina was 1992. Like mostÂ Americans we have become mere spectators, with no chance of influencing the outcome of the election.”
This was in June of 2007. One year later, North Carolina was a hotly contested swing state.
Even before the switch took place, the John Locke Foundationâ€™s Daren Bakst said this about NPV:
“If such a plan were passed, North Carolina will be letting out-of-state citizens decide the candidate that the state will support in Presidential elections. The legislature will be saying that the voices of North Carolinians donâ€™t matter.”
NPV would force states to ignore the will of their own citizens. In 2004 California would have cast 55 electoral votes for George W. Bush. In 2008, Texas would have cast its 34 electoral votes for Sen. Obama. The election outcomes would not have changed; would the votes of the 54% of Californians who voted for Sen. Kerry have counted more?