Let me count the ways.
The candidate with the most votes should win the election. Just like in every other race in the country. In 1 out of 14 presidential elections-1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000, the second place candidate was elected. But we have narrowly missed this anti-democratic result much more frequently. In 5 out of the last 12 elections a shift of just a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate.
Every vote should count equally. We are not the battleground states of America; we are the Untied States of America. Every voter should have an equal say in electing the President. It is crazy to have 15 states elect the President because, through an accident of demographics, they have roughly equal numbers of Rs and Ds. Then, because of the winner take-all rule the entire weight of the state goes to the winner. Thus candidates really only bother with a handful of battleground states. In the 2008 general election, activists at Blue Mass and elsewhere didn’t call voters in our state to persuade them to vote for Obama-they called folks in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, or went up to New Hampshire. Why? Because it wouldn’t matter if we turned out people here. Everything over 50% plus one is irrelevant. Obama and McCain spent 98% of their ad money in just 15 states. States that 65% of us don’t live in. Even now, the vast majority of Obama’s travel is to swing states.
The pernicious effect of the Electoral College extends to governing and not just campaigning. All recent Presidents’ travel schedules have been dominated by battleground states. Ari Fleisher was quoted 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.” How crazy is that? Voters in Massachusetts should see their President just as frequently as the voters in swing states. National Popular Vote would make it so that each voter, regardless of where he or she lives, will be considered equally valuable at the height of presidential campaign season and after. Battleground state status also affects disaster declarations according to a recent study by BU professor Andrew Reeves, “… A highly competitive state can expect to receive twice as many presidential disaster declarations than an uncompetitive state, holding all else constant including the damage caused by the disaster,” he says.
Increased voter participation. When a state moves from a safe state to a battleground-think Indiana and Virginia in the last election-turnout jumps among young voters, who are perhaps more aware of the impact (or lack thereof) of their vote. According to a study by Fair Vote based on CNN and exit polling data, young people were 17% more likely to vote if from a swing state than from a safe state.
The current system is an invitation to monkey business in battleground states. Think of it this way-with the Electoral College, a margin of, say, 500 votes can result in 27 electoral votes in Florida, and about 10% of the total needed to win. Take tens of thousands voters off the voter rolls because they have names that are similar, but not the same as, convicted felons but live in similar places, and viola a few thousand less votes for the other side. Or send out deceptive flyers and emails, and all the other dirty tricks that were used. Under a popular vote, 500 votes is exactly that-500 votes and less than 0.0005% of the votes needed to win. Not even a drop in the bucket. And certainly not worth the risks.
It is easy to think of far-fetched scenarios in an attempt to discredit this proposal, but there are good answers to all of them, not to mention most of these objections are possible-if not more likely-under the current system.
Tisei’s objections center around allegations that NPV is “unconstitutional” or a “circumvention” or “end run” around the Constitution. National Popular Vote is an application of two constitutional provisions, Article II section 1.2 and Article I section 10. How is it a circumvention to use the powers that the Constitution gives the states? The states have the plenary complete power to allocate electors however they see fit.
Massachusetts has chosen presidential electors in ten different ways over the years-Including by legislative appointment, by a combination of popular voting and legislative appointment, by congressional district, and by special elector districts. Massachusetts even “cancelled” elections twice in the 1800s when the people were likely to choose the “wrong” candidate and so the legislature appointed their own electors. Interestingly some conservative supporters prefer NPV to a constitutional amendment because it preserves the balance of power between the states and the federal government in a way that the latter would not.
Another common objection to the NPV compact is that Massachusetts would cast its electoral votes for the national popular vote winner instead of the winner in our state. Yes, that’s not only true, but it’s 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. The election is after all on Election Day, not in mid-December when the electors cast their votes. We will still know who our state voted for and we will still have bragging rights if our state goes for the loser. But we will actually impact the election. Our votes, the ones from real people, will really matter. We will benefit from all the 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). We will have GOTV efforts from both parties. And no more driving to New Hampshire for politicking except during primary season. We will also see our Presidents more once they’re in office. Our concerns will matter more. And hopefully, more people will realize that all elections-from the top all the way down-really will matter.
Just one more step.
You can read more about it at our website or that of the National Popular Vote organization. You can also read the most recent Globe editorial on the subject here.
*Enactment is an up-or-down final vote, unique to Massachusetts (or almost so) and a relic of the quill pen days. In the last legislative session, NPV passed both branches, was enacted in the House, but then the clock ran out before a final enactment vote in the Senate.
I am unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of this bill, so could someone tell me what happens if the national popular vote is very very close? Any one particular state can’t force a national recount, so what do states that sign onto this do?
With over 200 million votes, a tie is all but a statistical impossibility. Based on a study of some 7,645 statewide elections in a 26 year period from 1980 through 2006, the organization FairVote concluded that a recount could be expect about every 332 elections — or once every 1,328 years. They also found that 90% of the time, the result would remain the same following a recount.
<
p>The fact of the matter is that under the current system, there are 51 separate opportunities for recounts in each election. There have been five seriously disputed counts in the nation’s 55 presidential elections, and the current system often creates artificial crises.
<
p>A tie is probably more likely under the current system. In the event of a tie in the Electoral College, each state’s U.S. House delegation gets a single vote to determine the winner of the presidency. If the U.S. House is unable to select a candidate (which is possible because many states have split delegations) then the decision falls on the the U.S. Senate where they choose among the vice-presidential candidates.
<
p>
improbability crap. đŸ™‚
<
p>Murphy rules.
<
p>I read that section of the “myths and facts” linked to and it spends a lot of words to say “it’ll never happen”. Yeah, right.
<
p>But what I want to know is – what does it say in the actual bill about ties? It’s got to say something – I was just wondering what that something was.
<
p>Here’s the text of the compact.
I find it very difficult to follow your logic. Once the national popular vote proposal is implemented, the Electoral College becomes irrelevant — it’s merely a rubber stamp whether all states join the compact, or only a simple majority in the Electoral College join the compact.
<
p>The simple fact is this, the national popular vote compact ensures that the president is elected by the people in a system where each and every vote counts equally. It is the only office in the United States that is not elected by a popular election and there are no other democracies that use the same system. This change is long, long overdue.
I had intended to post this in response to the comment below. My apologies.
I’m glad there’s language in there to cover it.
In that case it is arguably unconstitutional since it is subverting Congresses ability to pick the President, it also violates the spirit of the Electoral College since our electors are supposed to follow the whims of their state, or alternatively their Congressional district. It makes little sense to let them follow the whims of some other series of states simply because the guy has an PV vote lead and we want to put him over the top. The guy with the PV lead might have an EV loss.
<
p>For an example look at the 2000 election. Suppose for the sake of argument that Bush won Florida by a wide margin, but still lost to Gore in the popular vote by the same margin. All of the states in the compact, including states Bush might have ‘won’ would switch over to Gore ultimately denying victory to the constitutionally elected President. In the event say Florida was tied and we didn’t know for months, well Gore would win since the compact states would all go to him depriving Florida of their ability to elect a President since their states votes are now irrelevant b/c the national popular vote supersedes it. Or lets look at 2004. Its the same election but for the sake of argument Kerry eeks out a small win in OH, instead of having Kerry constitutionally elected President, our state which went to Kerry by an overwhelming majority would now shift all of its electoral votes, in spite of the fact that a solid majority of the people voted for Kerry, to push since he is the NPV leader. This means that MA and the other 5 blue states in the compact would have gone Bush in 2004 since he was the solid EV leader, even if massive majorities in all 5 states (besides us, WA, HA, IL, MD, and NJ) dictated otherwise. This means 2004 goes from being a narrow Kerry win to a narrow Bush popular victory accompanied by an electoral landslide.
Lastly lets look at 2012. Lets say Obama’s numbers are as terrible as they are now (40%) but Palin is the GOP nominee (only 35% of the country would vote for her) and Bloomberg is running. If he basically runs a billion dollar campaign for the Presidency using his own money he could buy the popular vote and thus win the compact states votes forcing the election into the possibly GOP dominated house which gives it to Palin even if she came in third. Sounds farfetched? Totally plausible under this scenario.
<
p>This compact only works if all 50 states do it, as long as at least several states are not part of it, it essentially creates an even more complicated system and an even more complicated electoral vote and allows candidates to pick a strategy subverting the electoral vote process and focusing instead of picking up the compact states by default. Since its only the NPV they can pick up votes from all over the country and still ‘win’ states they don’t even have to show up to campaign in. I could run ads only in CA, TX, and NY and have tens of millions of voters determine where the electoral votes of six other states go without even having to step vote there. I could run ads every week on American Idol and the superbowl and win the audiences of those two programs votes and invalidate the electoral process in several states. Anyway you look at out people outside our state will be voting for our states votes, and that is just wrong.
I’m watching the debate in the Senate, but I’ll respond in just a moment. Just a quick note, though — Congress has no part in electing the president.
If there is no majority in the Electoral College, the House chooses the President (with only one vote per state) and the Senate chooses the VP. Personally, I’ve always thought this whole NPV idea was an end-run around the Constitution. I do believe the Electoral College should be abolished and replaced with a straight popular vote with IRV, but it should be done properly with an amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise we have the scenario, for example, of MA electoral votes being cast for Bush in 2004 and I would not want that.
In Kentucky, polls close at 6pm. In Virginia, anyone ever convicted of a felony is barred from voting for life. In Florida 2004, the SecO’State purged the voter rolls of all names which matched a felony list from multiple states (but not Hispanic names), despite the frequent duplications of Southern black names due to a heritage which includes slavery. Butterfly ballots, long lines in some districts, I could go on and on.
<
p>Until the rules for how we vote are national — who is eligible, what kind of polling machines, what times the polls are open, absentee, etc — this still doesn’t accomplish what you want.
<
p>Furthermore, because states which aren’t “battleground” are far more likely to have governor, legislature, SecO’State, and even local media operating from the same side, it takes a state whos EVs are a given (and whos impact is a given) and may allow it to be amplified. It’s hard to pull off monkey business in Iowa because both sides have power. How about in MA or in AL?
I may have the number wrong, but I remember hearing that because of the Electoral College, a vote in Wyoming or Alaska counts about 12 times as much as a vote in Massachusetts. I agree that every single thing on your list needs to get fixed, but there is no reason to wait until all 50 states are fixed before we make the Electoral College obsolete.
Here’s a good diagram with an number of electors versus population breakdown.
The problems you allude to are just as prevalent under the current system. Instead of isolating them, they are amplifed by the winner-take-all approach. We are at the mercy of the laws governing elections in contested states. The way Florida or Ohio or Pennsylvania conducts their elections effect us significantly. With a national popular vote, these problems are mitigated.
<
p>The current system creates an incentive for foul play because operatives know that another vote in Florida or Ohio or Pennsylvania is a valuable commodity and can yield greater results. With the national popular vote, every vote is no more or less valuable than any other so it’s harder to influence the outcome.
It would be reckless for us to approve this bill at this time, my own State Rep. Brownsberger bravely voted against it and gave a nuanced rationale against the change. First off, only blue states have entered into the compact meaning that if a GOP candidate gets a plurality, but not a majority of the EC votes, then all the states in the compact switch over, depriving Congress of the ability to vote on it and depriving all of us of our votes. This creates an unnecessary complication and is really only a bargain that would work if all 50 states signed up, and so far only 35 have and we have no insurance all 50 states will sign up. Only then is it a fair process, otherwise none NPV Compact states are going to hold an advantage over us and will have the freedom to follow the actual opinions of the voters of their state.
