Here is the latest map.
After 2000, I felt a bit better about the Electoral College. Without it, I thought, we’d have several Floridas and litigate every close state.
But then we had a historically popular nominee, and now the GOP has a historically unpopular nominee.
My vote barely counts. I’m just helping to build a Clinton win in Massachusetts. I’m told it’s awful to live in a swing state at this time (brutal ads on both sides), but I’m tired of my primary vote barely counting and my presidential vote hardly counting at all.
Make every vote count. Can the Electoral College. With all due respect to the founders, they were too beholden to their home states. As they say in Hamilton, welcome to the present, we’re running a real nation.
UPDATE — Why now, may you ask? Mainly because of the approaching election, but also because last night I heard this.
McMullin, 40, is on 11 state ballots and is a registered write-in in 23 other states. His campaign hopes to appear on up to 40 or 45 ballots as a write-in or official candidate by Election Day. “If no candidate achieves a majority in the Electoral College, then the top three finishers in the race go the House,” McMullin told us today. “This if very difficult to do, we know that, and we knew that before getting into the race. We think it’s not possible for us to win 270 votes ourselves, but that’s the best opportunity we have. It depends on how close the race is between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump — and right now, it isn’t very close. I don’t think it is likely to be close.” Even while he acknowledges the unlikely path to victory, McMullin also pointed out his positive recent polling results in Utah and, in his words, “the Mountain West.”
I don’t think this would happen (HRC would have to fall short of 270), but if it ever did, what an insane, undemocratic result that would be.
stomv says
From a POTUS perspective, I don’t give a damn about the voter suppression tactics employed in Texas, Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, or Tennessee. Those states will assign their EVs to Mr. Trump no matter what the voter rules, which means their prohibiting convicted felons to vote, their requiring ID, their polls spread too thin and lines too long in Democratic areas, etc. don’t change the outcome of the POTUS election.
Voting rules are set almost entirely by individual states, and enforced at the state and local level. Until the rules of voting: eligibility, ID requirement, felon status, time of open polls, absentee and early voting rules, ballot eligibility, ballot counting equipment, density of polling location, expected wait time, and Lord knows what else are standardized federally, I don’t want to lose the Electoral College because it is the Electoral College that prevents a few very red states from deeply skewing the popular choice, thereby undermining the outcome.
I’m not opposed to a popular vote, but we need to standardize the way we conduct a popular vote first.
mvymvy says
The only way to achieve totally uniform national rules governing elections would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to eliminate state control of elections and establish uniform federal election rules. Elimination of state control of elections is not seen as a politically realistic possibility
ryepower12 says
dangle money in front of states to enact good practices.
Jasiu says
Given that, in recent days, the decentralized nature of the US Presidential election has been used as a defense of the ability to “rig” it, this probably isn’t going to happen.
Trickle up says
Just like Congress imposed the Voting Rights Act on states. It (Congress) could for instance ban ballotless voting schemes, require extended voting hours, and impose other uniform requirements. Probably even regulate the form of voting, e.g. requite instant runoff.
I’m not predicting it, just saying it would already be constitutional.
Peter Porcupine says
Please remember, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a Republic. I understand coastal urban progressives are impatient to implement their agenda whether those is it being enforced on are agreeable or not, but it is a form of tyranny that you would object to if you were to grease the skids and find yourselves in a minority,
What would heal the travesty of Clinton voters negating my vote in a radically blue state would be to make ALL states purple by apportioning EC votes like Maine and Nebraska. It makes EVERY state a battleground and makes the final result more reflective without losing our governance as a republic.
JimC says
n/t
stomv says
I think it’s a terrible idea for two reasons:
1. It more approximates popular vote, which makes it subject to the voter suppression I detailed above.
2. It also increases the incentive to gerrymander congressional districts!
At the very least you could ask that EVs be apportioned proportionally on the state popular vote rather than by CDs!
JimC says
1. Isn’t that an advantage?
2. Gerrymandering is a separate (though related) issue. But there’s s natural cap on the gerrymandeing in that one party can only dominate in so many places.
jconway says
Using this method, Romney beats Obama in 2012 despite losing by over 3% of the popular vote. It would be likely that Trump would win under that method this year, even if he is blown out in the popular vote. If we are going to use appeotionment we might as well switch to a parliamentary system, since the lower house vote will effectively be determining the President.
JimC says
How does Romney win? Are you assuming each state gets the same portion?
If so I agree that’s a bad idea, but I don’t think PP was suggesting that.
jconway says
Which means by congressional district, then Romney wins. Proportional by popular vote count would lead to fractional voting which is illegal under the one man, one vote rule. Especially since electors are technically persons that are elected, unless you rounded it down or up. States could be allowed to do that.
JimC says
OK thanks. Convinced.
Straight popular vote, then.
Peter Porcupine says
I knew Maine was CD, didn’t know about Nebraska – is that CD as well?
But I have no issue with EC votes being apportioned on the state’s popular vote overall. In fact, I like it better. It likely would have given Romney 4 of the 9 MA votes (JC must have numbers to make his assertions) which means that every vote really does count.
