National Popular Vote Compact now hits 136 EV

[Statistikhengst]

National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President


The National Popular Vote Compact has now been passed and ratified in 10 states:

Those 10 states currently = 136 EV.


The Compact is simple to understand: as soon as enough states sign on to equal or surpass 270 EV in the electoral college, then those states pledge to automatically give their electors to the winner of the National Popular Vote in the next Presidential election, regardless of who won that particular state. This is a completely legal end-run around the Constitution, it has already stood up in court. Since nowhere in the Constitution is it exactly prescribed that a state must cast it's electors for the winner of the NPV in that state, this has always been a grey area. In fact, until 1824, there were no popular votes to count, anyway. But since the debacle of 1876, the pressure has been enormous that the winner of the NPV in that state get it's electors.

It is pretty obvious that at this time, all the states that have signed on are so-called "blue states", with Maine having signed on in the last days. But it is working it's way through the following states at current:

NY (it has now passed both houses)

OK (it passed the OK Senate 28-18) - according to an Oklahoma poll, albeit an old one, 81% of Sooners are for the Compact.

OR (it passed the OR House 38-21)

Were those three states to completely pass and sign the legislation in this year, that would mean an additional 43 EV (29 + 7 + 7), which would bring the compact states up to 179 EV.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, we have only had 4 electoral misfires in all of our history, and only one of them with an electoral college of today's size (538): 2000.

It's really hard to count 1824 in all of this, because even in that year, not all states had a popular vote and there were FOUR tickets for President/Vice-President, all under the party name "Democratic-Republican". The GOP as we know it didn't even exist in 1824. So that leaves us with THREE electoral-misfires in the history of the GOP vs. the DEM party.

2000 was the narrowest election in the PV where there was a back-fire and the third closest election overall in our history: Al Gore (D) won by +0.52%, but George W. Bush (R) won in the EC 271-267, and due to an electoral defector, the end count was 271-266.

1888 was the second narrowest election in the PV where there was a back-fire and the seventh narrowest overall: Grover-Cleveland (D) won by +0.87%, but Benjamin Harrison (R) won handily in the EC, 233-168. Back then, there were only 401 electors in the so-called Electoral College.

1876 was the largest election in the PV where there was a back-fire: Samuel Tilden (D) won by a full +3.00%, but Rutherford B. Hayes (R) won in the EC 185-184, by one single elector. This was without a doubt the most disputed election in our history and the dispute lasted for months.

There have now been 40 presidential elections since the GOP came onto the national ballot in 1856.

3 / 40 = 7.5%. So, 92.5% of the time, there has been no controversy in the outcomes of presidential elections.

We have also had a number of elections that were far closer in the NPV than 1876, but the EC victory was quite decisive:

1880 was the closest election in our history, not 1960. In 1880, James Garfield (R) won in the NPV by a razor-thin +0.10%, but won easily in the EC, 233-168.

1960 was the second closest election in our history. John F. Kennedy (D) won in the NPV by a razor-thin +0.16%, but won handily in the EC, 303-219-15.

1884 was the fourth closest election in our history, after 1880, 1960 and 2000. Grover Cleveland (D) won his first term by +0.57% (a margin almost identical to Gore's +0.52%), but Cleveland won in the EC 219-182.

1968 was the fifth closest election in our history. Richard Nixon (R) won by +0.70%, but won in the EC 301-191-46.

1976 was the seventh closest election in our history (1888 is number 6). Jimmy Carter (D) won by +2.06%, but won in the EC 297-240.

2004 was the eighth closest election in our history. George W. Bush (43) won by +2.46%, but in the EC 286-252, which became 286-251-1 due to a defector elector.

This means that the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 was our ninth closest election, and still landed in a backfire, the most bitter backfire of all.

The next closest, over Hayes/Tilden:

No. 10: 1892: Cleveland (D) +3.01%, but 277-145 in the EC.

No. 11: 1916: Wilson (D) +3.16%, but 277-254 in the EC

No. 12: 2012: Obama +3.86%, but 332-206 in the EC.

No. 13: 1896: McKinley +4.31%, but 271-176 in the EC.

And no. 14: 1948: Truman +4.48%, but 303-189-39 in the EC.