<
p>There is no federal election for President but 50 independent ones, and essentially this is the MA state gov signing onto a compact invalidating my popular vote within MA for President and allowing other states in the compact and OUT of the compact to dictate how my state will vote. Essentially letting people outside of the state determine where my electors who I duly am electing from my state will go. That is disenfranchisement of the highest order. This is a bad, bad, poorly thought out, unconstitutional go around of the EC that will not practically function and that will have the practical result of letting my vote be determined by other states instead of by me and my fellow residents of MA. This is an incredibly foolish bill. This bill is allowing us to surrender our votes and our voices on one of the most important decisions voters have to make.
I think you may not understand how the compact works. It only goes into effect once states constituting a majority in the Electoral College pass this legislation. Once that happens, the compact states posses a majority in the Electoral College and all of those electors are cast for the winner of the popular vote.
<
p>In essence, the electors will ‘rubber stamp’ the winner of the national popular vote instead of ‘rubber stamping’ the winner of the state popular vote.
<
p>As for the argument about constitutionality, this proposal uses the Constitution — it doesn’t circumvent it. The Constitution allows states complete authority in how they assign electors (in Massachusetts, we’ve assigned them in many different ways in the past) and also allows states to enter into interstate compacts. The proposal has been vetted by constitutional experts and considered sound.
Unless all 50 states sign up, its essentially allowing the NPV to determine the winner which does subvert the will of several states that choose to opt out. Similarly votes in non-compact states will affect the outcome of the vote in compact states, allowing voters in other states to determine where the electoral votes on MA go. That means in 1972 the world would not have realized how wise we were!
Shouldn’t our aim be to respect the will of the majority of Americans? As I mention above, the Electoral College will be a rubber stamp once this system is implemented. We will, instead, have a popular vote — just as is the case in all other elections.
This is why I hate this proposal. If we still maintain the electoral college system than we are saying we want a process that respects the will of the majority of the states, and the people residing in them, not necessarily the broad people of the country. This process subverts that and creates a two-tier system. At that point if your goal is to have a national popular vote than push for a national popular vote, don’t play games by manipulating the electoral college to produce a popular outcome everytime because that is creating a system whereby a state and a resident of that state is ostensibly sending a slate of electors to make its vote in the electoral college and with a wink and a nod subverts the will of the people of its state. I am a voter of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts before I am a voter of the United States of America according to the Constitution. It finds it more than right and proper for me to elect two Senators to represent my state, and one Congressmen to represent my region within my state. And a governor and state legislature to govern my state. This means states are really important. Using your logic why bother with the system at all? Why not elect national Senators or a national slate of Congressmen and have a completely European system of doing this? A unitary government? A national popular referendum?
<
p>No because our founders, and moreover most people, like the sovereignty their states are accorded under the Constitution. This subverts the 9th Amendment since in actuality you are subverting the rights of states to choose their electors, particularly states that are not signed into the compact, and particularly states that are signed into the compact that have a right to send a slate of their rather than the nations electors to the Electoral College. I do not want rednecks in Alabama, or hippies in California determining where my electors are going. I would rather make that decision myself, that is what self-government is, that is why we are the United States of America not the Nation of America. This creates a dictatorship of the majority and any educated person would understand how this would actually create precedence to thwart progressive governance and republican governance.
<
p>I would respect this process a lot more if it was an attempt to eliminate the EC and institute an NPV. But this does neither, instead it creates a situation where the more populous EC states bully the smaller states into accepting their results for the presidential election and creating a de facto NPV and an end run around the ability of states to determine their own electors and elections as well as the 2/3rds requirement that a change to the constitution i.e making the electoral college irrelevant, has to be approved by 2/3’ds of the state. You simply need a consortium of states that add up to 270, you don’t need 2/3ds. If you were really convinced if your principles you would push to change the Constitution instead of forcing this farce upon us.
The proposal calls for implementation once 50% of the electoral college is included. That is not how we amend the Constitution. Such serious changes require a super majority. Come up with a plan that calls for a super majority and then let’s talk, but this does not work for me. It smells of a short cut to what may be able to be achieved through a longer and more laborious Constitutional amendment process. Let’s do it right if this is what people want. This way is not right in my opinion.
This is not a shortcut, it uses the powers granted by the Constitution to assign electors (Article II, Section 1.2) and enter into compacts (Article I, Section 10). Massachusetts has assigned electors in a variety of ways over the years (including by directly appointing them even when the people voted the other way).
<
p>Additionally, all significant election reforms happened at the state level before they were adopted as constitutional amendments — most notably in the case of direct election of U.S. Senators and allowing women the right to vote.
“In essence, the electors will ‘rubber stamp’ the winner of the national popular vote instead of ‘rubber stamping’ the winner of the state popular vote. “
<
p>So I vote for Obama, a majority of Massachusetts votes for Obama, but our electoral votes go to someone else because they got more votes someplace else? And this makes my vote more important how again? Ignoring the choice of your state is better because?
Interesting conversation, but I would note that the constitutional issue with interstate compacts is more complicated than you put it here.
<
p>In fact, Article I Section 10 prohibits agreements or compacts among the states unless approved by Congress. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that this cluase should not be read literally — such that certain “compacts” are allowed to exist even without the consent of Congress. However, the limits of this haven’t been tested too much, and at the very least it’s questionable whether the Compact Clause allows this legislation.
Actually the limits have repeatedly been tested. The Supreme Court has ruled that interstate compacts require the approval of Congress only if the compact impinges upon federal supremacy. As the awarding of electoral votes is specifically and distinctly a state power, there is no federal supremacy issue with the national popular vote compact.
<
p>Furthermore, even if the national popular vote compact needed congressional consent, there is no requirement that consent has to come on the “front end”. Virtually every compact that does require congressional consent is submitted to Congress after it has been approved by the requisite number of states, not beforehand.
<
p>There are some potentially strong arguments against NPV, but I admit I don’t understand this objection.
<
p>First of all, one’s “state” does not vote, either under the system as originally intended, the current system, or the proposed system (except in the case of a electoral college tie). I assume you mean that NPV would dictate how state electors would vote, but that’s the whole purpose of the enterprise. The purpose of the National Popular Vote is to ensure that the vote of individual voters — rather than just those of the electors — matters in the presidential vote. Given that we’re talking about electors (and not states as states), I’m not sure how it’s disenfranchising individual voters by ensuring that electors have to vote for the winner of the national vote.
<
p>To put it another way: what entails the bigger “disenfranchisement” — (1) the votes for the winner of the national popular vote are put aside in favor of the vote of a majority of presidential electors, or (2) the elector’s votes in an individual state are put aside in favor of the vote of the national popular vote? You express concerns about #2, but #1 clearly seems like the bigger problem.
It doesn’t matter on the margins in states for which a landslide is expected.
<
p>Right now, as a MA voter for POTUS, the only states who’s election laws and enforcement I care about are MA and about 20 swingy states. I don’t care about the other 29 because the EVs are a given for states like TX and like CA. If their SOS is letting dead Democrats vote in CA or prohibiting blacks from voting in TX, it isn’t going to impact the election for POTUS one whit, because the 55 and 34 EVs are going Dem and GOP, respectively, regardless. The few percent on the margin simply don’t matter for an EV system where the popular vote in that state won’t be within a few percent one way or the other.
<
p>There are only about 20 states for which the minutia of the rules matter — the swing states. For the other ones, the actions of the SOS, the legislature’s rules on voter eligibility, the polling locations, the style of election machines, the hours, all that… are irrelevant because the Dem or the GOP candidate is going to win by 5% or more one way or the other.
<
p>
<
p>Therefore, these problems which exist now would be magnified by at least a factor of two w.r.t. population, and a factor of 2.5 w.r.t. legislators, governors, SO’Sers, etc.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>You keep claiming this, without any evidence. Just as a vote in PA is more valuable, it’s more valuable to both sides — which means that not only are both sides far more likely to “guard” against shenanigans, but the media also takes a greater interest. I absolutely agree that a single vote in PA or OH is more valuable than one in WY or TX or VT or CA, but I don’t agree that there’s a greater likelihood of foul play in PA or OH. I believe that the likelihood of foul play increases with NPV, though it’s not clear that the likelihood of foul play altering the outcome increases nor decreases.
<
p>Note also that it’s not just illegaliti
<
p>
<
p>Note: if it wasn’t abundantly clear, this entire comment is only with respect to a person in MA voting for POTUS. Election law matters for lots of other reasons…
Got cut off
<
p>Note also that it’s not just illegalities with which I’m concerned. Kentucky closing it’s polls at 6pm is perfectly legal — but it’s not good small “d” democracy. As far as I’m concerned, laws which prohibit felons from voting for the rest of their life are also incredibly inappropriate — but legal. Note that these laws are most extreme in very Republican states: states for which their EVs are a given. By going NPV, those laws have a much greater impact on POTUS than they do now, because swingy states tend not to have such extreme voter eligibility laws.
<
p>
<
p>I don’t have a problem with NPV per se; I’d support this bill if it came with comprehensive election overhall with respect to ratio of machines to voters, geography, polling hours, voter eligibility, and all the rest… so that there was one set of election rules for all 50 states.
<
p>Imagine a traditional home-and-home soccer match. The winner is the team with the better combined score. So, the Celtic Football Club, a defensive team, change the size of the field to be massive and allow 23 players per side on the field, and shrink the goal to half size, guaranteeing 0-0 or maybe 1-0. The Sporting Clube de Portugal, on the other hand, changes the rules of soccer so that off-sides is legal, it’s 6-on-6, and all infractions result in a PK. The score could well look like a football or college basketball score.
<
p>Is this fair? Sure. Both teams played by an identical set of rules in Glasgow, and an identical set of rules in Lisbon. Does it make sense to add the score of these two games together to determine a winner? Of course not.
<
p>But this is exactly what we have. We have 50 different set of rules, and then we’re going to add the score of one game on each set of rules together. It simply doesn’t make sense. You’d never design a set of election rules this way. NPV amplifies this problem by a factor of 2 or 2.5 because the rules have a tangible impact on the result of the POTUS election not just in 20 matches, but now in all 50.
We have the same problems now — whether in swing states and in spectator states. I agree that election rules should be altered, across the board, to increase small ‘d’ democracy but that is a separate issue.
<
p>Aren’t you concerned that 65% of Americans have no incentive to vote because they are in a state that doesn’t matter? To me, this also needs to be addressed. Even if there are variances in the rules it’s better that each and every person has both an incentive and an opportunity to cast a vote that matters in presidential elections.
<
p>What’s more, with a state-by-state winner-take-all system the stakes are enormous to alter a small number of votes in a single place — whether through legal or illegal means. We’re talking about maybe five states. Florida, Pennsylvania, Virgina, Ohio. Pushing a few votes one way or the other can have enormous consequences because a state’s entire slate of electors is up for grabs even if the margin is incredibly narrow.
<
p>With a single pool of votes, every vote matters equally. If you push 5,000 votes one way or the other, you’re pushing exactly 5,000 votes. With the current system, you push 500 votes and you get the equivalent of all Pennsylvanian votes.