Christopher says
…which is why HRC has done a bit of campaigning in Omaha on the off chance she can peel off that CD.
jconway says
Linked here. Obama won the election by 3% and 4 million votes. Under your scenario he gains 32 electoral votes in red states but loses 96 electoral votes in blue states and ends up losing the election 273-265. And Romney carried zero congressional districts in MA, sorry my friend but this is a very blue state.
Now this is presuming every state adopts it of course. And we can’t say this result would replicate since it would change campaign strategies, but it most certainly increases the likelihood that the electoral winner loses the popular vote, possibly by a large amount.
If we adopt the Wyoming rule so that the Congressional representation is updated to account for shifts in population in the last 103 years from rural areas to urban centers, so we have 568 representatives and 668 electoral votes, I’d be more open to adopting this reform to the EC.
Though EC opponents would argue that Republicans would have to campaign in New York and California and Democrats would campaign in Texas if we had a direct popular vote, the swing states become largely irrelevant and your vote would count as much as mine in Massachusetts since every Americans vote would be weighted the same. As it should be.
Trickle up says
Obama targeted swing states because the electoral system made that the strategy. He would have run a different campaign targeting individual districts had the rules been different.
Also seems to me there would be swing and non-swing CDs under this system; Mass. would still be a flyover state.
centralmassdad says
This is similar to the “HRC would be losing against any other Republican if she ran this campaign” thing, which ignores that there would be a different campaign against a different candidate.
Peter Porcupine says
…but the argument was to DROP the CD apportionment. In which case he would have had 4 EC votes.
.
mvymvy says
An analysis of the whole number proportional plan and congressional district systems of awarding electoral votes, evaluated the systems “on the basis of whether they promote majority rule, make elections more nationally competitive, reduce incentives for partisan machinations, and make all votes count equally. . . .
Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, a congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.
For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . .”
http://www.fairvote.org/fuzzy-math-wrong-way-reforms-for-allocating-electoral-college-votes
mvymvy says
Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.
Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.
mvymvy says
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts. In 2012, the Democratic candidate would have needed to win the national popular vote by more than 7 percentage points in order to win the barest majority of congressional districts. In 2014, Democrats would have needed to win the national popular vote by a margin of about nine percentage points in order to win a majority of districts.
In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts.
Nationwide, there are now only 25 “battleground” districts that are expected to be competitive in the 2016 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 38+ states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 98% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state.
In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine’s 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President
In 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill
In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska’s reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President
After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008, the only state in the past century that has split its electoral votes between presidential candidates from two different parties,
Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and
the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.
A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any district or state or throughout the country.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
jconway says
Expanding the House would require a simple majority of the House. They determine apportionment, the House hasn’t been expanded since the 1970’s and we’ve now gone the longest stretch of time in our history without expanding it. Passing the “Wyoming rule” (House district’s will represent as many people as the largest at large district) would help mitigate against the efforts of Republican gerrymandering, rural over representation in Congress and add more EV’s to urban areas mitigating slightly against the EC.
jconway says
It’s been over a century since the House was last expanded (in 1913). The 70s were the last time the proposal was seriously considered. The biggest upside to this reform would be that it does not require a constitutional amendment. MA would gain +3 seats.
petr says
…It is unclear if you think this is a solution to the problem of the electoral college or a solution to the problems raised by the abolition of the EC…
People sometimes snipe at me when I quote heavily, but they very rarely have to tease out that portion of previous commentary to which I make reply…
jconway says
I get what you’re asking. I personally favor abolishing the EC, but recognize a constitutional amendment is a tall order these days. And you would need an amendment for changing the Senate like Bob asks. But you could pass the Wyoming Rule by a majority vote of the House, and it would add roughly 135 additional house members, mostly in urban areas reducing the disparity of representation and adding some electoral votes to more populous states.
Christopher says
…if for no other reason than it’s easy math for various fractions of the vote needed. That would bring districts down to ~.5M from ~.7M people in most cases. I also think states should have three senators thus giving every state input in its composition every biennium and due to overall population expansions.
tedf says
A note of caution. One thing this election season has taught me is to be careful about what seem like easy good-government-type reforms. Superdelegates is a good example. We might not be in the mess we are in now if the GOP had them. The collapse of party discipline in Congress due, it seems to me, to the decline in logrolling, is another example. A third example: democratization of the media leading to balkanization and increased partisanship in the news. What I’m saying is that it seems to me that the lesson of this year is that we need to work to restore the ability of the elites to channel the will of the voters and to set down markers for what’s unacceptable (on the Republican side, surely white nationalism should be unacceptable. I’ll leave the Democratic side as an exercise for the reader to avoid blowing up the thread).
Thought experiment: Suppose Trump won narrowly in the electoral college. Would it not be right, given the threat he poses to the Republic, to look to states where electors are unbound and try to flip some votes? That’s a residual purpose of the college. I hope we never have to use it, but are we really better off without it?
mvymvy says
There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party (one clear faithless elector, 15 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
jconway says
There is no way a democratic system elects a candidate like Trump. His coalition is roughly 4 out of 10 voters. When they are openly musing about rolling back votes for women and minorities, it’s proof democracy is working and preventing someone like him from getting elected. And the Constitutional severely limits what he could do were he to get elected. I’d much rather the wider public in the form of the general electorate reject his candidacy than some elite Republicans quash his nomination with super delegates. They deserve the candidate their voters selected.
