Barack Obama isn’t president-elect-at least not until Monday. On Monday, 538 officials you’ve probably never heard of will gather at state houses across the country and cast the only ballots that really count in the presidential election.
This past election only reaffirms the desperate need for change in the way we elect our presidents. 98% of ad spending and candidate visits occurred in 15 states–completely ignoring 63.4% of the nation’s population. Over half of that spending and those visits occurred in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. This all-or-nothing system of electoral distribution places inordinate emphasis on a small group of “swing” states, marginalizing “spectator” states like Massachusetts.
The National Popular Vote (NPV) bill–which overwhelmingly passed both houses here last summer-is the most expedient and sensible fix. It has been discussed at length in prior posts. Simply put, it is an agreement among a majority of states to allocate their combined electors to the winner of the national popular vote, effectively disenfranchising the Electoral College. It’s an ingenious proposal that’s been introduced in all but three states, passed in four states, and advocated by countless officials nationwide (including soon-to-be-president-elect Barack Obama, who was instrumental in the bill’s passage in Illinois).
On Monday at 2 p.m., just prior to the meeting of the Electoral College, Gov. Michael Dukakis, Rep. Charley Murphy, and other NPV supporters will hold a press conference calling for the quick passage and implementation of the bill. The Massachusetts legislature should heed this call.
Yes, it’s time to make sure every counts equally in the presidential election. I can’t wait for the day that Massachusetts actually matters to the presidential candidates.
Ha.
<
p>Seriously people. How can we say every vote is equal when poll times vary so widely? When eligibility based on criminal history varies so widely? When the criteria to simply register to vote vary so widely? When the criteria to be allowed to vote once you show up vary so widely?
<
p>I’m not opposed to an NPV, but I am concerned when some states are so dang oppressive of voting rights. It seems to correlate with their GOPness level. If that’s in the interest of suppressing liberals or part of a “law and order” philosophy I won’t opine.
You’re right that access to voting is not equal across states. The problem I was referring to is that that the votes themselves, even after being cast and counted, are not treated equally. Both are important problems.
From a POTUS perspective, I don’t care how obnoxious Texas’ laws are about voting access — the probability that their laws swing the election is 0.0 because their EVs aren’t close to changing hands.
<
p>If we’ve got a popular vote for POTUS, now Texas’ laws have a direct and clear impact on the winner in a way they don’t now. If we switch to NPV, Texas legislators will have influence that they don’t have now, and every single election worker in every single state will have the incentive to screw around. Currently only those in competitive states have that incentive, and because they’re competitive there’s plenty of oversight from the candidates and the workers themselves.
<
p>Furthermore, there are oodles of communities for whom I don’t trust their town clerk, their county commissioner, or their Secretary of State. Right now, from a POTUS perspective, their influence is severely limited because their EVs are a forgone conclusion. With NPV, every single one of them has in incentive to cheat in a systemic, structural way, and I don’t trust that we can stop that.
<
p>I don’t know how much Congress can change these issues by requiring better voting procedures… but I’m nervous about NPV until the state laws about voting rights are made much more uniform.
That’s a very odd argument. Unlike the Electoral College, NPV would make every vote in Texas matter. Because every vote in Texas now matters, there is a chance Texas legislators will try to take those votes away. So your argument against giving everyone an equal vote is essentially that some might then try to influence those votes. It’s a bit like arguing that we shouldn’t have given black people the right to vote, because that caused Jim Crow.
<
p>Yes, getting rid of the federally-mandated disenfranchisement that is the Electoral College could in turn result in some state and local efforts at disenfranchisement. But it’s highly unlikely that any state or local jurisdiction could legally distort people’s votes to the degree that the Electoral College already does. It’s a very bizarre argument against NPV: we shouldn’t give people a full right to vote because then others might attempt to take it away!
Not every vote in Texas matters if we go NPV, because they’re so regressive in their voter eligibility standards. Many votes won’t be able to be cast legally.
<
p>That doesn’t impact the POTUS race now because the EV system means the GOP candidate will win TX, even if they had more reasonable eligibility standards. However, if NPV is enacted, then TX’s policies on eligibility will impact the race immediately.