<
p>We don’t have the problem now in “spectator states” because those issues swing the vote by a few percentage points — not enough to swing their EVs. Try to respond to the point, not rattle off PR paragraphs.
<
p>
<
p>No, for two entirely opposite reasons:
1. Nobody has an incentive to vote. When was the last time an electoral vote decision came down to one (non-legislative) voter? Oh, never. What are the odds that it would, even in a really small swing state? As close to zero to suggest that nobody has a rational incentive to vote in anything more than a small town election for dog catcher. We do though, due to bad math or good civic duty.
<
p>2. Everybody has an incentive to vote in November because, invariably, there’s some election on the ballot which isn’t going to end in a land-slide. So long as you’re voting for your Rep or Senator or governor or state rep or whatevs, you might as well also vote for POTUS.
<
p>Finally — the states do matter. Their EVs matter. The will of their population is being reflected, albeit imperfectly, via the electoral college. Those states do matter; the individual voter doesn’t matter. But then, see (1): the individual voter doesn’t matter in Iowa or Ohio either because elections for POTUS don’t come within a single vote.
<
p>
<
p>This is just plain wrong. FL+PA+VA+OH = 81 EVs. Obama won all four of those states, but won by 192 EVs… he could have lost all four and still won. This idea that you can go back, look at which states were closest (in an EV/voter ratio) and count is true, and political scientists indeed do just that. It never made much sense to me though. It’s like watching a baseball game and counting the number of balls and strikes each pitcher threw and then complaining that the team which threw more balls and fewer strikes still won the game. Turns out that team was focused on scoring more runs than their opponent… the other stuff, while measurable, wasn’t the goal; to look over-the-shoulder at it isn’t enlightening.
<
p>
<
p>I agree with this entirely — but only with the caveat that the election laws for all voters has to be the same. The voters don’t matter equally if the rules allow someone to vote in one state but the identical version of the person in another state isn’t allowed to vote, for all sorts of reasons.
<
p>
<
p>Again, you’re on full defense mode, but not really responding to my critiques of this implementation of NPV. I’m in favor of NPV, and I find this particular implementation of it intriguing. It’s clearly Constitutional, and it would work in that once enough folks joined the compact, it’d serve it’s purpose. My problem (in addition to the legal issues of a state changing it’s collective mind mid-stream) is that the rules for voting vary dramatically from state to state, and the states which are most extreme on the liberal/conservative scale have the most extreme rules. With the current system, those rules don’t impact the outcome of POTUS because those states have EVs which are forgone conclusions. With NPV and non-uniform election standards, those extremist states’ extreme voter eligibility and election implementation rules impact the actual result of the election.
I’m not quite sure if I follow your objections fully here. I understand your point about different state laws — if polls close in 10pm in Maine but 6pm in Kentucky, that is a problem. But it’s more a problem with bad state laws, rather than one about NPV.
<
p>But it’s your point about fraud and the like that I’m not following. A big part of this, I think, it that I’m not quite sure that I accept your assumptions about the empirical facts. First, is it really true that non-swing states are more likely to be dominated by one party? I’m not so sure about that — for example, many states with strong Democratic majorities in the state legislatures have Republican governors, and vice versa.
<
p>Second, is it really true that it is easier to commit fraud in states where the legislature, executive, and judicial branches are heavily controlled by one party (and again, I don’t think this is common). I actually don’t think so. Like you point out in an earlier comment, the media acts as an outside observer during elections, eager to find a news story about fraud. Second, the parties invest plenty of money watch the counts in precincts all across America — if Team Red is concerned that the entrenched state party in Super Blue-Land will commit fraud, then believe me, they will saturate the area with electoral observers.
<
p>Apart from the point about out-and-out fraud, a big part of your concern seems to be that states will enact questionable electoral laws aimed at minimizing the turnout of the other side. You criticized AndrewKingley for not fully responding to this point when he noted that these electoral law games already happen today (eligibility laws, gerrymandering, etc.). However, I think the burden of proof is on your side on this one — is it really true that the current “spectator” states are more likely to either (a) commit fraud or (b) enact electoral laws worse than they currently have on the books today? Because if neither is true as an empirical matter, as I suspect, then it blunts what I think is your main point.
The fraud angle is much tougher, because the events are rarer, they’re not easily database-able, etc. Kathleen Harris (FL) comes to mind. I’m having trouble figuring out how to search for the racial disparity in number of polling machines per person in white and black regions of (I think Georgia!) in the 2008 election. I’d bet there’s some truth to the folklore of places like Democratic stronghold Chicago finding dead people to vote for the Democratic candidate. Again, not a strong argument, but not an unreasonable one. As for the media — local media hasn’t been as neutral as perhaps we would like them to be. Finally, you’ll note that I didn’t initially include fraud — just “monkey business”. Everything I listed was legal.
<
p>So, let’s get to the legal stuff:
Which of these two groups of states would you say is more liberal?
<
p>A: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming
<
p>B: DC, Hawai’i, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont
<
p>It ain’t perfect (there’s some crossover), but surely you agree that group B is more liberal and group A more conservative, yes? Felony voting laws. In Group A, some convicted felons, once they have completed incarceration, parole, and probation… still aren’t allowed to vote, ever again, unless granted permission by a governor or committee; others aren’t even allowed to ask for permission. Group B: prohibits folks currently incarcerated from voting; once you’re out of the clink, you can vote. In fact, in Maine and Vermont, prisoners can vote too.
<
p>Clearly, there’s a liberal/conservative divide: black men both (a) are disproportionately more likely to be in prison, and (b) are disproportionately more likely to vote for a Democrat when voting.
<
p>
<
p>Let’s now look at the times the polls are open. I divided the states (and DC) into three groups: Group A: voted for XXX all three elections. Group B: voted for YYY all elections. Group C: sometimes voted for XXX, sometimes YYY. XXX equals GOP or Dem, as does YYY but I won’t tell you which yet. Now, my claim is that we should expect to see a statistical difference between A and B. Do we?
<
p>Group A has polls open for 12.36 hours on election day, closing at an average local time of 7:16PM
Group B has polls open for an average of 13.22 hours on election day, closing at an average local time of 7:57 PM.
<
p>It is my belief that longer poll hours are far more favorable to folks who work many hours, or for those who don’t work typical 9-5 jobs, and folks who live in cities (perhaps because of the first two items). More to a point, I believe that long poll hours benefit the Democrat, and shorter poll hours benefit the Republican, since GOP voters tend to be whiter, older, and have more stable and traditional Tuesdays w.r.t. family, work, etc. Sure enough, Republican states are Group A: they have shorter poll hours and close earlier. Statistically solid.
<
p>
<
p>Now let’s look at ID requirements. I think that there’s tremendous evidence that ID requirements are far tougher on the poor — they move more, they may not drive (own!) an automobile, etc. The NAACP agrees with this claim, as does a number of low-income vote groups. In any case, of the 22 states which voted GOP in 2000, 2004, and 2008, 16 require an ID of some kind (photo or not). 16/22 = 73%. Of the 19 states which voted for the Democrat in all three POTUS elections, only 5 require soem kind of ID. 5/19 = 26%.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Felony status, poll hours, and ID requirements. All three things impact the balance of Democratic and Republican voters. Sure enough, in all three cases, the group which is more conservative has policy which more benefits the Republican candidate, and the group which is more liberal has policy which more benefits the Democratic candidate. You’ll note that I don’t take a position on the policy itself, just ascribe the policy as one which benefits one side or the other over the population under consideration.
That clarifies the issue — particularly the larger-than-I-thought discrepancy among states that recently vote GOP and Dem when it comes to restrictive voting laws.
<
p>I would note that Democratic-leaning “safe” states and Republican-leaning “safe” states are not always consistent from election to election, while the voting laws by and large are, so the discrepancy you find would probably not be the same 40 years ago, and probably would be different 40 years from now. Still, the current discrepancy you note is large enough, and stable enough to cover at least a few presidential cycles, that I see your practical point. Without uniform voting laws nationally, it’s difficult to count votes truly uniformly (as NPV would do).
<
p>Hmmm. Gotta think about this some more, but your comment is good food for thought.
<
p>2. Again, we’re being loose with the word fraud. Fraud is illegal; my concerns were legal shenanigans, which I do think are easier with a unified legislative and executive state, particularly if that stance has been solid over time, resulting in judges with a particular preference, etc.
<
p>If we look at historical national popular vote totals, do we see this actually play out? Or, is your contention that you think this may happen in the future?
<
p>Another question, in response to your earlier post, are these variances enough to impact the national popular vote totals significantly? You contend that they are, but I’m not sure that’s the case.
<
p>
<
p>I’m by no means an expert on swing state election law, but I do know that there was tremendous push and pull in the law in Ohio in 2004 — I lived there while it was happening. The stakes are just so high.
<
p>And in doing some work on election law reform there this year and last, it doesn’t look as though it’s going to change too significantly. I would not call the law there moderate. Many of the same problems will exist in 2012. And I wouldn’t call Florida’s purge of voter records moderate, either.
<
p>I really believe that with a national popular vote that pressure would be removed. Kentucky may want to conduct it’s elections one way. I don’t particularly like that the polls close so early, but that’s really up to the state. They can conduct their elections however they’d like. And we can do the same. Like you, I’d hope we see uniform, and democratic changes (and it seems like there will be some modernization legislation in Congress soon) But, in my opinion, these are separate issues and should be addressed as such.
<
p>
<
p>As for fraud, I agree — the term is thrown around loosely. But I do think the incentive for both legal manipulation and fraud is the same. For those interested, the Brennan Center has largely disproved most claims of voter fraud.
<
p>(Thank you for your through responses! Also, I don’t mean to circumvent your questions.)
Many of the groups that are working to address inconsistencies and inequities in election law wholeheartedly endorse the national popular vote proposal — Demos, the Brennan Center, NAACP, US PIRG, Common Cause, and others.
<
p>A national popular vote will also put tremendous pressure on Congress to actually address some of the worst practices of the states and set minimal standards.
I think the central argument here is that the stakes to manipulate votes are incredibly high in swing states. And even if manipulation doesn’t occur, the rules those states impose can alter the outcome of the election.
<
p>Currently, we don’t have any say in how these states conduct their elections. If national popular vote goes into effect, the same will be true.
<
p>However, with national popular vote we are talking about a single pool of some 200 million or more voters. It is much more difficult to skew results when the margins are greater. Whether those results are skewed intentionally via foul play, or by nature of differing state law.
<
p>How did the current system work out in 2000? Not that well. Thousands were incorrectly removed from the rolls. The oddly designed ballots caused confusion. We had no control over this (nor would we have with a national popular vote).
<
p>However, with the national popular vote there would have been a clear winner and less incentive to tamper with the results both before and after Election Day. The same would be true for Ohio in 2004 if Kerry had carried the state.
Essentially this system replaces a system where small states arguably have too much power in controlling the process with a system where big states have too much power controlling the process. Either way my vote isn’t gonna count for jack shit. There are only two ways it can count. The first is a true NPV which IMO would be a real disaster for the country, especially in close elections, but at least that follows one man, one vote. Alternatively, the proposal I favor, would be having all 50 states adopt a ME/NE style system which means that my vote is magnified in terms of its value since each Congressional district is supposed to have roughly equal population and each district in theory would be competitive, or at least more competitive than a state. In practice it would open up all 50 states to electoral competition and force a truly national campaign, while respecting the integrity of states and the good intentions behind the EC while removing many of its shortcomings.