Had Sanders actually won a majority of votes and pledged delegates and the super delegates threw it to Clinton, that would have been the height of insanity. It’s why the vast majority of Sanders voters accept her as the legitimately elected nominee, because she was. Had super delegates been the difference maker in her selection, I wouldn’t be voting for her.
Sanders primary should be the ultimate validate of folks who blamed Nader for spoiling the election. Had Nader run in the primary against Gore, he would’ve had a seat at the policy table and there’d have been no President Bush. Sanders showed working outside and within the system can work best when done in tandem. Super delegates would’ve invalidates that whole effort, and made every left of center challenger go outside the Democratic primary because the game would truly have been rigged.
tedf says
… about the capacity of people, in the absence of strong political and social institutions, to make really bad decisions and the grave risks a Trump presidency would pose. And I think you pay insufficient attention to the damage Trump has done to our political system just by running as the nominee.
Sanders himself has proved himself, somewhat to my surprise, to be a team player for the Democratic Party when needed. Not true of some of his surrogates. I mean, the Party agreed that he could name Cornel West to the Platform Committee, only to see West support the hapless Jill Stein in the general election?
petr says
… what connection you think exists between a particular vote counting, or not counting, and the Electoral College. Each vote counts as one amongst millions. A vote counts because it is cast. One single vote will, likely, never be dispositive of a particular outcome in any election, but whoever said it would be? Voting is a corporate act: we do it together and the only instances in which a single vote is dispositive is either monarchy or oligarchy.
I’m not convinced that is, per se, a bad thing. It seems to me an admission, if any is needed, that democracy becomes unwieldy the larger the population. I note that no one here is suggesting we run the entire country with one hugeous ‘town meeting’ in which everyone is invited and everybody gets a say. Despite the reverence with which the word ‘democracy’ is held, nobody is suggesting that much reverence. That would be unwieldy in the extreme. Ok, so we need to, perhaps, have as much reverence for the word ‘republic’ as we do for the word ‘democracy’. States are either a way of subdividing the population or of cohering sub-populations into a larger population (if those things aren’t exactly the same thing…) and this, as the founders noted, can be used as a check against the various unpredictable flailings of the popular vote.
So, I don’t think the Electoral College needs to be done away with, but i would suggest one tweak: the Electoral College is not empowered to overturn any election where voter turnout exceeds 75%. I’m enough of a republican to suggest the opposite also: that the Electoral College be solely empowered with the election if voter turnout falls below 45%. In between those parameters, the EC works as it does now. If you want more democracy, use it. If you don’t, then don’t complain when it is taken away from you…
mvymvy says
The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The National Popular Vote bill would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the presidential candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don’t matter to presidential candidates.
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
jconway says
Two points you make invalidate the NPV Compact:
Why? This isn’t a selling point. It’s a way to nullify a constitutional
provision without attaining the proper number of state legislatures or Congressional majorities needed to adopt the change. It’s sneaky, and I would hate the precedence it would cause on that front
Secondly, this means in the 2004 election my vote in Massachusetts gets transferred without my consent to Bush electors, giving him a far wider electoral mandate than he deserves. It essentially invalidates my popular vote and my electoral vote as a Bay Stater for Kerry. It means the “don’t blame me I’m from Massachusetts” pride in voting for McGovern would’ve been nullified by 50 states for Nixon when he didn’t in mine.
Sorry, either get rid of the electoral college entirely, the right way, or make other reforms like expanding the House that improve its democratic accountability. I am for both of those reforms. Recognizing the high hurdle of a constitutional amendment in this day and age, I’d rather expand the number of electors populous states get via a simple House majority in a way that is constitutional using powers traditional to that institution. A plurality of state legislators can’t nullify a constitutional provision contained in the Articles, let alone an amendment, but a 2/3’rds majority can.
Christopher says
…while nationalizing the election with the same laws and standards, but do it right per amendment rather than NPV. The other two ideas in Bob’s promotion are horrible (not to mention you CAN’T deprive equal suffrage in the Senate). The Senate is supposed to represent states as units and NOT individuals and I sometimes regret the 17th amendment which made that distinction less obvious. I also want lifetime SCOTUS appointments so justices assume that is the last position they will hold and not be tempted to angle for the next gig.
Christopher says
…making the constitution more democratic is NOT a goal I share. I very much support a mixed constitution with some elements more democratic than others.
Bob Neer says
🙂
jconway says
I’ve come around to SCOTUS term limits. They would reduce the stakes of confirmation giving every party a shot and allowing younger justices to come on.
SomervilleTom says
I think term limits are a terrible idea.
I offer the 22nd Amendment as Exhibit A. If that had been law when FDR took office, Wendell Willke would probably have been president and we would probably be speaking German. If the 22nd Amendment had not been in place, Bill Clinton would have been elected president in 2000. The disastrous Iraq invasion of 2003 would not have happened, nor would the Great Recession of 2008 have happened.