…federal laws should govern federal elections. It frustrated me no end in 2000 to think that a quirk in the ballots of one state (FL) should decide my President. There should not be 51 different ways to elect a President or even 50 different ways to elect Reps. and Senators.
Why the backdoor route? Just amend the Constitution to make this change..
<
p>And be careful what you wish for.. if this gets put in, 98% of ad dollars will still go to 15 states – those states will just be California, New York, Texas, Florida, etc. All the attention paid to New Hampshire, New Mexico, etc. will go away..
<
p>2. I disagree with your thesis that 98% will go to the 15 most populous states. Instead, I think that candidates will spread their money around. Sure you can reach a lot of people with a NYC ad buy, but for that price you could reach all the people in New Mexico and New Hampshire many times over.
<
p>3. FYI, the total population percentage of the 15 most populous states is 65%.
<
p>4. Of those 15 states, prior to the 2008 election, a fair allocation by color (based on POTUS election history, POTUS election spending, Congressional delegation) might be:
blue CA, NY, IL, WA, MA
red TX, GA, OH, NC, VA, IN
purple PA, MI, NJ, FL
<
p>The only thing they all have in common is access to a major body of water.
Most of the amendments to the Constitution, post Bill of Rights, dealt with electoral reforms: women’s suffrage, non-discrimination, direct election of Senators, etc. And none of these were miraculously passed one day by a benevolent Congress. They all started organically, first at the state level. Once enough states passed them, there was sufficient momentum for a Constitutional amendment. Without the ability to enact at the state level, these very important amendments would have been severely delayed, or never come to pass altogether.
<
p>NPV enables the same state-by-state organic growth of the National Popular Vote that allowed these other reforms to succeed. My guess: once enough states have passed the NPV to put it into effect, Congress will opt to formally pass a Constitutional amendment. But frankly, a Constitutional amendment will just never happen without the ability to win state-by-state victories first and convince the country in an incremental way.
<
p>I have more but don’t have time right now.
1) Yes, albeit slightly, and not for lack of access to the information.
2) At this point it won’t, which is my concern.
3) I don’t think that things weren’t addressed at all, but I do think that public transit, green energy, and college education costs would have played a bigger role in a POTUS campaign for MA than it did for NH.
4) National unanimity? Who uses the EV to show that anyway? Generally the popular vote is cited in my experience. More to the point, if NPV is a better way to elect a President, who cares about this 2nd (or 3rd!) order effect?
Here are some partial answers in my view . . .
<
p>
<
p>Some reason, yes. The swing states see higher turnout numbers. This indicates a larger percentage of their populations are interested, invested, and informed about the election. I’ve never seen any hard data on it, but that’s one reason to believe it is the case.
<
p>
<
p>It won’t, but neither does the Electoral College.
<
p>
<
p>I would say urban issues and issues affecting racial minorities are probably the biggest. If states with urban cores and significant minority populations like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and California were in play, their issues would be better address. Public transportation, as stomv mentioned, and gun control are two examples. I think you’d also see more liberalness on social issues, including stronger positions on gay rights.
<
p>Gun control is a good example of the Electoral College focusing the attention of the presidential candidates on the parochial concerns of the swing states. Even though a majority of the public supports stricter gun control, it’s a death wish for any presidential candidate to support it.
<
p>Keep in mind that the swing states are disproportionately white, and so the EC creates an often overlooked racial bias.
<
p>
<
p>No, it would not. If the NPV were in place, it would be the popular vote that matters and that is what would get all the attention. The Electoral College would be relegated to a complete technicality.
<
p>In 1972, it was the Electoral College that was responsible for giving Nixon a stronger degree of national support than he deserved. While Nixon received 61% of the popular vote, he got 97% of the Electoral College vote! People frequently mention the Electoral College landslide but rarely mention the lower popular vote total.
I’m also not necessarily opposed to the NPV, but in my view there is a benefit of the Electoral College that still exists even if many of the original reasons for it don’t.