<
p>That said I could live with NPV, this compact bs seems even less fair than the current system and it is blatantly unconstitutional.
<
p>This would create a true national popular vote, and is completely constitutionally sound under Article II, Section 12 and Article I, Section 10.
<
p>
<
p>We would end up with the same system we have now, just with battleground districts instead of battleground states. Also, this approach significantly disadvantages those states that adopt this system first.
That’s Article II, Section 1.2 — not Section 12.
for your instant education and plain language responses to those of us still with questions. Nice work.
“Why does CA only get 2 votes in the Senate while DE gets 2 votes… blah blah blah…”
<
p>I think the current process has worked great for all these centuries, why break it?
<
p>And another thing, with the incredibly pressing needs in our state and the nation, do we really want to be spending their limited “in session” time on this experimental thought, which is never going to make it past the majority of states?
<
p>Big waste of time!
Right now 65% of Americans live in states that are not contested — that means no visits and no ad spending. What’s more, research has showed that those states are less likely to receive disaster aid. It also means that they do not shape the national debate in the same way Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio do. Of the 12 smallest states, only one is contested — New Hampshire.
<
p>This change is supported by 72% of Massachusetts residents, and the numbers have been comparable at the national level since they began asking this question. People want it.
<
p>There is no question that there are other important things that are before the state legislature now. However, this is also important and is a simple, effective solution to a problem that has existed for some two hundred years. It’s high time it was fixed.
I think people want a national popular vote, I think they only support this compact because you have confused them into thinking thats what would result from this, as opposed to the unconstitutional, two tier EC system where the big states in the compact now have the power.
What do you mean by:
<
p>
<
p>I’ll reiterate that the compact is, in fact, constitutional. And refer you, again, to Article II, Section 1.2 and Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution. These provisions allow states to assign electors however they’d like, and also allow states to enter into contracts with one another.
<
p>As for the ‘big states’ concern, the current system functionally disenfranchises the smallest states (with the exception of New Hampshire). The rest are overlooked in presidential elections.
<
p>I can understand the argument that a popular vote would minimize the influence of small states, but how does it possibly give bigger states more than their fair share of power?
If a majority of states choose to enter into this compact, just the bare minimum to get to 270, those states would essentially be swinging the election to the popular vote winner thus invalidating the electoral results of the smaller states that do not enter the compact thus concievably diluting their influence and ability to shape the election and essentially nullifying their ability to choose their own electors. Whats the point of choosing your own electors when this compact is essentially a run around the constitutional provisions of the electoral college? In that sense the bigger states are infringing upon the rights of smaller states to choose their electors by making that choice irrelevant. Similarly, it is unconstitutional in the sense that this is effecting a constitutional change, the change in we select the President, without consulting 2/3rds of the states to make an amendment. You just need a compilation of states to get to 270 and there are several scenarios where that is not 2/3rds of all the states. So yes this is in fact a series of several states nullifying a constitutional amendment on their own accord without going through the proper constitutional process or channels.
<
p>This doesn’t make sense. Hawaii is not a big state, it’s entered the compact. New Jersey is not a big state, it’s entered the compact. Washington is not a big state, it’s entered the compact. And we’re not a big state, either.
<
p>
<
p>How is this an ‘end run’ around the Constitution. Please read the two sections I have referred you to time and again.
<
p>
<
p>Please point to the place in the Constitution where it indicates that a constitutional amendment is needed to alter the way electors are assigned. You are playing fast and loose with your facts. The constitutionality of this compact is undisputed.
<
p>I don’t think the process has worked great, in fact, I think the current process is serious flawed and has left the selection of the President to about 10 or 12 states. Most of my issues have been covered by others, so I will not repeat them, but I would further suggest that two party rule may return, should being (R) actually mean anything in MA in years divisible by 4.
<
p>As such, my favorite quote regarding facts.
<
p>
If they are like me they find this debate a lot more fun than practical concerns.
<
p>”I understand how it works in practice, but how does it work in theory”-My favorite U Chicago t-shirt
You’re right. It is a big waste of time for the OPPONENTS to use every delaying tactic in the book when 1) the public overwhelming supports a national popular vote and 2) there are more than enough votes for passage.
<
p>The opponents should let the bill pass and move on to other important matters as opposed to stopping ANYTHING from happening.
OK, let’s be clear.
<
p>The current system is great for small states, right? Wrong. Tell it to Rhode Island or South Dakota or Hawaii or Vermont or Idaho. Talk about presidential campaign fly-bys — no chance any campaign for pres will spend a dime there. Nor will a pres candidate get briefed on their issues. Those states are just too blue or too red to matter. By the way, what makes the couple hundred thousand people who live in Wyoming more important that the couple hundred thousand who live in Worcester, anyway?
<
p>The current system gives a last-ditch freedom to “presidential electors” to prevent the people from electing a total nincompoop or a dictator, right? Wrong. The electors are bound by law to give their votes to whomever their state’s laws says. And “rogue electors”? Doesn’t happen. Maybe 5 times in American history. And never affected a race. Just bogus. And I seem to remember quite a few nincompoops in the WH.
<
p>So what does the current system achieve?
<
p>The outdated, current system means there are 17 chances for a nasty recount throwing the whole thing into chaos. We’ve never had a national race anywhere near a .1% margin — but tons of state races. Remember Florida 2000? Ohio, 2004?
<
p>The outdated, current system means that Massachusetts ain’t nothing to national campaigns for pres except a bank for getting donations. Just like all those little states I talked about — and, hell, 2/3rds of the state are bystander states, big ones like Texas and New York, medium ones like South Carolina and Connecticut, and small ones like pretty much all of the small states.
<
p>The outdated, current system means lower voter turnout in Mass and other non-swing states, since the big political machines have no impetus to really try here. In fact, they’re sending people to just about all 17 of the swings, and Mayor Menino and Ricky Tisei are talking to strangers in far-away states instead of pushing out their peeps right here. Ditto times 32 other bystander states.
<
p>Oh, and by the way, sometimes, the current system means the loser wins. Remember George W. Bush? That worked out great for the country, didn’t it? I rest my case.
<
p>1960 Presidential Election
<
p>Six states were within 1 percent and, had the EVs been closer, a recount would have been reasonable in some or all of them.
<
p>With NPV, there would have been 50 state recounts.
The national popular vote total has never been within the 0.1% margin which is, I believe, generally considered the threshold for a recount. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
<
p>Of course, any state can can conduct its own recount if it decides to do so. I believe I mentioned the statistics earlier, but not only would recounts be an extremely rare event, but in 90% of cases they would yield the existing result.
Kennedy 49.7%
Nixon 49.6%
Despite the encouragement of many different individuals, interest groups, and responsible parties, Nixon decided not to pursue a recount in any of several states where it may have had an impact. The simple reason is that Nixon knew what every politician knows; recounts change only a handful of votes in the best of circumstances.
<
p>The previously referenced FairVote study found that in examining every statewide recount in the past 20+ years, the average vote change was 274. And that is on a statewide basis. The reality is that the potential for a national election to be so close as to interest either party in a recount are exceedingly rare (more than 1 in 300 which translates to a 1 presidential election every 1200 years).
<
p>It could happen. If so, then states will engage in their already established procedures for conducting recounts. It is also likely that when the national popular vote compact goes into effect, congress will take a closer look at the need for national recount standards (some in Congress are already doing so). Until then, existing laws govern the conduct of recounts if necessary.
<
p>Yeah, just ask Norm Coleman :rolleyes
<
p>JFK won by 84 EVs. The six states closer than 1% were:
3EVs Hawaii, 0.06%
27EVs Illinois, 0.19%
13EVs Missouri, 0.52%
32EVs California, 0.55%
4EVs New Mexico, 0.74%
16EVs New Jersey, 0.80%
<
p>Those total 95 EVs. Nixon would have needed a recount to overturn CA, IL, NJ, and MO to overturn the results. The odds of all four flipping are incredibly slim; the odds of a recount moving the total vote by 0.1% might well be higher given the four states which needed to flip were much larger margins than 0.1%.
<
p>In short, that claim is just plain nonsense.
<
p>
<
p>This is junk science. Elections are becoming closer and closer; while the EV count doesn’t necessarily reflect that because of the emphasis on swing and the positive correlation between states, it’s likely that elections will get tighter and tighter as elections become more savvy, communications become cheaper and faster, and the use of data to finely target voters becomes more and more efficient. 2008 was a relative landslide; 2004 was fairly close, and 2000 was quite close. Not recount close, but quite close. This claim of only 1 in 300 is silly; we’ve had one election within 0.1% out of fewer than 60 elections so far, and that was fairly recent.
<
p>
<
p>Which means if we got 1960 again, only Hawai’i would have a recount despite the popular vote being a 0.1% spread.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>I think the NPV folks are missing a key step. I think that while they’re working on getting other states to sign the compact, they should work to align the election laws for each state. Figure out how to align things like polling locations, voter eligibility, ID requirements, polling times, equipment, absentee voting rules, recount rules, etc. Right now, it doesn’t appear that there’s any movement in that direction, and in my mind that severely undermines the current NPV compact movement.
Say Sarah Palin wins the popular vote but would lose the Electoral College vote under the old system. Say Massachusetts has signed on to the compact and it’s supposedly in force. I simply don’t trust that we would honor the contract in that situation. What is the incentive for us to honor the contract, when a majority of us voted for the Democratic candidate? Wouldn’t the Secretary or whoever determines the EC slate simply bring up the old debate about what “shall” means, and say he felt it was his obligation to break the contract on behalf of Massachusetts voters? What happens then? How does it force states to honor it?
<
p>And your determination of how many elections are won or almost won by the second-place candidate assumes that spectator states would have the same voters turn out if there was a NPV. But I bet lots of Republicans in Massachusetts don’t vote, throwing off the true “popular vote” totals. True, often there is some other election issue that brings out republican voters, but on the other hand, we know that turnout is much higher in Presidential election years, so that means the other races don’t really bring all the voters to the polls. And people might be more inclined to go vote if they think they’ll be on the winning side, rather than waste their afternoon, which further skews the national vote totals.
You hit the nail on the head. A national popular vote would mean that more Republicans in Massachusetts would vote. So would more Democrats. Everyone would know that their vote was counting towards the national popular vote total.
<
p>It’s no coincidence that voter turnout is 10% higher in battleground states. Those voters know their votes matter. Voters in Massachusetts (or Idaho or Alabama or Rhode Island or any of the 35 fly-over states) know that their vote for President doesn’t really have an impact. Let’s make every vote equal and let’s have the candidate with the most votes win the election.
Funny, same thing happened with me and Mr. Kingsley above. Enough cut and paste talking points. You’ve got to actually respond to the discussion around here.
<
p>
It’s a little thing called laws. First, the national popular vote is a state law. It is highly unlikely that the Secretary of State would unilaterally decide to violate his/her oath of office and state law simply because he/she didn’t like this particular law (i.e. the national popular vote compact).