America is under siege from within by an unprincipled, deceitful, morally and ethically bankrupt right wing, exemplified today by their chosen candidate. We should not relax the constraints that protect the sanctity of the SCOTUS. Better would be to use all the means available to us to rid the Senate and House of these deplorable GOP reprobates, and every parliamentary means possible to limit their political terror in the meantime.
If we allow the lynch mob of anti-American thugs that have hijacked the GOP to accomplish this, they will have won.
jconway says
I support them for SCOTUS and locally for the legislative leadership. But sure, without the 22nd Obama would be winning a 40 state landslide against Trump if he wanted to take him on.
Two quibbles:
You’re being hard on Wilkie who ran as an internationalist despite substantial pressure and electoral advantages to run as an isolationist. He ended up serving FDR and his country faithfully as a war time production czar until his untimely death.
Also you’re being revisionist on Bill Clinton who supported the Iraq War and signed the Iraq Liberation Act which was its legal underpinning. We know Gore wouldn’t have gone in, it less clear about Clinton. Though I agree a third term would’ve been better than either the Bush or Gore presidencies.
mike_cote says
According to Wikipedia, Oklahoma and Massachusetts voted against the 22nd Amendment, so you are in step with the people of Massachusetts when the Amendment was put forward.
stomv says
Without the prospect of running for a third term, Obama was free to govern without an eye on his reelection. If he could have run for a third term, he may very well have made different decisions, and, even if not, the media, vox populi, and nerds like us would have certainly observed, discussed, and reported on current events differently.
All of which is to say there’s no way to know how Obama would do in a race for a third term if the 22nd amendment was repealed four years ago.
mvymvy says
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College – more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Instead, By 2020, the National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It’s 61% of the way to going into effect.
jconway says
In a de facto manner, it nullifies Article II, Section I, Clause II of the constitution making it practically irrelevant. Doing so without going through the proper channel of making a constitutional change. I get that it’s an end run, and likely would be legal, but then my vote in MA is then subsumed by the popular vote. I want our dissent against future presidents to stay on the books if we are keeping an electoral system. Which I agree we shouldn’t be, so the simpler way is to get rid of it.
Trickle up says
the Constitution provides that states have exactly the power to do this.
Otherwise the pact would not be constitutional.
So maybe argue on this one on the merits. Otherwise you are guilty of picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution are constitutional!
petr says
… I do not think that the states have the power to render the Electoral College vestigial. The states have the power to choose their electors. It’s not clear that they have the power to tell them exactly how to vote… despite the fact of many states treating in just that manner. The NPV proposal assumes that power, but incorrectly, IMHO. Most electors nowadays are members of state political parties, a notion that would horrify some of the men who first envisioned the Electoral College, and the legality of which, under a strict reading of the Constitution, is likely just as suspect.
Trickle up says
someday, if a case along these lines makes it to the Supreme Court.
But you make a very cogent argument in the meantime!
Trickle up says
electoral-college disputes would be settled by Congress in special joint session. Hard to see the path to the Court. However, the Court has ruled that electors are acting as state, not federal, functionaries, a point supporting the compact.
Bob Neer says
Perhaps a simple majority of states would be enough. Or just a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate. And then make the other changes.
🙂
petr says
… because you won’t be when Orrin Hatch uses that to easily get his balance budget amendment in place. Or somebody uses it to put in a national version of prop 2 – 1/2…
The constitution should be difficult to change, arduous even.
jconway says
Eric Posner has a good piece on this topic.
centralmassdad says
Looked at the electoral college map lately? Trump, even while machine-gunning his own feet, is still has 22 states. And he wants to amend the 1st Amendment to restrict freedom of the press. That’s something you want to rest on tenuous majorities in AZ, IA, OH and NC? No thanks.
jconway says
It takes it from 2/3rd’s to a simple supermajority (60%). And the increased frequency of viable amendments would likely improve the political process and depoliticize the court. As of now, states numbering just 2% of the country could be enough to kill an amendment. Unlike Lessig’s convention or a simple majority, it wouldn’t put the cherished amendments at risk. It would make it slightly easier to pass more. Even losing fights like the ERA galvanized a generation of citizens to take ownership over their constitution, we should want more not less of that.
SomervilleTom says
If the current polls showing something on the order of forty percent support for Donald Trump are even remotely accurate, then I have no interest in making it easier for the deplorables among them to “take ownership over their constitution”.
I watched a clip last night on either CNN or MSNBC showing some Donald Trump supporters objecting to Barack Obama campaigning for Hillary Clinton, saying that “this never happens”, “shouldn’t be allowed”, and so on. The fact that presidents routinely do this (including clips the Ronald Reagan campaigning for George H. Bush) don’t matter.
Similarly, MSNBC showed how a now-infamous clip of two men in Black Panther regalia during the 2008 campaign — men who the George W. Bush Justice Department chose not to prosecute. Under the lies of Fox News, that morphed into the 2012 campaign, with a “corrupt” Justice Department under Eric Holder releasing these “armed thugs” (with a thinly-veiled reference to the race of Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama).