<
p>The two comments above mine are getting to it — the Electoral College (unless the election is extremely close) allows for a clearer mandate to the incoming President, which helps unify the country for the incoming President (thereby helping to create the “honeymoon period” that allows for legislation to get through our difficult process).
<
p>stomv suggests that nobody pays attention to the Electoral count. I disagree. The popular vote suggests a much closer election than it really was, but the Electoral College points in the other direction and was the big reason why people called the election a “blowout”. This makes it a lot easier to for Obama to claim a mandate once he takes office.
bush used the popular vote differential in 2004 to claim his “mandate”, didn’t he? politicians will spin whatever they have to work with.
because the Electoral College count was so close. In Obama’s case, he had a legit blowout in the E.C.
I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that NPV kicks in once enough states pass the law that the total EC votes from those states would constitute a majority of EC votes. But I’ve never heard a satisfactory explanation as to what would happen if a state agreed to NPV, then changed the law to reject it part way through the campaign. I know that the original law states that there’s some type of window in which it can’t be changed, but why would that be binding on a future legislature to prevent passage of a new law saying that the window doesn’t apply and the state no longer will allocate it’s electors according to NPV? Then you have two Presidential candidates who have campaigned and organized under the NPV model but the election will be decided under the pre-NPV model.
The book Every Vote Equal, which you can read for free online, has some good information on this question. Basically, the agreement is an interstate compact with a blackout window during which states can’t pull out, and these have been enforced by the courts in the past.
<
p>I agree that a Constitutional amendment would be ideal, but it’s politically infeasible. As I wrote in my earlier comment, important national electoral reforms have a history of growing organically starting at the state level. It is unclear how delayed they might have been or whether some may never have come to pass without this ability.
for the chapter addressing my question. I really can’t see a federal court using the contracts clause to strike down a state law withdrawing from the compact during the blackout window. (And I find it ironic that in an attempt to create a more democratic Presidential election system, supporters of this idea support the undemocratic idea that one legislature that passes a law can bind a later legislature.) And even if the federal court found that the contracts clause trumps a state’s constitutional right to determine it’s electors, would the court really issue an injunction requiring the state to follow the compact and seat it’s electors contrary to current state law? I can’t see a court touching that with a 10 foot pole (probably dismissing under the political question doctrine). I think this problem is a fatal flaw in the NPV model.
The inventors of the plan, the Amar Brothers, are some of the leading constitutional scholars in the county, and they believe it will be binding. I recall the book going into some detail into the legal precedent on this question, including examples of interstate compacts being enforced even when states tried their best to wriggle out of them. It’s also my guess that once enough states have passed NPV, Congress will decide to act and pass a Constitutional amendment anyway. (I see nothing wrong with passing a bill that carries on past one legislature — it would be awfully burdensome for a legislature to renew every single law every single year.)
<
p>But, for the sake of argument, let’s presume that you’re right that there’s a chance a state could get away with pulling out at the last minute. Then we are faced with two options:
<
p>1. Stick with the Electoral College and our unequal presidential elections for the indefinite future. “Indefinite” here should probably be “infinite,” because passing a Constitutional amendment to our electoral process without state precedent is politically infeasible.
<
p>2. Pass NPV in enough states and accept the small probablity that 1) Congress doesn’t follow that by passing a Constitutional amendment; 2) a state does try to pull out at the last minute; and 3) the courts do not enforce the compact. All those three would have to occur for your scenario to happen. In this worst case, we have one kind of weird election and then the NPV compact falls apart.
<
p>So in this worst case, it’s a choice between an indefinite (I would say infinite) future of unequal election, or taking a chance on the NPV compact with the risk we have one somewhat unusual campaign.
<
p>I am confident your scenario won’t occur, but I’m also willing to accept the small risk of one strange election over the certainty of an indefinite number of unequal elections.
Akhil Amar is unquestionably a great constitutional scholar. But I’m not sure how often his theories are accepted outside academia. He has always struck me as the epitome of an ivory tower intellectual, not in a bad way but in the way that he comes up with very academic constitution throries that don’t always go over well with pragmatic real world judges.