<
p>If that isn’t sufficient, perhaps the Secretary would think twice before violating the United States Constitution. Specifically, Article 1, section 10, clause 1, states that, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” (emphasis added)
<
p>The national popular vote compact is a contract. It is a contract that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enters into with the other states that have approved the compact. No state has EVER had any attempt to break a compact upheld by Federal Court.
Let’s say a state passed NPV in 2008. By 2012 there has been significant turnover in that state legislature and the state decides to withdraw from the multistage compact either just before or just after the election. Who can bring a legal claim? Presumably another state in the compact. Where will the case be decided? Presumabley federal courts would have jurisdiction. But what’s the remedy? Do you really see a federal court determining that a state can enter into a compact in 2008 that waives it’s Art. II Sec. 1 right to “appoint, in the Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors” in 2012 (or beyond)?
<
p>And please don’t mention Akhil Amar in your response. He is undoubtedly abrilliant scholar, but he’s the very definition of an ivory tower theoretical legal thinker whose theories don’t often go over well with real world judges.
Here’s what the text of the legislation says:
This is pretty standard for interstate compacts, which usually have a withdrawal provision associated. The reason being that “…almost all compacts contain obligations that a member state would never have agreed to unless it could rely on the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by the other states that are party to the compact.” According to the book Every Vote Equal.
<
p>Now, here’s the interesting part. According to the Constitution:
Congress enacted a law in 1845 that says:
Now, in addition, federal law states that the appointment of electors is conclusive only if the appointment is based on:
That’s to say that presidential electors can only be appointed under a law that was in effect prior to Election Day, and therefore it’s illegal under federal law to change the manner of appointing electors after the fact.
So the SCOTUS decides the election yet again, sounds like an even worse system to me.
A state has never attempted to change its slate of electors after the fact, why would it do so with this plan?
Now you have given it an incentive to do so, to swing the results of the election retroactively. Sure everyone is happy that the national popular vote is being implemented, its probably because we are the state with the most ‘Re-elect Gore 04′ stickers around. Yet our memories are short, in 1972 we were the only state to realize affirmatively what a scumbag Nixon was, and came damn near to being a state that rejected Reagan. In fact in 84’ Mondale could have pursued a recount here, but what was the point? My point is we vote as a state with our values as a state announced to the world, I think a lot of people, myself included, would have a problem with my states votes going to a candidate I, and the majority of the state, did not vote for. And if changing the rules after the fact was the difference between a President Palin and a President Obama, then I would expect our Democratically dominated state to play around with it to ensure the advantage for their party, just as they did with the Senate seat.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but there is no greater incentive under the national popular vote proposal to change electors after the fact. It’s illegal. People don’t do it now and won’t do it under the compact.
<
p>As someone else on this thread wrote, ‘Do I care how my ward voted in the race for governor? No. I care who got the most votes state-wide.’ The same should be the case for the presidency. You can still say that your city or your state or your region voted for this person or that, but there’s no reason that the president shouldn’t be elected popularly. It’s how it’s done in every other election, and that’s the way it should be done here, too.
…during the 2000 recount fiasco.
Florida may have considered it, but they would have been unable to carry out their plans. No-other state would have been able to either.
<
p>The drafters of the national popular vote compact were very aware of the potential for post election mischief which is why the compact prohibits any of the member states from opting out of the compact until after the new President is sworn into office (Jan. 20).
<
p>There are constitutional prohibitions on post-election changing of presidential electors. There are federal laws restricting post-election changing of presidential electors. Lastly, there are very real practical political considerations on why states could not change their presidential electors after Election Day. For a detailed discussion visit:
http://www.nationalpopularvote…
…the law you refer to might not withstand constitutional scrutiny. The Constitution says that electors are appointed how the state may direct and Congress judges the validity of electoral slates when the ballots are open. If FL decided to send a handpicked GOP slate of electors and the then GOP Congress decided to accept that slate then its game over.
I still don’t get why a state wouldn’t back out and send electors to vote for their state’s choice, in spite of the compact, if doing so would elect their state’s choice instead of the NPV winner.
Even if a state wanted to back out of the compact, the provisions of the compact (which is a contract that the Commonwealth voluntarily agrees to enter should the Governor sign the bill), the impairment clause of the Constitution, several existing federal laws, as well as political realities would prohibit them from doing so.
<
p>See my previously posted link for an in-depth discussion why post election mischief, i.e. backing out, CAN’T occur.
<
p>There was also a discussion of enforcement on a different thread.
Which is why in that regard it is not unconstiutional. It just is a law where each state says how it will allocate its own electors given other conditions. However, states are sovereign regarding alotting their electors and not bound by “obligation of contracts”. Heck, states don’t even HAVE to choose their electors by popular vote.
The purpose of the Presidential election should be to elect the Presidential candidate favored by the majority of the people he or she will be leading. National Popular Vote achieves that in a way that fairly represents every single voter, which our current system fails to do, in ways listed in the original article.
<
p>Obviously a lot of concerns have been raised on this thread, but one main one is the fear that “our” Electoral College votes will go to a candidate who lost Massachusetts. I would refer these people to the original post- that’s the point. Don’t think of them as “our” votes, think of the Electoral College as gone, nonexistent in all but name. The winner of the popular vote would be elected, just as we do in every single other type of election in this country. We could still have the moral victories, the “hah, we voted for McGovern” moments, but what we would also have is a system where every single voter in Massachusetts casts a vote that impacts who their President will be, something that has never been true in any of our lifetimes. That is the most crucial victory of all.
<
p>And I’m not sure if this was covered elsewhere in the thread, but a part of the NPV contract says that any state can vote itself out again at any point EXCEPT from six months prior to election day through election day and the actual vote. This prevents any sort of underhanded political maneuvering during the period where the election is actually held, so discard that as a possible “threat” to the NPV system.
<
p>The current system means 15 states out of 50 decide the election; 4 of those states get over 50% of the visits and money from both major candidates. Those few states define the issues that the national election rides on. Millions upon millions of people cast votes that don’t matter and don’t affect who will lead their country and shape policies that directly affect their life. Millions more know this, and don’t even bother going to the polls.
<
p>National Popular Vote means all of that changes and every person in the country has an equal vote for who will be their President. To me that sounds like the way it should be.
As you point out, moral victories are nice, but they are just that, moral victories. I know that ACTUAL victories are more important to me.
<
p>I wasn’t voting in 1972, but I have to imagine that the McGovern voters felt like I did after voting for Kerry. Great, Kerry won Massachusetts. Crap, Kerry lost the election. I would have taken an actual Kerry victory over the moral one any day.
<
p>Yes, I’m proud that I voted for Kerry. I’m proud that Massachusetts voted for Kerry. But you know what; I would gladly have traded Bush winning Massachusetts for Kerry winning the White House any day of the year.
<
p>Look at it another way. I don’t care if the US Senator I vote for wins or loses my district. I only care if he or she gets the most total votes. Same thing for Governor. It SHOULD be the same thing for President.
I would completely agree with you that a true, national, popular vote would represent each individual voter as a political actor in a Presidential election. THIS system does not propose that. Instead it creates a separate and unequal tier of states, those in the compact, and those out of the compact, and then nullifies the result of the state presidential election to conform to the winner of the national popular vote. This nullifies my vote as an individual in a state of 6 million people to determine where our 12 electors go, instead of the majority of the country, even a slim majority, picked Palin, my electors, along with the votes of the 6 million people in this state that voted not to send them to her, get completely nullified. Similarly if I lived in a non-compact state, say SC, my electoral votes are nullified since the compact states become the new swing states and wield a whole lot more power than the existing swing states. It leads to a de facto system whereby the votes of other people affect the votes of our state. That would only be fair if ALL the states nullified their electoral votes and conformed to the popular vote. And if you are confident you can get 50 states to sign up to the compact, then by golly you can get 2/3rds of 50 to approve of an amendment killing the EC for good. Whats the point of keeping the relic around if its so bad? This creates an unequal and unfair, and frankly unconstitutional system that is more confusing and harder to enforce than the status quo, less democratic, and ultimately not nearly as laudable towards the goal its supporters want as an actual constitutional change.
<
p> Right now every state has roughly equal electoral power in the sense that we all send our electors to select a president. Obviously some states have more electoral power in terms of votes, others in terms of their closeness. So Florida which has less votes than NY or TX is more important since it is more evenly divided. Yet by switching to a congressional district model every state will have its liberal, conservative, and swing districts represented and every state becomes competitive. Democrats would have reason to visit TX, Republicans would have reason to visit NY and New England.
Instead, we’d get a system where your vote in a country of some 300 million people determines who the president is. To me, that seems like a better way of doing things.
<
p>Also, I don’t understand this argument at all:
I think you’re missing the point, here.
This is a true national popular vote. Which ever presidential candidate receives the most votes will win the election.
<
p>This does not create any kind of tiered system. Every individual voter’s vote counts and counts equally. The electoral votes and the Electoral College ratify the votes of the 120 million individual voters whereas currently, the Electoral College ratifies the votes of the 50 states and DC. Let me explain the difference.
<
p>As someone pointed out, the votes of the 1.1 million people in Massachusetts who voted for McCain in 2008 were essentially meaningless. Obama got more popular votes in Massachusetts and hence all 12 electoral votes. As a matter of fact, someone who voted for McCain in Massachusetts actually had their vote count for Obama under the current system.
<
p>Under a national popular vote, those 1.1 million McCain voters would have their votes count towards the national popular vote total for McCain. As would the McCain votes in every state. Each individual vote would matter. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC gets elected.
<
p>The national popular vote compact explicitly states that all of electoral votes of the states in the compact (a minimum of 270) are awarded to the candidate who receives the most popular vote in all 50 states and DC. EVEN STATES NOT APPROVING THE COMPACT HAVE THEIR POPULAR VOTES COUNTED TOWARDS THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE TOTAL. This is the only way the compact will truly work. This insures that there is not a “two-tiered system”. The popular votes in a non-compact state count equally with those popular votes from compacting states.
<
p>Now, under the national popular vote compact, the electoral votes of states not in the compact become superfluous. The compact doesn’t go into effect until there are states with at least 270 electoral votes (minimum number of electoral votes to get elected) that have joined the compact. The individual “people” (or popular) votes in all the states will determine who receives the block of 270 electoral votes.
<
p>Every individual vote, whether from a big state or small state, or from a compact state or a non-compact state, is exactly the same. There are no more swing or safe states. There are just voters.
I would completely agree with you that a true, national, popular vote would represent each individual voter as a political actor in a Presidential election. THIS system does not propose that. Instead it creates a separate and unequal tier of states, those in the compact, and those out of the compact, and then nullifies the result of the state presidential election to conform to the winner of the national popular vote. This nullifies my vote as an individual in a state of 6 million people to determine where our 12 electors go, instead of the majority of the country, even a slim majority, picked Palin, my electors, along with the votes of the 6 million people in this state that voted not to send them to her, get completely nullified. Similarly if I lived in a non-compact state, say SC, my electoral votes are nullified since the compact states become the new swing states and wield a whole lot more power than the existing swing states. It leads to a de facto system whereby the votes of other people affect the votes of our state. That would only be fair if ALL the states nullified their electoral votes and conformed to the popular vote. And if you are confident you can get 50 states to sign up to the compact, then by golly you can get 2/3rds of 50 to approve of an amendment killing the EC for good. Whats the point of keeping the relic around if its so bad? This creates an unequal and unfair, and frankly unconstitutional system that is more confusing and harder to enforce than the status quo, less democratic, and ultimately not nearly as laudable towards the goal its supporters want as an actual constitutional change.