I do not want to see a generation of “galvanized” citizens take away abortion rights, gay marriage, civil rights for minority, and First Amendment protections of journalists.
jconway says
That’s enough under our current system to impede constitutional progress, and enough even under the Posner proposal. It is not nearly enough to enact constitutional regression under the present or Posner proposal.
We agree that the Trumpkins are a threat to progress. Where we disagree is that I think our current system already gives them more power than they should be entitled to as a decided minority of the electorate.
We’d have had ERA by now, not to mention public elections, a direct popular vote, DC statehood, and Senate reform if we didn’t have to get 66% of Congress and 75% of the states. It is unlikely any socially conservative policy would meet that threshold (see: Federal Marriage Amendment) or meet even the modest modification Posner proposes (60% of the Congress and states). And even if it did, then that’s a more democratic system responsive to a majority. Again, we want a more responsive process not just our preferred partisan outcomes. You repeatedly pointed out in the primary Trump only won a majority of the vote of the smaller party’s membership, so I’m surprised you’re now arguing their franchise needs to be limited by archaic thresholds of amendment.
SomervilleTom says
During the primaries, the GOP and its deplorables were not claiming that elections were rigged and were not threatening to throw Ms. Clinton in jail. While Ms. Conway (his campaign spokesperson) was down-playing his “you’ll be jail” comment as a “quip”, her candidate was saying just the opposite on the campaign trail.
Mr. Trump is a dangerous wanna-be tyrant who abuses women, mocks the disabled, threatens his political opponents with jail, and is now purposely inciting his followers to violence after his inevitable defeat on November 8.
My view is that the GOP, led by Mr. Trump, is doing everything in its power to destroy the very foundations of our democracy. My view is that right now this lynch mob needs to be restrained by every means possible.
It looks to me as though Mr. Trump is doing all in his own power to encourage the extremists among his followers to provoke a forceful response from authorities during or immediately after the general election. I think he’ll then lie about that forceful response the same way he has been lying about everything else.
Mr. Trump is, in essence, a political terrorist, following a strategy similar to that followed by Osamba Bin Ladin when he planned the 9/11 attack. OBL planned to provoke an extreme anti-Muslim response from America in hopes that America would fulfill the worst aspects of the AQ propaganda. The strategy succeeded beyond his wildest dreams when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Donald Trump is calling the same play, with the same objective — when authorities crush political violence on or immediately after November 8, Mr. Trump will deny all evidence and say that the response validates the “rigged election” claims he’s been making.
Donald Trump today is a tyrant inciting a lynch-mob. I think it’s going to take years or even decades to repair the damage he and the GOP have already done to America.
I do not want to do anything at all to make it easier for the pitchforks-and-torches crowd to do anything except go home and sleep it off.
Christopher says
…and most state constitutions are too easy IMO. MA has some 120+ amendments I think which to me is evidence of that opinion. The basic structure of our government and basic protected rights should not just be changed on a whim.
Christopher says
In a state as blue as MA we must run up the score for Clinton. Red states need to keep it close and at least a couple may surprise us. We must prove to ourselves and the world how out of step the DUMB candidate is by making the popular vote gap as wide as possible.
Christopher says
…I would want a provision for IRV or just a runoff between the top two a week later. Otherwise we could get a minority president which is politically difficult.
sabutai says
Once you get into IRV for legislative bodies, it’s easy to game (see the Australian Senate). While runoffs in some way seem fairer to me, they are also frightfully expensive.
jconway says
Cambridge is just on the other side of the Charles 😉
Trickle up says
it’s also PR, perhaps not the best example, although it does illustrate the principle.
jconway says
That’s what St. Paul’s City Council does. Doing PR for nine at large seats is confusing and problematic, and I’ve been a long time critic of both PR and FPTP. IRV splits the difference nicely.
And there is nothing stopping the Mass Democrats from doing that for local primaries. Coakley and Clark won plurality primaries, and it would be better if the Democratic Party was more democratic and nominated candidates the majority of its membership supported. I’m glad the Maine ballot looks like it will pass.
petr says
… without gainsaying the need for, ahem, reconstituting the charter document, I feel compelled to ask exactly what is meant by “make it more democratic”… ? Is ‘democracy’ something that can be quantified? How is it we are in a state of ‘not enough democracy’ ? It is a little like the old joke about being ‘sorta pregnant.’
I’m all for strengthening the polis, but I find the use of the word ‘democracy’ as talisman to be insufficiently clear, especially if this discounts the word, and the action of, ‘republic.’ If the concern is ‘more democracy’ in the face of autocratic rule or, $DEITY help us, communism that’s one thing. If, however, the concern is that the republic deliberately blunts individual efforts with deliberate barriers I’m not sure how, or even if, some nebulous concept of ‘more democracy’ answers this…. or even if it should.
If the sum of the effort is ‘democracy’ and the knobs and levers are ‘the republic’ then you’ll need to be more clear about which knobs you replace and with what: you can’t really specify ‘more democracy’ as the solution.
Christopher says
…but I get the sense that for some anything less than one person, one vote for all offices is insufficiently democratic.
petr says
… I asked “Is democracy something that can be quantified?” Your answer, apparently, is to posit a mathematical function (one person, on vote) resulting in an equality (“less than”).
