So far, 5 states have joined the compact: New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Washington, and Hawaii. Approval by Massachusetts would add 12 Electoral College votes giving National Popular Vote 73 (27%) of the 270 votes required for it to go into effect.
Some people say that National Popular Vote is not the way to make this change. We have a constitutional amendment process which allows us to change a system which empowers the Electoral College to one that provides for the direct election of the president by the people. Congress has tried to do that many times over the years. These efforts have come close, but never received the 2/3rds majority needed for passage in the US Senate.
Now we’ve got a way to achieve this democratic change that is both constitutional and realistic, and that is National Popular Vote. States have complete authority to determine how electors are selected. Massachusetts has changed the way it has appointed electors many times. Furthermore, state action typically preceded federal amendments when the franchise was expanded, to wit: women’s suffrage and the right to vote for US Senators.
So, get on the phone. Call your State Representative today and ask for support on getting this important legislation before the House …..Pronto!
The genesis of national popular vote is a progressive belief that Democrats would always win if not for the pesky Electoral College. History doesn’t bear that out, but they think it anyway.
<
p>If you REALLY were serious about making the popular vote more REPRESENTATIVE, you shun winner-take-all in favor of proportional votes like Maine – the electoral votes are divided according to a formula reflecting the popular vote. It ensures greater campaigning by politicians, and also reflects the popular vote.
<
p>Of course, it WOULD have given 4 or 5 electoral votes to John McCain in 2008, reflecting actual popular vote….
There shouldn’t really be a partisan glean on this legislation. It can happen in both directions — e.g., if Kerry won Ohio — and causes disenfranchisement of people in both parties all over the country.
<
p>PP, the main problem with the system that you are advocating for is that it relies on the incredibly gerrymandered congressional district maps. Moving the battle from states to congressional districts would shake things up, but it would not necessarily be more representive in a broader sense. I think it’s safe to say that a higher percentage of the population lives in a “swing state” than a “swing CD.” Comparing the relative competitiveness of congressional vs. senatorial elections certainly bolsters that view.
… the use of a ‘middle-man’ mechanism like proportional votes are better at being representative than an actual popular vote? If you want to reflect the popular vote, why not just use the popular vote?
On what all progressives think, are you actually in favor of the legislation?
<
p>Also, I don’t really understand your point about Maine. The votes there are not divded by any sort of “formula”–the winner of the each district gets one elector, and the winner of the state gets the remaining two. This is more “winner-take-all” than a straight popular vote. More importantly, districts that are not closely divided (think parts of New York City, think Idaho) will still be totally ignored. Why exactly is this system superior?
As you rightly point out, “States have complete authority to determine how electors are selected.” But then you seem to say that this interstate compact agreement is enough to prevent a state from changing it’s law at some point after the compact becomes effective. Here’s my problem scenario:
State A passes a NPV law. The NPV interstate compact becomes effective. Then State A wants to withdraw from the interstate compact at some point during the election. (For whatever reason – maybe purely because of political reasons, maybe because State A’s legislature has had a high turnover since State A passed NPV and now has more electoral college purists). Would a federal court hold that State A, by joining the interstate compact, has given up it’s article II section 1 power to “appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors”?
I think this scenario is problematic enough to create a fatal flaw in the NPV movement. I remember reading an article supporting NPV (by Akhil Amar maybe?) that did a very poor job of showing that this scenario isn’t a problem for NPV. But I’m open to being proven wrong.
Sorry, NPV only takes effect if the states that have adopted it actually fulfill their intention to give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. If any state rescinds, all bets are off. There’s wording to that effect in the legislation of each state.
And that’s the problem. State A withdraws from the NPV compact 2 weeks before the election. Now a federal court has to decide whether the compact trumps the states right to choose how to appoint it’s electors. And in the meantime, the candidates who have been traveling, advertising, and campaigning based on winning the popular vote have to partially refocus their efforts on winning the old state-by-state way, based on how they predict the court will rule. I think it would be problematic to change the rules of the election during the election.
http://www.nationalpopularvote…
<
p>I don’t think a court would hold that the state had “given up” its right to determine the method of appointment. Rather, the legislature had “directed” that its electors would be appointed to the winner of the NPV under the terms of the compact. Part of the terms are that states cannot withdraw in the blackout period. The fact that a past legislature has bound the present legislature happens all the time, and I don’t think the court would question that.
<
p>But even if a judge did read the constitution in the way you are presenting, the other states would be free to withdraw from the compacy and the situation would be…. the status quo.
It addresses what would happen is a state tried to withdraw from the NPV interstate contract after the November election. My situation involved a state withdrawing during the campaign but before the November election.