Those are all the elections since 1856 that were won with under +5. Fourteen of them. And we see that a really close election can still cause a pretty wide EC spread (1960, 1968) and an election that was close but not the very closest can have a narrower spread (1916, 1976, 2004).

What the compact does is to remove any controversy. 2000 was the first time in 112 years that we had an electoral backfire and hopefully it will be another 112 before something like that could even happen again. So, people in both "red" and "blue" states are starting to warm up to this idea. In this way, we move to a popular vote election without having to change the US Constitution.

I personally think that once Oklahoma ratifies this, other red states are likely to follow. Because in virtually all cases, the winner in the NPV will win in the EC anyway.

Discuss. Have fun.

 

[S.J.]

Couple it with voter ID, and I might get on board.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I wanted to weigh in on this first: I am not completely sure we need the NPV compact, but I don't see it as evil or bad, either.

It is, however, worth mentioning, as the idea is catching on.

 

[S.J.]

The smaller, less populated states would probably become poorer, as their votes would not be as important. But from a purely political standpoint, I think without voter fraud, Republicans would win no matter which set of rules they decide to play by.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Couple it with voter ID, and I might get on board.

There, you and I are in complete agreement. I am 100% FOR voter id, but not the kind designed to restrict anyone who is poor. There has got to be a national standard for voter ID that makes it possible for everyone to get one without having to jump through 40 hoops.

Keep that in mind, I am a DEM fully in support of the right kind of voter ID. Every good democracy in the world has it.

In Germany, every citizen applies for and gets a passport. The first part of the passport, the plastic card part, is also issued in duplicate as a national ID. It is called an "Ausweis". Germans get their notification of polling place per postcard 3 weeks before an election, they are required to bring the postcard AND their Ausweis with them and boom, it's easy. I've seen how they conduct their elections: clean, quiet, fair and honest. Voter turnout: generally around 75%-80%, and Germans consider this rate to be low.

Germany does not do early voting that I know of, but absentee balloting is allowed. However, Germany is 1/4 of the US population and is all within one time zone.

I am using Germany as just one possible example. There are others. But in Germany, the standards for electioneering are not subject to Federalism - they are uniform across the Republic.

Voter ID: YES, but fair.

 

[Nyvin]

The smaller, less populated states would probably become poorer, as their votes would not be as important. But from a purely political standpoint, I think without voter fraud, Republicans would win no matter which set of rules they decide to play by.

Obama won the 2012 popular vote with over 5 million votes...are you really saying there was 5 million+ votes worth of voter fraud???

 

[martybegan]

I have always been more of a fan of States breaking down their EV's by congressional district, and doing away with the winner take all method. The two senator EV's would be based on the overall state results. Of course this would make gerrymandering more of an issue, so a method of figuring out Congressional districts fairly and evenly would have to be figured out.

 

[Katzndogz]

It will last only until a Republican wins.

 

[Nyvin]

I have always been more of a fan of States breaking down their EV's by congressional district, and doing away with the winner take all method. The two senator EV's would be based on the overall state results. Of course this would make gerrymandering more of an issue, so a method of figuring out Congressional districts fairly and evenly would have to be figured out.

Partisan drawn maps are enough of a corruption issue at the US House and State legislature levels. We don't need that crap infesting the presidential vote.

 

[Nyvin]

It will last only until a Republican wins.

Well that's only happened once in the last 22 years, so I'm not worried.

 

[martybegan]

I have always been more of a fan of States breaking down their EV's by congressional district, and doing away with the winner take all method. The two senator EV's would be based on the overall state results. Of course this would make gerrymandering more of an issue, so a method of figuring out Congressional districts fairly and evenly would have to be figured out.

Partisan drawn maps are enough of a corruption issue at the US House and State legislature levels. We don't need that crap infesting the presidential vote.

It would be the fairest thing to keep the flavor of the federal system, i.e. the states voting for the president, while removing the winner takes all issues the EC has now.

A president by popular vote would remove the federal flavor of the country.

 

[martybegan]

It will last only until a Republican wins.

Well that's only happened once in the last 22 years, so I'm not worried.

Keep thinking that.