<
p> Right now every state has roughly equal electoral power in the sense that we all send our electors to select a president. Obviously some states have more electoral power in terms of votes, others in terms of their closeness. So Florida which has less votes than NY or TX is more important since it is more evenly divided. Yet by switching to a congressional district model every state will have its liberal, conservative, and swing districts represented and every state becomes competitive. Democrats would have reason to visit TX, Republicans would have reason to visit NY and New England.
I feel as if the no-party on this thread comes from people (great regular commenters here, btw), who maybe had that one U.S. Civics teacher who made them fall in love with every little wrinkle of the Constitutional process they were charged with memorizing.
<
p>Yes, this proposal, uses the “electors” language of the Constitution to, in effect, make the Electoral College irrelevant. Good. I hope it kills it dead. It doesn’t have a “spirit” we are bound to honor. It’s a crummy mechanism and its design allows it to be turned into a rubber stamp.
<
p>The Constitution says each state can decide how to assign its electors. I want our state to assign them all to the winner of the NPV, so long as a sufficient number of other states are going to do the same. I don’t think inconsistencies in the voting processes among states are a big deal. Looks like our own democratic representatives are going to get us on board. Good.
This is the the telling quote:
<
p>
<
p>Well forgive me if my civics teachers actually taught me that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it actually you know HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. Now you are right this does make the electoral college irrelevant, arguably a laudable goal, but it does so the wrong way. Instead of allowing 2/3rds of the states, a strong, supermajority of the states, essentially an effort of states united with one another, to actually change the Constitution and choose a new method of voting this proposal keeps a method of voting its own proponents think is antiquated, un-democratic, and morally wrong while using a compact between the states to essentially throw them election to whomever wins the popular vote. Now the constitutional objections to this are two-fold.
<
p>The first is that this is infringing upon the rights of states, not entering the compact to pick their own electors by making that choice irrelevant. An addendum to this is that this also makes the actual state vote irrelevant, why should I bother voting in a Massachusetts Presidential election if the rest of the country is determining my vote more than I am? It actually decreases the influence of my vote and the influence of our state, no one would have an incentive to campaign here since a candidate would just need to ramp up the totals nationwide and in the populous compact states to swing the election his or her way. It actually makes my vote less relevant since now this magical vote, the national popular vote, supercedes my individual vote to select an elector to the College. The second major constitutional objection is that this is changing the constitution, again by making the EC irrelevant, using a simply majority of the states, or even a minority of the states that happen to add up to 270. The minimum road to 270 is well under half the states, I checked it. So in effect a minority of the states could concievably be changing the Constitution in practice without having to consult with the rest of the states.
<
p>Now onto the practical problems. As proponents have pointed out any break in the contract, say MA or CA gets cold feet about a President Palin, and don’t put it past our legislature-we like altering the process mid stream to benefit our beloved ruling party (look at the Senate rules changes), which would put any election in extensive and awful federal court arbitration since it is a state v state fight it would take far longer than Bush v Gore to resolve the election.
<
p>Other practical problems include the fact that no, the bigger states will still see more campaigning since they will now have disproportionate influence and it essentially makes the compact states the new swing states. And makes state by state presidential elections irrelevant. Look at OR, usually blue, but occasionally votes red, now it will almost always swing blue because all the other compact states, again most of them blue, will force its votes to go blue. And candidates will have to run a confusing two step campaign where they try to win the non compact states in an old EC style campaign and try to win the compact states with a big media blowout campaign. It will confuse voters, cause more recounts and court cases, and ultimately create a two tier presidential election system that won’t work.
Essentially the compact system is only fair if all the states are in the compact, begging the question if that can be obtained why not just eliminate the electoral college entirely using the sound, legal, and constitutional method of an amendment to the Constitution? Its because NPV advocates know they don’t have the votes and its easier to eek out a slim majority or even a minority of votes in some shady compact that bullies the rest of the country into following suit. That does not sound particularly democratic to me.
<
p>Either ditch the EC entirely, which is a whole other debate entirely, or alter the EC to make it more fair and proportional. Adopting the ME/NE model is actually quite easy, requires a simple majority state leg vote, and could be feasible in most of the 50 states. It preserves the EC which favors smaller states and preserves minority rights, while also making every state more competitive meaning its a true 50 state campaign.
<
p>States who are not in the compact will continue to be able to select electors in whichever way they’d like to. It does not impede the powers granted them by the Constitution.
<
p>Furthermore, the vote totals in those states that are not part of the compact are counted in the total — so this truly does nothing to disempower any state. In fact, it will ensure the voices of citizens in the twelve smallest states are heard (which, in practice, is not the case now).
<
p>
<
p>The more important question is why, if you’re a Republican in Massachusetts should you vote if the rest of the state is determining your vote? Or the opposite in Texas?
<
p>
<
p>Of course, this also means that well under half the states could elect the president (as has happened in the past).
<
p>And after reading this:
<
p>
<
p>I’m beginning to think you don’t understand the premise at all. In theory and practice, this creates a national popular vote. Not a two-tier system. And under this proposal, every vote is equal and the Electoral College is irrelevant. Please note that the compact states base their electoral votes on the total popular vote, not on the popular vote in compact states.
<
p>Not its not, the electoral college is still the method of choice to determine the election in those states that are not in the compact. A Presidential candidate, from either party, could care less about democracy they just want to win the vote. So it crates a perverse incentive to run the electoral tally in the non-compact states while hoping to keep the popular vote to get ALL of the compact states, where individual states within the compact become irrelevant btw in terms of electoral math since they are now the equivalent of one single state with a ton of electoral votes. It does not create a true 50 state campaign, it does not create a true popular vote, the only thing that creates that is a constitutional amendment eliminating the Electoral College entirely.
<
p>So every vote is not equal. The non-compact states actually now have more influence since they are still electing their electors the old fashioned way, while the compact states become irrelevant individually, but wield far more power as a group, since they are the massive swing state that will swing the election.
<
p>The only way you can achieve one man, one vote, and make every individual vote equal in a presidential election, if that is your stated goal, which you and your supporters have argued it is, is by a constitutional amendment that eliminated the electoral college. So why are you not pursuing that?
<
p>This system is a messy, inefficient, and unequal way of achieving that. And while it is arguably not directly unconstitutional it smacks in the face of the purpose of the constitution and finds an end-around around the 2/3rds requirement. A plurality of Americans and a minority of states could in effect, nullify the electoral college through this compact which infringes upon the right of states not in the compact to choose their electors by making that choice irrelevant, and infringes on their right, an equal right I might add, to change the constitutional way we select our president. Not to mention it nullifies any congressional input which is also required for a constitutional change. This is akin to the 15 states that decided rules against the expansion of slavery did not apply to them and broke off into a compact, well they called it a confederacy, that nearly severed the union. Now you may believe the ends justify the means, but had the union supported slavery and the confederacy opposed it, Lincoln would have fought to preserve the Union, the preservation of our Constitution should trump the moral considerations we hold on certain issues.
<
p>
<
p>I never argued otherwise, but since your system actually still has electors being elected and preserves the Electoral College than in effect the compact states, and frankly only the most populous among them, in spite of your best intentions, become a massive swing state, it does not create a true campaign for popular votes. So long as some states are not in the compact, and so long as the electoral college remains, there will be instances where electoral considerations will trump the popular vote, at least from the campaigns perspective.
<
p>Lastly if you are correct that 78% of Americans seem to support this, than you my friend have a groundswell of grassroots support that goes across state boundaries and could easily convince Congress and 2/3rds of the state legislatures to support a true, actual, legal, and constitutional change that creates one system for the whole country of voting for president through a direct popular vote. Until you have that, this system creates two systems, one a default system, the other the correct, legal system that is now reduced to a relic or a vestigial organ of state. The Electoral College would become the appendix of the constitution. I say either find a better use for the appendix or have an appendectomy if this growth is so vile and cancerous in your view.
Until you actually read the legislation and understand how this system works, I have difficulty responding to your claims which are, by and large, utterly baseless.
This legislation would say that MA EVs go to the national popular vote winner, and it would go in effect the second states with an EV majority join the compact. And I am arguing, which you have yet to refute, that this creates an unequal system since some states will still not be in the compact using an old method, and some states will. It will dilute the states influence since the compact will now have the influence our state used to have, and will act as a big swing state. It will not create a 50 state campaign, it will not make every states voice equal, if anything the compact states will drown out the smaller states, the big compact states will drown out the smaller ones, and the non-compact states could have outsize influence since their electoral votes are still decided directly.
<
p>Like I said if your goal, which I disagree with but find laudable, is a true 50 state campaign and a true national popular vote, why make this inefficient compromise with the EC when it would be easier, more efficient, more legal, and just make more sense to get rid of the damn thing entirely?
<
p>Until you answer that question I see no rationale for this proposal.
<
p>This statement is false. Once the compact states are a super majority in the Electoral College, the plan goes into effect.
<
p><> The election occurs.
<
p><> The certified popular vote totals from all states (not just compact states) are added together.
<
p><> The person with the most votes in all states (not just compact states) gets the electors from the compact states.
<
p><> Since the compact states posses a super majority in the Electoral College, that person wins no matter what. Regardless of what happens in non-compact states.
<
p>There is no ‘old method’ after this happens. All that matters is the national popular vote total since that is what will determine the winner.
<
p>I have addressed your constitutional amendment versus national popular vote question in response to another comment of yours below.
This is a true national popular vote. Which ever presidential candidate receives the most votes will win the election.
<
p>This does not create any kind of tiered system. Every individual voter’s vote counts and counts equally. The electoral votes and the Electoral College ratify the votes of the 120 million individual voters whereas currently, the Electoral College ratifies the votes of the 50 states and DC. Let me explain the difference.
<
p>As someone pointed out, the votes of the 1.1 million people in Massachusetts who voted for McCain in 2008 were essentially meaningless. Obama got more popular votes in Massachusetts and hence all 12 electoral votes. As a matter of fact, someone who voted for McCain in Massachusetts actually had their vote count for Obama under the current system.
<
p>Under a national popular vote, those 1.1 million McCain voters would have their votes count towards the national popular vote total for McCain. As would the McCain votes in every state. Each individual vote would matter. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC gets elected.
<
p>The national popular vote compact explicitly states that all of electoral votes of the states in the compact (a minimum of 270) are awarded to the candidate who receives the most popular vote in all 50 states and DC. EVEN STATES NOT APPROVING THE COMPACT HAVE THEIR POPULAR VOTES COUNTED TOWARDS THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE TOTAL. This is the only way the compact will truly work. This insures that there is not a “two-tiered system”. The popular votes in a non-compact state count equally with those popular votes from compacting states.
<
p>Now, under the national popular vote compact, the electoral votes of states not in the compact become superfluous. The compact doesn’t go into effect until there are states with at least 270 electoral votes (minimum number of electoral votes to get elected) that have joined the compact. The individual “people” (or popular) votes in all the states will determine who receives the block of 270 electoral votes.
<
p>Every individual vote, whether from a big state or small state, or from a compact state or a non-compact state, is exactly the same. There are no more swing or safe states. There are just voters.