<
p>The cases cited uphold interstate compacts on the grounds that states cannot impair the obligation of contracts. But of course, some rights guaranteed by the constitution cannot be contracted away. I think there is a strong case that a state cannot contract away it’s constitutional right to appoint it’s electors as it sees fit. And I think it’s especially probematic for one term of the legiislature to bind the next term against exercising it’s rights guaranteed by the constitution.
<
p>And it’s not as easy as just saying that we’d be back to status quo, because the election would be ongoing but the rules would change, possibly undoing the work and the strategies of the candidates up to that point. I think election strategies could be much different under a NPV standard than under the current electoral college system.
in two words, it’s Katherine Harris. My problem with NPV is the states have (a) different criteria for voter registration, (b) different criteria for voter eligibility, (c) different criteria for the mechanics of voting, and (d) a very political elected secretary.
<
p>For states which currently aren’t particularly close on the POTUS vote, it doesn’t much matter to me in Massachusetts if their voter eligibility rules differ since those votes aren’t going to swing the election anyway.
<
p>The list of states in which the Dem share of the Dem+GOP vote was under 40% or over 60% (from eyeballing this) include WY, OK, UT, ID, AK, AL, AR, LA, CT, MD, DE, CA, IL, NY, MA, RI, VT, HI, DC. Those are states with 20%+ wins — the “slam dunk’ states. Whether or not inmates are allowed to vote or same-day-registration is permitted or if the SOS purges all black (but not Latino or white) voters who’s names are identical to some other person in some other state who committed a felony isn’t going to impact the EVs of those states. This provides some robustness — sure, there may be gamesmanship in Ohio or Florida or or new Hampshire that could swing the election, but at least the number of states is limited. With popular vote, every single jurisdiction can provide a little extra buffer, which means that now the opportunities for hanky panky is greatly increased, and the impact of diverse voting eligibility criteria magnified.
<
p>
<
p>There’s another result, too. Recount. A close election requires the recount of every vote, right? Well, a close state means the recount for that state, and that’s really only necessary if the total outcome is inside the EV bounds of the recount states. However, with a popular vote, a close total means a 50 state recount. Yikes!
<
p>
<
p>I’m not against NPV. However, I’m not comfortable with a NPV when the voter registration, eligibility, and mechanics varies widely. IMO, NPV can only really work if:
(a) Voter registration is standardized. The number of days before election (zero or otherwise), etc.
(b) Voter eligibility is standardized. Prisoners? Parolees? On probation? Felons who are free-and-clear? Absentee?
(c) The voting systems are standardized so that a marked (not punched) paper ballot is the official count, and all recounts involve physically counting the paper ballots.
<
p>You get me those three things (and good luck!) and I’m a happy boy. Otherwise, you’ve opened up the POTUS election to even more potential for corruption, fraud, cheating, and other tomfoolery.
The NPV system would provide an incentive to increase a state’s total turnout in order to maximize its national impact. It would probably lead to broader adoption of same-day registration, no-excuse early voting, etc. Massachusetts, e.g., has one of the more restrictive sets of voting policies in the country.
And by Jose, I mean Jose, Sally College Student, Homeless Johnson, or any other group which (a) tends to lean Democratic, and (b) can somehow be marginalized by the GOP.
<
p>Look: I don’t want my state to maximize it’s national impact if it maximizes the impact in favor of the other guy (or gal).
<
p>P.S. MA is restrictive in terms of registration deadline, but not particularly restrictive in terms of felony conviction voting rights.
<
p>Exactly. Think if you wanted to go this way might also want to change the inaugural date from the 3rd Tuesday in January the 3rd Tuesday in August. Everything (and I mean everything) would be in play regardless of the outcome in the particular area. Your candidate loses by 40% in the district, state, whatever? Who cares, just go fishing for extra votes everywhere regardless.
The proposal does not make sense to me as it could have some weird outcomes that could lead to voter dissatisfaction and potential legal challenges.
<
p>Let’s take an example where a candidate easily carries MA, but wins the vast majority of the other states. Or votes would then be cast for whom the other states voted instead of for whom we voted. I do not like it. I think it takes away the value of my vote by giving it to some consolidation of states.
<
p>It would also have resulted in MA voting for Nixon rather than McGovern in 1972. Is that really how we want our votes to be counted.
<
p>The system may not be perfect, but this “fix” seems even worse IMO.
and it needs to be answered time and time again. ConsEph — I’m not suggesting you’re response is wrong, but rather that the NPVs need to convince you.