Plus we all know any blue state that agreed to this would instantly repeal the law if they realized the EC vote the old way would give their candidate the victory despite the popular vote. Plus even without that you would have screams for the electors to be "unfaithful"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It gives Republicans in Democrat states a reason to vote again, and again and again

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd put banks in charge of counting the votes. You have to go to the bank, show ID and then they find your owe and only Voter card. You fill it in, they put it in the vault.

If you come back and try to vote again, they put you in the vault

 

[Nyvin]

It will last only until a Republican wins.

Well that's only happened once in the last 22 years, so I'm not worried.

Keep thinking that.

Plus we all know any blue state that agreed to this would instantly repeal the law if they realized the EC vote the old way would give their candidate the victory despite the popular vote. Plus even without that you would have screams for the electors to be "unfaithful"

The chance of that ever happening are slim to none, reason being New York and California.

New York and California are such enormous vote sinks for the Democrats it's almost as if the two states are gerrymandered at the state border level if that were possible. In 2012, California was won with more than a 3 million victory margin for Obama, and in New York it was a 1.9 million victory margin.

By comparison the largest victory margin for the GOP was Texas (which has a much larger population then New York) which rang in at 1.2 million....700,000 "less" then New York.

In sum it would take some seriously wonky statistics for the Democrats to win the Electoral vote but loss the popular vote. I'd say borderline impossible.

 

[mvymvy]

It will last only until a Republican wins.

Well that's only happened once in the last 22 years, so I'm not worried.

Keep thinking that.

Plus we all know any blue state that agreed to this would instantly repeal the law if they realized the EC vote the old way would give their candidate the victory despite the popular vote. Plus even without that you would have screams for the electors to be "unfaithful"

The National Popular Vote bill says: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

&&
There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

 

[mvymvy]

I have always been more of a fan of States breaking down their EV's by congressional district, and doing away with the winner take all method. The two senator EV's would be based on the overall state results. Of course this would make gerrymandering more of an issue, so a method of figuring out Congressional districts fairly and evenly would have to be figured out.

Partisan drawn maps are enough of a corruption issue at the US House and State legislature levels. We don't need that crap infesting the presidential vote.

It would be the fairest thing to keep the flavor of the federal system, i.e. the states voting for the president, while removing the winner takes all issues the EC has now.

A president by popular vote would remove the federal flavor of the country.

Awarding electoral votes by a congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, it dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, the congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party.

For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, the congressional district method falls far short of the National Popular Vote plan.

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution), would have given the candidates no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in 92% of the districts where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground districts or states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ districts or states when it comes to governing.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

 

[mvymvy]

The smaller, less populated states would probably become poorer, as their votes would not be as important. . . .

Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaigns.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

 

[mvymvy]

A shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, and large states with 250 electoral votes. Maine has not enacted the bill.

 

[S.J.]

Couple it with voter ID, and I might get on board.

There, you and I are in complete agreement. I am 100% FOR voter id, but not the kind designed to restrict anyone who is poor. There has got to be a national standard for voter ID that makes it possible for everyone to get one without having to jump through 40 hoops.

Keep that in mind, I am a DEM fully in support of the right kind of voter ID. Every good democracy in the world has it.

In Germany, every citizen applies for and gets a passport. The first part of the passport, the plastic card part, is also issued in duplicate as a national ID. It is called an "Ausweis". Germans get their notification of polling place per postcard 3 weeks before an election, they are required to bring the postcard AND their Ausweis with them and boom, it's easy. I've seen how they conduct their elections: clean, quiet, fair and honest. Voter turnout: generally around 75%-80%, and Germans consider this rate to be low.

Germany does not do early voting that I know of, but absentee balloting is allowed. However, Germany is 1/4 of the US population and is all within one time zone.

I am using Germany as just one possible example. There are others. But in Germany, the standards for electioneering are not subject to Federalism - they are uniform across the Republic.

Voter ID: YES, but fair.

No thanks. I'm sure the commie liberals would love to make everyone carry a card with a chip in it so they could spy on us easier, but the argument that poor people can't get an ID is pure bullshit. Anybody can get an ID and everybody has one. How many people do you know (rich or poor) who doesn't have a driver's licence or some other valid form of ID? This is a red herring designed to derail any effort to curb voter fraud by the party that benefits by it.