Jconway, I feel like you just fundamentally don’t like the NPV, because it makes you feel like a tiny fish in a 300-million strong pond. Tough shi*, it’s a big country! I don’t understand how you can feel better about the vote for electors. You make it sound like it’s some local vote where you have real influence, instead of the arbitrary filter between you and the presidential vote that it actually is.
<
p>It’s not changing the Constitution. The Con. gives each state the power to choose its electors as it sees fit. This is just an exercise of that constitutional power.
<
p>You’re clinging to the idea that the “states” are the entities with rights, rather than the people. The voters in the states outside the compact get an NPV vote equal to everyone else’s.
<
p>And if the candidates go to where the most people are to campaign, then good. That’s much better than going to where the magical electors live.
To me that’s precisely the problem. If we were discussing amending the Constitution I’d be first in line to sign up, but this IMO is not how to do it. I agree that states have a right to do this, but I am simply opposed to this method.
To the supporters of this proposal why do you favor this proposal over an actual amendment to the Constitution eliminating the Electoral College?
<
p>If the electoral college is so bad, why keep it, even in this muted form?
<
p>If you are confident you can get most states to sign onto this, why not just get most states to sign onto a constitutional amendment?
<
p>Isn’t this method, where only 5 states have adopted and its slowly moving through the state legislatures, just as inefficient and slow as a constitutional amendment which would actually be more legitimate, more constitutional, more legal, and actually a better proposal from a policy standpoint than this one?
<
p>Why is this muddled and confused middle ground better than the breath of fresh air you all believe would occur if we had a true popular vote and just did away with that 18th century travesty entirely?
<
p>Until these questions can be answered persuasively, this bill is a waste of your time, effort, and intentions.
First of all, this method is not unconstitutional as I, and others, have pointed out repeatedly above. You have made this claim again and again, but it is unfounded. Article II, Section 1.2 of the Constitution allows state legislatures to decide how to assign electors. Article I, Section 10 allows states to enter into contracts with eachother.
<
p>Secondly, it is far easier for a state to amend state legislation than to repeal a constitutional amendment if some ‘unintended consequence’ materializes or some adjustment becomes necessary.
<
p>Thirdly, the compact leaves untouched the states’ existing power to control presidential elections. Most of the constitutional amendments that have been debated in Congress over the years have taken away state control over presidential elections and given it to Congress.
<
p>Fourthly, passing a constitutional amendment requires an enormous head of steam at the front-end of the process (getting the two-thirds vote in Congress). In contrast, state action permits support to bubble up from the people through their state legislatures. Experience shows that building support locally is more likely to yield success.
<
p>Direct election of U.S. Senators occurred first at the state level. As did allowing women the right to vote. This follows in that tradition.
<
p>If you have further questions on this, they are addressed at great length in the book Every Vote Equal. Pages 372 through 384 are particularly pertinent.
Direct election of Senators and Giving Women the Vote did not occur, equally or nationally until every state was subject to the federal Constitutional Amendments, particularly the 17th and the 19th. Similarly every vote will not count in a national popular election until an amendment passes that ensures that nationally and equally. Your stated goals are to have a national and equal popular vote, those goals can only be achieved through that method.
<
p>The compact essentially creates a 270 vote swing state that will go to the national popular vote winner. It retains the idea that the states, not the people directly, elect the people, an idea you and your supporters should find odious. This means that if I am in a small state with little electoral votes that is not in the compact, my vote, which only goes towards my states electoral votes, still counts less. It makes the popular votes within the compact count less since the compact vote does not go to the winner of the states in the compact but to the winner of the national election, that said it makes the electoral vote of the entire compact count for a whole lot more. So long as there remains a distinction between the popular vote and the electoral vote than the disparities you decry remain in place, and in fact they are made worse and their resolution is made more complex. Now that small state voter I mentioned, his vote does swing the compacts vote, which means that a vote Idaho will swing electoral votes coming from MA. That is also troubling, though in the wide scheme of things, ID is still just as irrelevant, as is MA.
<
p>If you want to maintain a state based electoral system, as I do, than you should favor ME/NE style electoral votes which ensure every state is competitive and a battleground. If you favor a direct national popular vote, which I do not, but I respect that position, than you ought to favor eliminating the role of states entirely in the process by creating a single national popular vote. So long as they are electoral votes assigned to states to be won, even with the compact, than states, not people will be having the say, and some states will be ‘more equal than others’ in this system creating state disparity and not creating a true 50 state campaign. In theory it works, in practice it stinks and adds a layer of complication to a system you and your supporters admit is already broken.
<
p>As for my constitutional objections I have never argued that states cannot choose how they select their electors, the fact that you are defending that right demonstrates you are preserving the state system and not creating a true popular vote. It becomes a de facto popular vote, which means that states, yes entering into contracts with one another, are now altering the way the Presidential election is determined for the entire country, and doing so without going through the proper constitutional channels. This means in effect that the states are ganging up on states that disagree with them and the federal government and nullifying a portion of the Constitution. Nullification is unconstitutional, the Civil War should have settled that, but in effect this is a state based veto upon all the articles of the Constitution implementing the Electoral College and the process by which we elect our President. The irony is this compact relies upon a system that its supporters admit is undemocratic and unfair.
There is no need to trample on the brilliance of the Founding Fathers, i.e. a constitutional amendment, unless it is absolutely necessary. And in the case of a national popular vote, we can and SHOULD accomplish the goal via state action as the Founding Fathers intended.
<
p>The writers of the Constitution specifically and deliberately assigned the power to choose presidential electors to each individual state. The national popular vote compact is simply states availing themselves of the power given to them.
<
p>Furthermore, state action is the way that electoral changes have historically happened. AndrewKingsley mentioned the direct election of US senators and giving women the right to vote. Those are excellent examples (see also extending the franchise to 18 year olds).
<
p>The most significant electoral change in our history came about through state action . . . letting people vote for President. Nothing in the Constitution says you or I can vote for President. We can vote for President because the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a STATE law specifying that Massachusetts citizens could vote for President. In addition, they passed a STATE law indicating that the electoral votes from Massachusetts would be based on the popular votes.
<
p>Like it or not, the Legislature could pass a law tomorrow saying that people can no longer vote for President. It would be outrageous, but constitutional.
<
p>The point is that the Founding Fathers gave this power to the states. States have exercised it in the past. The national popular vote compact continues this historical precedent of states using their constitutionally afforded power.
But the power they gave to states was to assign their electors to an electoral college which means that your system is still using…wait for it…THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. And thus electoral votes, NOT popular votes are deciding the Presidential election. The popular votes in states outside of the compact go to electoral votes, and the popular vote within the compact goes to a 270 vote swing state. It still keeps state disparities, it still does not create any incentive to have a 50 state or national campaign, and it is not instituting a direct national popular vote, but is instead creating a massive swing state that will go to the popular vote winner. The only way to get a true, direct, presidential election is to dispense with the electoral college entirely and the only way to do that is to pass a constitutional amendment. This proposal seems like a clever way to use the existing system to dissolve itself, but it isn’t. At best it is a way to create a default and de facto popular vote outside of the Constitution and that makes the law it uses to justify itself irrelevant. A very shaky ground to hold an election in my honourable opinion. Or at worst it creates an even more convoluted, complicated, and unfair electoral system than the status quo, one that is also decidedly less democratic in a myriad number of ways while also setting a dangerous precedent for states to form compacts that allow them to nullify the Constitution. I thought the Surrender at Appomattox settled that question, but I guess it rears its ugly head once again clothed in the robes of ‘progressive politics’.
<
p>More to the point I want the electors of my state determined by the popular vote of MY STATE. It makes the election at the state level meaningless, while retaining 50 different state elections which makes a national vote meaningless as well, except that the total national vote will now magically swing the big swing state.
<
p>If your goal is to eliminate the electoral college and have a popular vote, i think it makes the most sense to eliminate the electoral college and create a popular vote. This flies in the face of the Constitution, common sense, Occams razor, and common decency. It sets a host of dangerous precedents from nullification to a slippery slope eliminating state based elections for Congressional and Senatorial seats.
I fear that you just don’t understand the national popular vote plan and how it works. This proposal DOES NOT create any kind of two tiered system (please see my previous post on this matter). EVERY VOTE, whether in a compact state or non compact state, IS EQUAL. Candidates will campaign for votes everywhere; in compact states and non-compact states, in big states and small states, in costal states and heartland states. We know this to be the case because that is how candidates currently campaign in elections where every vote is equal (i.e. they campaign everywhere).
<
p>The national popular vote proposal does keep the Electoral College. The reality is that the Electoral College serves ZERO PURPOSE TODAY. It is a rubber stamp for the votes of the 50 states and DC. Under the national popular vote compact, the Electoral College instead becomes a rubber stamp for the popular vote total of votes cast by every voter in every state.
<
p>We can argue as to whether or not the Electoral College should have a purpose. The Founding Fathers intended it to be a deliberative body that would exercise independent judgment. However, that hasn’t been the case since the late 1700’s.
<
p>There certainly is an argument to be made for pursuing a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College. Interestingly enough, abolishment creates a whole series of other problems not the least of which is state control over elections. However, the national popular vote proposal has chosen the interstate compact path and to work within the framework of the Constitution and honor the historical precedents of electoral changes via state action. That path makes sense to me.
<
p>
First off this system would allow just 11 states to dictate what the federal voting system is for the other 39, that clearly tramples upon their states rights to choose electors themselves by making their votes irrelevant, additionally it is an unconstitutional usurping of the constitutional process. Right off the bat we should be worried about giving state compacts that kind of nullification power, and again refer you to the results of the very important case Grant v Lee which clearly resolved that dispute.
<
p>Secondly under this system which preserves the state based allocation of electoral votes the popular vote of a state is rendered irrelevant to the national outcome, only in the states that are part of the compact. This means if my state is in the compact my vote is not relevant since my state is not up for grabs, it simply goes to the national vote winner. What incentive does a candidate have to visit me state now if national ads are more effective at winning my states votes? Similarly it will create an incentive for candidates to sew up some of the other 268 votes by directly campaigning there and then running the bare minimum of national ads to get a popular vote count over the threshold to suddenly get 270. If a candidate wins by less than a few hundred thousand votes it will invalidate the results of several state based contests. That sounds neither equal nor democratic. It makes my state vote irrelevant and actually decreases the power of my individual vote.
<
p>Thirdly it does create two tiers. Do you not agree that if 11 states tied their electors to the popular vote and the other 39 didn’t that this creates in effect two different systems for allocating electoral votes? I do not see a broad national direct popular vote in this scenario, I see at minimum 11 states tying themselves to the national popular count and the others still acting as if nothing changed. A campaign trying to win will not take the honorable route and try to win the popular vote, but will focus on winning those states not in the compact, or winning all the states in the compact, because either strategy gets to 270. It will not lead to national campaigns.
<
p>Fourthly compacts are unconstitutional in areas where the federal government reins supreme as argued in Virginia v Tennessee, and considering we have a Federal Election Commission and this is for the election of a federal office, I would argue that states cannot subvert or alter that process to the extent the compact is trying to do.
<
p>Like I said you don’t like the electoral college than pass an amendment to get rid of it. That requires common sense and a straightforward approach, this system would add yet another layer of complication on top of the myriad layers of state differences in election law, and it would establish several dangerous constitutional precedents.