So… that’s a ‘no’, then?
petr says
…should read resulting in an INequality…
scott12mass says
We should also do away with the Senate then. 2 representatives for Wyoming, when certainly the 2 representatives for Mass would know how to govern better. I would have to fight to be first in line (at least with people I know) to take arms against the all powerful “democratic” leaders from Washington.
JimC says
We’re trying to determine what system best serves the voter, not the two currently majority-holding political parties.
If I were not a committed Democrat, I’m not sure I would vote in presidential elections, since the state I live in is never in play. (The opposite is probably more common — people in Texas, say, not voting Dem because the Dem has no chance.)
It’s a young system (by world standards), and it’s worked pretty well, but it could be improved (or better yet canned).
ryepower12 says
and showing its wear and tear. There aren’t that many democratic republics out there that have an older constitution than us, if any.
I mean, heck, France is on its 5th Republic…. and IMO haven’t even got it quite right yet.
I think the US could do with a little refresh.
ryepower12 says
when we passed a bill that would give our electoral votes to the country’s popular vote winner…. as soon as enough other states agreed to have the electoral college majority.
A number of other states signed on before us. I haven’t seen much progress on it since, though. But we should be able to get there with mostly just blue states signing on.
Peter Porcupine says
..when red states are able to negate your vote.
That is what drives me nuts about progressives. You assume that everybody agrees with you and is just yearning to breathe free. So you want to eliminate checks that are built in to protect the populace from unilateral action. And if conservatives had control, you would be outraged – likely taking it to court, your preferred method to ‘win’ in the long term when the silly voters don’t appreciate your benevolence in arranging government in their best interests whether they think so or not. But someday the courts may rule against you too.
Every person here has responded s to how EC abolition, apportionment, NPV, etc. would benefit the CURRENT Democratic party. Things change. Before you create a system, make sure it has a back door built into it for when you lose control.
jconway says
I’d have been pissed if our electors defied the will of 60% of Baystaters and gave our votes to Dubya in 2004. If we eliminate the EC, then there isn’t an issue. Every American has an equal share in electing the president. I wish Kerry had won OH, since back to back popular vote losers in both parties ascending to the presidency would’ve been the kind of groundswell needed to can the Electoral College.
The NPV has only been adopted by blue states, swing states have zero incentive to dilute their influence, and it’s unlikely red states will adopt it. I could see red states adopting an actual amendment if a Democrat wins the EV and loses the PV.
JimC says
I made that point last night. The goal is the best system for voters.
And to me, that is straight popular vote. To your point. we might have several parties some day.
stomv says
C’mon porc, I responded directly to your comment above, and I’ve argued against this proposal from both a GOP and a Dem voter perspective, to say nothing of a “good gamesmanship” perspective.
ryepower12 says
I am — of course — aware that the winner of the popular vote will not always be my choice.
I’m okay with that.
jconway says
I just disagree that a vote compact is the best way to do it. Neither method is likely to pass without red states buying in, and it seems that either prospect is unlikely until a Democrat gets elected via the EC while losing the PV.
Were Democrats to regain control of the House, a simple majority in Congress could expand the house membership. And seeing as there are some red states that would gain seats under that proposal, that is the likeliest reform to pass. It would dilute the affect of partisan gerrymandering, lower the cost of campaigns, and slightly balance the electoral college so the discrepancy between populous states and less populous states isn’t so wide.
ryepower12 says
For starters, this is already a lot closer to happening than you give it credit. It’s 61% of the way from already kicking into effect. Another five or ten states may do the trick — I think that shows a lot more momentum and possibility of happening than a constitutional amendment.
Also, what does it matter what “the best way” is to do something is if it achieves the *exact same* result? Isn’t arguing about that just a distinction without a difference?
I’m not sure I see the relevance here. The National Popular Vote Compact has no impact on the number of seats in the house, and only comes into effect when the states that sign on hold a majority of the EC votes.
Are you worried that Congress will increase the number of seats as a response? Why?
There hasn’t been an increase to the number of congresspeople since 1913 — more than a hundred years — and increasing the size of Congress would benefit larger, bluer states the most. The larger the increase, the greater the benefit. I really don’t see it happening.
Finally, any bill that would increase the size of Congress would require the Senate signing on and a President’s signature (or veto-proof majority).That seems a lot less likely to me, for a whole host of reasons, than the passage of the NPV compact in enough states to kick in.
