New York Daily News Says Thomas Golisano is a Major Backer of the National Popular Vote Plan

Ballot Access News:

According to this story in the New York Daily News, Thomas Golisano is one of the major financial backers of the movement to pass the National Popular Vote Plan bills. Golisano was the Independence Party’s gubernatorial candidate in New York in 1994, 1998, and 2002. Each time he ran, he received a larger share of the vote. In 1994, he received 217,490 votes and gave the Independence Party status as a qualified party. In 1998, when the New York Independence Party was the New York state unit of the Reform Party, he tried again and got 364,056 votes. And in 2002, he tried a third time and got 654,016 votes, which was 14.3% of the total vote cast.

3 thoughts on “New York Daily News Says Thomas Golisano is a Major Backer of the National Popular Vote Plan

  1. Fun K. Chicken

    This plan is not good for third parties and independents. Getting electoral votes is a possibility for regionally based candidates like Wallace ’68. It gives them more clout than under NPV. The Libertarians got catapulted to attention in 1972 thanks to a faithless elector; if the NPV reduced the electoral college to a formality, as it is designed to do, that would not have gotten any attention.

    A better plan is allocating electoral votes within each state proportionately. In larger states you can get an electoral vote with just 2% of the popular vote, and most states would be in play since their votes would end up being divided – thus dramatically increasing the number of battleground states and leading candidates to pay attention to the concerns of urban, suburban and rural voters alike.

    Under NPV, just a few of the largest media markets are enough to dominate the election. Smaller cities far from large metro areas, and rural areas all over the country, could then be safely ignored.

  2. paulie Post author

    In Alabama we are pushing for proportional allocation, not NPV.

    Under the current system or NPV, we get no attention because it’s not a battleground state and has none of the nation’s largest media markets

    Under proportional allocation, we’re in play.

    And with 11% of the vote someone could get an electoral vote, so that makes the stronger alt efforts (Perot, Anderson, etc) marginally more viable, so fewer people feel like they are wasting their vote.

  3. pete healey

    Of course I believe that proportional allocation would be better than NPV, I just don’t want to put any effort into anything other than direct popular nationwide election of the President.

Leave a Reply