And you grossly misrepresent my point when you claim that you merely want a bill that carries past one legislature. You actually want a bill that binds future legislatures and prevents them from amending or repealing it. There’s nothing democratic about that.
And your point that most electoral changes start at the state level and then grow cannot apply to the electoral college. There is no comparable state system that can be tinkered with in a laboratory of democracy. Changes to the constitutional Presidential election system are best made through the amendment process rather than a state compact system that leaves open the possibility for a constitutional crisis at election time. I see a lot more negatives in “one strange election” than you do. I think my scenario would make the 2000 election look like a model election. And I don’t think it’s unlikely as you think.
<
p>The blackout window is 6 months, beginning in July and ending at the inauguration in January. Does that even technically straddle multiple state legislative sessions? Seeing as the legislative sessions generally begin in January, you’re talking about less than a month of overlap at most. There do exist other interstate compacts with longer blackout windows that do significantly overlap multiple sessions.
<
p>
<
p>The NPV bills are precisely the comparable legislation that can be passed at the state level. You’re right that the NPV bills themselves can’t be tinkered with, but every state and jurisdiction in the country already acts as a laboratory for the idea within them. That is, every other public office in the country is elected via a popular vote, as is every other directly elected head of state around the world. So there’s already been ample tinkering and experimentation with elections by popular vote, and no one is calling for these offices to use an EC instead.
<
p>
<
p>We shall see.
that states that have already joined the compact, like MD and HI, will have to re-pass the NPV legislation in 2011 to be in place for the 2012 election? If not then you are advocating for the undemocratic idea that the MD legislature in 2006 can pass a law that binds the MD legislature in 2011.
And your point is well argued that every other office is elected based on popular vote. But based on the constitutional and historic constrictions on the Ptesidential election system, I would argue that it’s a sui generis exception and that a constitutional amendment is really the only legitimate way to make changes, especially given the chance that the entire NPV system could unravel with a single key state withdrawing and a messy court battle ensuing.
… the timing is such an issue. If a state voted to have vacated senate seats put to a special election, rather than being appointed by the Governor, you could have one Governor sign the legislation and it would absolutely be binding on a future governor. How is this different? Why can’t you write a law that future members of group X (legislators, governors, citizens, etc.) are bound by it. My understanding is that the EC rules are a state’s prerogative. Why couldn’t the state make rules about how it will go about it’s EC duties? Wouldn’t any such laws be binding in the future?
No, MD and HI will not have to re-pass NPV legislation in 2011 to be in place for 2012, just as they don’t have to re-pass many other existing pieces of legislation every session. However, if a legislature in 2009, 2010, or 2011 decide they no longer want NPV, they are free to repeal it, just as they are free to repeal many other pieces of legislation passed by previous sessions. The only exception is if the 2011 legislature waits until after the blackout period on the compact begins in July of 2011.
<
p>I think this is fair and not overly burdensome on the 2011 legislature. If they don’t want it anymore, they have plenty of time to act before July. Once July hits, the blackout period ensures everyone is playing by the same rules. I think that is a fair balance of concerns.
You mean the black-out period that starts in July of 2012. The election will be in November 2012, and the inauguration in January 2013.
It is true that there will be some changes should NPV pass, but for the most part I imagine we’ll see a focus on swing regions rather than swing states. Even the attention lavished on “swing states” tends to concentrate in certain areas:
<
p>The West Philadelphia suburban and exurban ring in Pennsylvania;
The Columbus and Toledo metro areas in Ohio;
The I-4 Corridor in Florida;
Araphoe County in Colorado;
the Research Triangle in North Carolina;
Tidewater in Virginia.
<
p>All that would change now would be the addition of some swing regions, such as upstate New York perhaps, or metro Austin and Houston in Texas.
<
p>If you think presidential candidates will start coming to Boston after such a change, I doubt it.
Umm, you know NPV won’t disenfranchise the electoral college, right? Their votes would still be “the only ballots that really count in the presidential election” by your reckoning.