I hope you’ll chew on these issues. The NPV is the likely the only solution we could see in our lifetimes that would give our country a truly popular vote for President.
stomv says
Is this true? First we have to decide what’s blue and what’s red. In my mind, control of the state legislature is the most important, since that typically controls redistricting. But, of course, it’s hard to know without lots of analysis and research since (a) the most recent election (’14) favored GOP structurally, so they may have a few more red legislatures than a steady state, and (b) not every state legislature gets to control redistricting. Nevertheless:
Blue:
CA 53 CDs, independent redistricting, +1 in 2020
NY 27 CDs, adv. commission redistricting, -1 or 0 in 2020
IL 18 CDs, legislative redistricting, -1 in 2020
NJ 12 CDs, politician commission, +0 in 2020
SUBTOTAL: 110 CDs, mix of redistricting, -1 or 0 in 2020
50/50:
WA 10 CDs, independent commission, +0 in 2020
Red:
TX 36 CDs, legislative redistricting, +3 in 2020
FL 27 CDs, legislative redistricting, +1 in 2020
PA 18 CDs, legislative redistricting, -1 in 2020
OH 16 CDs, adv. commission redistricting, -1 in 2020
GA 14 CDs, legislative redistricting, +0 in 2020
MI 14 CDs, legislative redistricting, -1 in 2020
NC 13 CDs, legislative redistricting, +1 in 2020
VA 11 CDs, advisory commission, +1 or +0 in 2020
SUBTOTAL: 157 CDs, lots of legislative redistricting, +3 or +2 in 2020
Now you can argue that some of the “red state” designations should be purple, but before you do I encourage you to look up the percentage of Ds and Rs in the upper and lower legislative houses. There are loads of blue Electoral Votes from states with red legislatures.
Nevertheless, the argument that increasing the number of seats in the House would benefit Team Blue made by ryepower12 is thin. He might be right, but data suggests otherwise so we’d need a pretty good narrative about how some other difference (relative density of Ds, etc) is significant enough to overcome the reality that most big states are actually GOP at the redistricting level.
jconway says
Let’s leave aside expanding the House, it’s a good idea on the merits and will have a marginal effect on the Electoral College. I didn’t mean to bring it up and confuse this discussion.
Coming back to NPV on it’s own, here are my main objections:
1) It Isn’t Actually a National Popular Vote
By leaving the Electoral College in place, it leaves 50 states and DC setting 51 different election standards and determining how their 51 electoral college delegations are allocated. I think the compact retains all of the things that already suck about our system, while adding another layer of complication on top of it that will certainly be litigated.
Vikram David Amar, one of the main authors of the proposal conceded:
2) It invalidates the popular vote of people in states that adopt the compact
Since there are still 50 states voting to send electors, my vote for my elector in Massachusetts is now subverted by the overall popular vote count. I am sorry, but I really don’t trust our public to understand how this works or be happy with it. Most didn’t realize the state made this commitment, and when on election day they find out their votes for a Democrat, by a wide margin, now go to the Republican it will precipitate a crisis, and maybe litigation.
3) Since it’s not a constitutional amendment, it isn’t binding
Our legislature already has a record of changing important electoral rules midstream when the changes lead to outcomes it doesn’t like. See: Kirk, Paul G. IL, which has a considerably higher number of electors, is also guilty of changing rules for statewide elections mid term.
Let’s consider a state like California which has the greatest number of electors. Does anyone here honestly think it’s supermajority Democratic legislature and Governor wouldn’t pull out of the compact post-November and instruct it’s electors to throw the election to the Democrat if the Republican won the Popular Vote? Would they really tell the 60% of their people who voted against Ted Cruz that he gets their votes?
The constitutional provision that arguably allows for NPV could also lead to it’s undoing:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .”
If the legislature directs, after Election Day, to appoint it’s electors to vote for the popular vote loser that their state carried, there is nothing the other states in the compact could do to stop them. This would precipitate a constitutional crisis that would make Bush v Gore look like Snyder v Phelps.
4) It Keeps in Place the Bad Features of the Electoral College
The actual Constitution, which has a weight of law significantly stronger than the compact, says that a candidate who does not get to 270 would throw the election to the House. Now in this case, the Compact States act like superdelegates that throw their majority to the popular vote winner regardless, but there is still an argument that such an election is not valid since the method of choosing the electors is invalid. And we could still see scenarios where losers litigate the outcome, and there are compact wide recounts, etc.
The best solution remains killing the Electoral College outright and replacing it with a single, federally standardized election. I think everyone here agrees with me this is better, but they view the NPV as somehow an easier way to pass the hurdle. I think the NPV ends up creating as many problems as it seeks to solve since it maintains the mechanisms of the Electoral College.
The fact that we even have to consider such a complex proposal with many unintended consequences as an easier alternative to simply amending the Constitution outright to provide for direct elections is proof our amendment process is too strict and needs to be simplified.
Anyone who supports the NPV Compact is essentially saying they are okay with having a theoretical minimum of 12 states, roughly a quarter of them, nullify an article of the Constitution. If you are okay with that, you can’t possibly object to lowering the threshold for other amendments to a simple supermajority (60% of Congress, 60% of the states), which would actually allow for the simply solution which is a binding amendment allowing for the direct election of the presidency by a simple majority of the popular vote.
Trickle up says
1 and 4 would essentially make the perfect the enemy of the good. Okay, uniform voting rules would also be nice. So would a Constitutional amendment. And a pony. Next?
2 is only partially true (and a little deceptive) since NPV honors the votes of all the voters in the nation, while the EC sometimes does not (which is the problem here btw).
I could say a lot about 3, but there is no court case that could be worse than the decision in Bush v Gore. As bad perhaps, though I doubt it.
jconway says
Sometimes it’s better to keep it simple stupid. The vote compact is a too clever by half solution to a really simple problem. Just eliminate the Electoral College. It’s easier to argue for that solution than pass a scheme to nullify an Article of the Constitution by a simple majority. It’s an unethical, and possibly
unconstitutional way of achieving a critical reform.