<
p>MA is the 6th state, bringing the number of EC votes to 73. The law doesn’t go into affect until there are over 270 votes and with 6 states, we are only 27% of the way there. How you get 11 states “dictating” anything is beyond me, as even the remaining 5 largest states do not add up to 270.
<
p>Because of the distribution of EC votes, this probably will not reach 270 votes until about 30 of the states sign on to the process anyway, so if 30 of the 50 states agree to do it this way, where is the problem? As in 1972 or 1984, the votes of the individual states determined those elections. And I, for one, don’t care about what the EC did and the bragging rights of how MA voted because the bragging rights do not outweight the flaws with the EC that NVL would correct. I want my vote to count the same as someone who votes in Alaska or California, and right now, it doesn’t.
This is the minimum of states that it would take to reach 270. Obviously this would be the 11 biggest states getting together. I used this as a hypothetical to argue that 11 states shouldn’t be able to circumvent, alter, or nullify the Constitution. Obviously we aren’t at 11 states yet, and it seems unlikely some of the bigger states would agree to NPV, particularly Florida for obvious reasons and TX probably because conservatives are intrinsically pro-electoral college because of 2000.
<
p>Also I honestly don’t see how MA benefits from the status quo, this particularly change, or even a true popular vote.
<
p>In the status quo we are a blue state no one competes.
<
p>In this proposal we are part of the compact, kind of like we were part of super tuesday and joined in with 22 other states, no one will campaign here since the vote will be won by personal appearances in the more populous states and media saturation all over. There is little incentive to campaign here.
<
p>Actually either NPV proposal will likely result in candidates still focusing their grassroots campaigns on swing states since that is where the undecided voters live, there is still little incentive to campaign in ID or MA since even if the non-Democratic votes ‘count more’ they still are not areas where bastions of undecided voters live. It definitely makes CA a swing state again, and IL as well, and TX and other big states. But I would say deep blue/deep red states don’t see much of a change, other than getting more ads which will result from the national airwar. By the way this also makes campaigns a ton more expensive since national airtime is ridiculously expensive, and after the recent ruling, it means corporations will be that much more influential. At least with the EC state party chairs and grassroots campaigning still are the difference makers in the swing states.
<
p>In a compact we are diluting our voting power by surrendering it to the national tally, in a true popular vote process our state becomes entirely irrelevant and its simply a popular vote, but being from a highly democratic area you won’t see candidates campaign here.
<
p>The only way to make us relevant is to adopt a ME/NE model. The districts Scott Brown carried, the districts where lots of independents live, and the districts that have recently elected GOP Congressmen and might elect them again will be competitive. Thats a change that maintains the state based system of Presidential elections while also making every state competitive and creating a truly national campaign, which by making your state matter more, makes your popular vote within your state and even your district matter more. It also increases grassroots campaigns, Obama ran few ads in NE-1 I can tell you from personal experience it was boots on the ground that won it for him. That’s a sensible EC reform, this isn’t.
I think we have reached an impasse and are just talking past each other. I’ll make a last ditch effort.
<
p>Would different states allocate their electoral votes under different methods should the national popular vote compact go into effect? Yes. But, that is what happens now (Maine and Nebraska do not use winner-take-all) and has happened in virtually every election in our history. Only in rare occasions has there been uniformity in the way states allocate their electoral votes. That is what the Founding Fathers established, states rights over the allocation of their electoral votes. Different methods of allocation does not equate to a two-tiered system of haves and have nots that you suggest.
<
p>Candidates always have, and always will base their campaign strategy and distribution of resources on how they can best win the election. Under the current system, that is pouring virtually all their time and money into the small number of swing states where the electoral votes are up for grabs. That is why candidates spent more time and money in New Mexico in the last decade than in Massachusetts. If, as you seem, you are concerned about a two-tiered system, that’s what we have right now. When 98% of all campaign resources (candidate visits, advertising, grass roots organizing, polling, field operations, etc.) go to just 15 states, that is a have and have not situation.
<
p>Under the national popular vote compact, individual votes matter more than state votes. It will no longer be important how Massachusetts as a single state votes. It will be important how each of the individual 3 million voters vote. For those who are concerned, state vote totals will still be reported, publicized and available so Massachusetts can still take pride in voting for McGovern or Kerry or whomever in the future. Under a national popular vote, winning or losing an individual state or states (whether in the compact or not) is secondary to getting as many individual votes as possible.
<
p>Those votes can come from anywhere because the compact guarantees that whoever receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC) will win. A candidate will campaign in Ohio (as an example of a non-compact state . . . yet) because there are 5.5 million voters there and each of their votes is included in the national popular vote total. At the same time, they’ll campaign in Hawaii (a compact state) because there 500,000 votes up for grabs. Will a candidate spend more resources in Ohio than Hawaii, of course they will. However, candidates currently spend ZERO resources in Hawaii. Under a national popular vote candidates will be forced to allocate their resources much more in line with where voters reside. Campaigns will look at their resources on a much more per-voter and cost efficiency model (which actually benefits mid-size and smaller states because campaigns there are more cost effective than in say California or Texas).
<
p>Candidates under a national popular vote system will campaign everywhere. Now they might not physically visit every place, but they will advertise or mail or send precinct walkers to wherever they think the can get votes. This is exactly what happens NOW in campaigns where every vote is equal. Perhaps the best example is right here with Scott Brown. Brown was able to overcome losing overwhelmingly in Boston by campaigning in other areas of the state. It is how Bush was able to win Ohio despite losing the major cities (to cite just two examples).
<
p>As for getting rid of the Electoral College, that is a completely different discussion because that is not what the national popular vote compact does. You are correct on your fourth point that compacts cannot impinge upon federal supremacy (at least not without the consent of Congress). However, we both already agree that awarding electoral votes is a state authority.
I will concede we have to move past the Constitutional debate since I don’t think we will get anywhere with it. For now I will just discuss the merits of the various policies.
<
p>The way I see it under a compact the Electoral College is still the ultimate arbiter of who the President is, not the national popular vote, and the compact is just a clever way to ‘rig’ the electoral vote to match the popular vote. That said, candidates will not be focused on winning the overall popular vote, they will try a mixture to capture states that still award their electoral votes either the way ME/NE does or the way the other 48 do today. They will also focus on big money media campaigns to win the popular vote. In this way the votes still will come down to 15 states, it will just be a combination of the states that have the most population and the most undecided voters. There is still little incentive to campaign in MA since there are few undecided voters here. Sure the 35% of McCain-Palin voters go to the popular vote as they did in 2008. But candidates in either campaign will realize that MA has no undecided voters to campaign for directly through appearances or grassroots activity, instead we will be saturated with some media, but I really don’t see actual campaigning increasing here, either under the compact or in a direct popular election.
<
p>We have to be very clear, a direct popular election means the death of any kind of grassroots campaigning. It will be dominated by big money, big media, and it will actually decrease the ability of an individual voter to swing the election one way or the other. MA will either be overlooked because its votes will just go to the national winner, so why bother showing up here since we can just run national ads, or even in a direct popular vote, since we have few undecided voters living here. We can’t change the fact that we are not a purple state so we will always be irrelevant even if the ‘red state/blue state’ status becomes irrelevant by making states irrelevant through either proposal.
<
p>My solution, adopting the Me/Ne model, particularly when we would only be the third state having it, means that candidates will bother to show up here since our history of electing Republican governors, Scott Brown’s recent victory, and the evenly divided nature of at least three congressional districts makes our state viable again. There are no states where a Republican or Democrat has no chance of winning a congressional election, so to me that’s the best and the easiest way of becoming relevant and creating a 50 state campaign (presuming other states follow). And it is a solution that is not abusing our ability to select electors.
<
p>I would respect this campaign so much more if it was not so defeatist and focused on a tangible effort to get rid of the Electoral College, instead it is a lame compromise that recognizes you don’t have the votes to do this through the proper constitutional channels. But I don’t want to digress into that too much.
<
p>On the merits of this as a policy I still stand in opposition. It is just not good policy.
<
p>Don’t kid yourselves that is exactly what this does. It makes the Electoral College irrelevant by ensuring the compact will swing the election towards the popular vote winner. And it does so in a way that requires only 11 states instead of a supermajority of the states to achieve it. Which would be a more legitimate change in your opinion?
The Electoral College is currently irrelevant and has been for 200+ years. The Electoral College hasn’t exercised independent judgment since Washington left office. It has been a rubber stamp for each state vote since then. The national popular vote compact simply makes it a different kind of rubber stamp . . . of the national popular vote.
I don’t understand this obsession with 11 states. It means you do not understand how the national popular vote compact works.
<
p>Yes, the national popular vote compact could be triggered if the 11 largest states all joined because together they have more than 270 electoral votes. It doesn’t matter. The composition of the states in the compact is completely irrelevant. It could be all the large states. It could be the 41 smallest states. It could be Democratic states or Republican states. It could be coastal states, it could be inland states. Once there are states with 270 electoral votes in the compact it goes into effect and we have a NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE. As has been stated repeatedly by a number of people, once the compact is in effect, it is the candidate who receives the most popular votes IN ALL 50 STATES AND DC. It doesn’t matter if the votes are from compact states or non-compact states.
<
p>And for good measure, the 11 largest states could determine the President under the current system. If one candidate carried each of the 11 largest states by just one vote each, he or she would have enough electoral votes to win right now. And, with the exception of landslides (about 50% of presidential elections are landslides) one candidate hardly ever carries the 11 largest states. Generally speaking, they split 6-5 or 7-4. Regardless, if you are concerned about 11 states, that is a problem with the current system.
<
p>Then get rid of it! The only compelling case to keeping it in your proposal is that it is more difficult and harder to get all the approval you need under the actual Constitutional process so you are proposing an end-run around it. If you were positively sure that 78% of the American people opposed the EC and wanted a direct NPV than they would support an amendment. If that is truly a national result than it is more than enough of the consent you need to change the constitution.
I am not arguing one way or the other regarding the electoral college, I think while my opinion on that issue is well known here, it is irrelevant to this discussion. The question is, is this the best method to change the electoral college? And I have been consistently arguing no, as of others that disagree with me on the EC (they want to get rid of it like you do) but agree that this method is an incredibly poor way of doing so.
It might violate the Voting Rights Act according to the Columbia Law Review
This is addressed on page 448 of Every Vote Equal.
there are 98 comments, of which 25 are written by one person, jconway. Seriously, if you have a conflict of interest or are a paid consultant or something, you should let people know, because I cannot for the life of me figure out why you are fighting this like your life depends on it. It doesn’t.
<
p>This entire stream of comments is cluttered with some bizaar hypothetical 11 state argument that cannot happen, and other equally bizarre hypothetical arguments that can never happen, because of the 6 states that have already approved this. At the same time, you argue for state’s rights and federal supremacy and cannot except the system is unfair right now.
<
p>The same thing happened with the “should petitions be confidential” topic a few weeks ago and utterly ruined the topic. Why are you fighting this to such an extreme level?
I doubt jconway has any conflicts to disclose on this one. It seems he and I are the only opponents to this method of achieving the goal on the thread. There are a couple of other proponent commenter on this thread that I’ve never seen before but so what. When there are only one or two of us willing to present one of the sides there will tend to be more comments to keep up with all the comments coming from the other side. Reasonable people can disagree on this.