<
p>So, here’s the thing: Nixon was going to be POTUS in 72 regardless of MA’s EVs. In that sense, what does it mater if MA’s EVs were cast for Nixon? The bigger issue is, for example, 2000.
<
p>Put another way, under the current condition something like 40%* of votes cast are not counted. What do I mean? Well in MA 1.1M people voted for McCain — and McCain didn’t get credit for a single vote in the election from MA. Not a one. How’s that for “tak[ing] away the value of my vote”?** With the pact, once and only when there are enough states where they can collectively ensure that the popular vote winner also wins the EV count, then by joining the pact they ensure that every American’s vote really is counted, because each vote nationwide equally determines who wins the EVs.
<
p>
<
p> * pulled from my behind, but it’s clearly less than 50%
<
p> ** not that I voted McCain… but 1.1M people did from MA!
As you all know, I have some interest in this topic. NPV is a top priority for Common Cause and we have a good coalition supporting it here in Mass-MassVOTE, MASSPIRG, NAACP, ACLU Mass, JALSA, Oiste, Sierra Club, and the Black Political task Force. We think the proposal will increase participation in elections and increase small “d” democracy-as in one person one vote, every vote equal, and the candidate with the most votes should win. How radical!
<
p>Very true that the proposal doesn’t necessarily help one party or the other. A popular vote would help whichever party can engage the most people. Sometimes this has been Rs and sometimes Ds. While Bush lost the election by over 500,000 votes in 2000 and yet won the Presidency, in 2004, John Kerry came very close to winning the office, while losing the popular vote by 3,500,000 votes. We’ve narrowly missed the wrong winner problem in 5 out of the last 12 elections. Because you can split electors into fractions, Peter’s congressional district solution (or proportional allocation by state) would still have given the wrong winner in 2000 and in the other “wrong winner” elections. Plus it fails for the reasons Ed points out-gerrymandered districts are safe, no fail territory for one party or the other and wouldn’t draw a real campaign.
<
p>Katherine Harris is another reason to support NPV. When the election rides on 500 votes (or a few thousand which is more typical) there is tremendous incentive to play with the rules, or commit fraud, in order to skew the election. Think of it – a 500 vote margin (or 1 vote margin for that matter) gets you 27 electoral votes-10% of the total needed to win. Under a popular vote, 500 votes would be a drop in the bucket and not worth the risks. It just doesn’t get you very far towards 175 million.
<
p>But the real reason to support NPV is the bizarre way the system affects campaigning AND governing. Candidates only bother with the battleground states. Activists at Blue Mass and elsewhere didn’t call voters in Mass to persuade them to vote for Obama they called folks in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia etc, or went up to New Hampshire. Obama and McCain spent 98% of their ad money in 15 states. Even now, the vast majority of Obama’s travel (and previous Presidents too) is to swing states.
<
p>President Bush’s Press secretary, Ari Fleisher, recently defended Obama’s travel schedule in the Washington Post saying “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state and see their president more.”
<
p>How crazy is that?
<
p>Voters in Massachusetts should see their President just as much as the voters in New Hampshire-if not more. Voters in all states, not just those in swing states like New Hampshire, Ohio, and Florida, should be equally important, and NPV would make them that way.
<
p>With all due respect, the withdrawal issue is really a non-issue. There is virtually not a legislature in the country that meets right before the election, and changing the law at that time would in practical terms be almost impossible. Even if it did happen, the black-out provision would control. Courts have enforced similar provisions in other compacts. Finally, NPV would likely give the winning candidate a supermajority in the electoral college-the 270 plus from the compacting states plus others that voted for the winner-making a premature withdrawal irrelevant anyway.
<
p>It is easy to think of far-fetched scenarios, but there are good answers to all of them, plus most of these are worse under the current system anyway. (for a complete list go to http://www.every-vote-equal.com and check out chapter 10)
<
p>As far as Massachusetts casting its electoral votes for the national popular vote winner instead of the winner of our state-that is precisely the point of the whole thing. One country, voting together, everyone on an equal footing. The electoral college stays in place, but as a rubber stamp for the popular vote in all 50 states. We will still have bragging rights if our state goes the other way. But we will also be relevant, and our voters will be courted, driven to the polls, and all the other trappings of a real campaign. We’ll have candidate visits, rallies, and those pesky ads (yeah, I know not necessarily a plus, except for the local broadcasters). No more driving to New Hampshire except during primary season (which is a post for another day!) We will also see our Presidents more once they are in office. Our concerns will matter more. And hopefully, more people will realize that elections really do matter.
Thanks for discussing this issue.
<
p>As you can tell, I think it’s really important.