And it invalidates the popular vote in MA and sends our electoral votes to a winner that didn’t deserve it. John Kerry won his home state by nearly 25% of the vote, how unfair would it be to send all those electors to Bush who didn’t win here, didn’t campaign here, and isn’t from here?
And on a practical level, by maintaining the EC, swing states will still be where the bulk of the campaigning happens since those are the places that are truly 50/50 and competitive. At least with apportionment, which I oppose, you could make an argument there’s a 50 state campaign. There certainly would be with a true national popular vote.
With this proposal the blue states just become red states if the Republican carries enough purple states. It’s an unfair win bonus to the candidate that carries the most swing states. It’s still a race to 270 and not a race to 51% of the vote.
Nate Silver is a skeptic. I think expanding the House, which would add more electors to populous states, and focusing on making amendments easier, which would make it easier to kill EV the right way are more tangible reforms.
centralmassdad says
First, Bush didn’t campaign here because there was no benefit to him at all. Not sure why we can “rerun” 2004 under a compact scenario without also assuming the campaigns would change strategy. The whole point is that by putting safe state votes in play, the impact of swing states would be less. It would be unwise for a campaign to focus on swing states in a compact scenario.
jconway says
The ceiling on safe blue states is 229 votes*, there is no incentive for swing states to give up their existing leverage, and no incentive for red states to join unless all of them join. Basically, this thing doesn’t work anyway unless enough states join to get to 270. And even then, it’s a hybrid system. How can it be enforced to ensure electors or states don’t get back on the compact? Are there scenarios to get to 270 using the states that aren’t in the compact?
It seems just as unlikely to pass as an amendment if we are realistic, and it would cause more problems than it solves since the Electoral College would still exist. If we all agree the Electoral College is a problem, and scenarios like this could still happen under the compact,. Not to mention it will increase, rather than decrease, the likelihood of recounts and litigation to adjudicate electoral disputes.
*many of those ‘safe blue states’ have at least one Republican controlled house
centralmassdad says
If there aren’t enough states to get to 270, then there is no compact. Once there are 270 votes in the compact, it doesn’t matter what the red states do, because the candidates will have to campaign for a majority popular vote in order to reach 270. If states then repeal the enabling legislation, and the total is less then 270 again, then we are back to status quo ante.
Seems to me that the route to enactment in a dozen states, wherever they may be, is a shorter route than a constitutional amendment, specifically because each state is a tiny, inconspicuous step, whereas an amendment is a giant and provocative step that, absent a massive political realignment, is not going to happen.
jconway says
Should just 12 states overturn Roe? Overturn Obergefell? Why should 12 states act like superdelegates and overturn the electoral votes of the other 38 states that don’t adopt the compact? Not to mention the fact that the compact isn’t binding, and nothing stops a state from pulling out between the Nov election and the seating of the electors?
MA and IL have changed statewide election rules midterm, I don’t see why they wouldn’t have similar incentives, especially if the majority of their states voters selected someone else. What if MA pulling out of the compact was the only way to deny someone like Trump the presidency? Wouldn’t people here be pounding their state legislator to pull out of the compact and award the votes to Clinton? Wouldn’t BMG sign off on that editorial?
The simplest, easiest way to change the Constitution is to change the Constitution. If we all agree the hurdle is way too damn high for that to happy, than maybe we should consider making amending the constitution easier. It will still require more states than this nullification effort, which could make a de facto constitutional change with just a quarter of the total states. Why are folks comfortable with that aghast at my 60% proposal?
stomv says
I agree that the Compact is a bad thing to do at this time, but…
We’re talking about a majority of the country’s population. It’s not “just 12 states;” it’s “states representing the majority of the population.” That’s not nuance, that’s fundamental.
centralmassdad says
That’s because there are already 11 states that have enacted the compact, which might eventually come into force.
I would reject your proposal because it applies to all constitutional amendments. It should be hard to amend the constitution, and I have zero interest in making it harder.
I also don’t see the EV compact as a constitutional issue at all, because states are allowed to choose how to govern their electoral votes. They need not go to the vote winner in the state, which is why Maine and CO can allocate some by district, regardless of who wins the state. If states choose to cooperate in this way, that’s their right. Telling them they may not do so, in my view, would create the constitutional problem. Also, it has nothing at all to do with Roe.
I am also not terribly concerned with the horribles. You are concerned that the EV compact might come into effect, that a presidential campaign might be conducted accordingly, and that one or more states might suddenly withdraw from the compact in order to secure the election of a President who just lost the popular vote. That would be fantastic– in that it would create the political impetus (which does not now exist) to actually abolish the electoral college outright.
Meantime, I am just fine with baby steps.
jconway says
That was my whole point. Folks who reacted to that proposal by saying they support the 2/3rd’s of Congress and 3/4ths of the States, can’t support the compact which could enact the change with just a quarter of the states,
And for a skeptic who rightly and consistently points out the unintended consequences of policy changes, I am surprised you haven’t thought this one through.