'Hacking the Constitution': States Quietly Plan to Ditch Electoral College

[The T]

It has nothing to do with distrust for the masses.

The electoral college gives more weight to rural voters because throughout American history, rural Americans have feared that urban voters would railroad them.

That still holds true today.

Rural voters have more power per capita than Urban voters. That is how Bush got elected

States choose the President, as it should be.

Rightwinger thinks we live in a true Democracy. He's an idiot.

 

[The T]

It has nothing to do with distrust for the masses.

The electoral college gives more weight to rural voters because throughout American history, rural Americans have feared that urban voters would railroad them.

That still holds true today.

Rural voters have more power per capita than Urban voters. That is how Bush got elected

States choose the President, as it should be.

These Statist morons would love nothing better than to get rid of the Electoral College. Then Tyranny can have free reign.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Here's the dirty little secret about the national popular vote. If the liberal states see that the Republican candidate is likely to get the popular vote they can opt out of the compact.

 

[blackhawk]

So far I have seen nothing that justify's changing the current system.

 

[The T]

So far I have seen nothing that justify's changing the current system.

Only the rantings of leftist tyrants that want total control.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

States Quietly Sign Onto Plan to Change Election System | Fox News Insider


Guess which party rules these states.

Rather than getting your talking points from FOX NEWS, why not debate the particulars? The reason given by Cuomo was that presidential candidates over-weight states with high population counts, or they just focus on the states "in play" while ignoring states with small electoral counts. With this law, they would be "aligning the Electoral College with the voice of the nation’s voters, we are ensuring the equality of votes and encouraging candidates to appeal to voters in all states, instead of disproportionately focusing on early contests and swing states."

You may ultimately decide that you disagree (I know I do), but it would be nice if for once people like you formulated thoughts and arguments on your own. Let's discuss all the details. Let's argue for/against every single reason these States are giving for seeking to legally change election law. Rather than just being a Republican lemming and repeating talking points, why not enlighten us about election law and the Constitution by citing actual statutes and actual language from the Constitution? Prove to us - just once - that you understand these issues rather than merely repeating the words of "Dear Leader".

Here is what I'm getting at. It's not clear that you are thinking for yourself. For instance, George Bush and the Republican Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling 4 times. Your side had 100% control over government and you raised the debt ceiling multiple times. But people like you didn't complain because you didn't know about it. You didn't know about it because FOX didn't cover it. This suggests that you are getting all your information - not just the data but the actual interpretation of the data - from a political movement, from government. This is not only scary, it is the greatest irony in the history of US politics.

. And you're telling us you get both sides from your liberal media like msnbc? Ha ha ha.

 

[mvymvy]

Because of state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), 80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.


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 number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

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

Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.” [only 10 in 2012]

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

State-by-state winner-take-all laws adversely affects governance. Sitting Presidents (whether contemplating their own re-election or the election of their preferred successor) pay inordinate attention to the interests of “battleground” states.
** “Battleground” states receive over 7% more grants than other states.
** “Battleground” states receive 5% more grant dollars.
** A “battleground” state can expect to receive twice as many presidential disaster declarations as an uncompetitive state.
** The locations of Superfund enforcement actions also reflect a state’s battleground status.
** Federal exemptions from the No Child Left Behind law have been characterized as “‘no swing state left behind.”

The effect of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system on governance is discussed at length in Presidential Pork by Dr. John Hudak of the Brookings Institution.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west

 

[mvymvy]

Here's the dirty little secret about the national popular vote. If the liberal states see that the Republican candidate is likely to get the popular vote they can opt out of the compact.

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."

This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

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.

In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:

“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”

In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”

The important point is that an interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

 

[mvymvy]

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with true democracy.
True democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Lest the left forgets... each branch is chosen differently ON PURPOSE... to ensure there is not just a system of tyranny of the masses... the electoral college gives the voice to the STATES... you know.. those things that actually give the power to the fed (not the other way around)... each state then has a voice, pretty important in a union of states

The Constitution says the states get to decide how their electoral votes are allocated. If a state says it will allocate based on the national popular vote, isn't that the voice of the state?

Only if they are held to the compact to give their EC votes to them if a republican looks like they will win the popular vote. Your compact has an escape clause for that eventuality. It won't pass...small states and GOP states won't bite for it.

 

[mvymvy]

The electoral College is the only way small states will have any say in the government and choosing the President.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.


In a 1979 Senate speech, Senator Henry Bellmon (R–Oklahoma) described how his views on the Electoral College had changed as a result of serving as national campaign director for Richard Nixon and a member of the American Bar Association’s commission studying electoral reform.
“While the consideration of the electoral college began--and I am a little embarrassed to admit this--I was convinced, as are many residents of smaller States, that the present system is a considerable advantage to less populous States such as Oklahoma. … As the deliberations of the American Bar Association Commission proceeded and as more facts became known, I came to the realization that the present electoral system does not give an advantage to the voters from the less populous States. Rather, it works to the disadvantage of small State voters who are largely ignored in the general election for President."

Senator Robert E. Dole of Kansas, the Republican nominee for President in 1996 and Republican nominee for Vice President in 1976, stated in a 1979 floor speech:
“Many persons have the impression that the electoral college benefits those persons living in small states. I feel that this is somewhat of a misconception. Through my experience with the Republican National Committee and as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1976, it became very clear that the populous states with their large blocks of electoral votes were the crucial states. It was in these states that we focused our efforts.
“Were we to switch to a system of direct election, I think we would see a resulting change in the nature of campaigning. While urban areas will still be important campaigning centers, there will be a new emphasis given to smaller states. Candidates will soon realize that all votes are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as votes from large states. That to me is one of the major attractions of direct election. Each vote carries equal importance.
“Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in States that are perceived to be single party states.

The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically "radioactive" in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states with the current system.

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.

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).

&&&

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!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes I know, the court gave him the election. He lost the Popular vote.

President is not to be and should not be chosen by popular vote.. you have the legislative branch that already is chosen by popular vote

The legislative branch represents the states.......the president represents the people of the United States

Your opinion is noted, and rejected. There's no good reason the top guy isn't the top vote getter.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Lest the left forgets... each branch is chosen differently ON PURPOSE... to ensure there is not just a system of tyranny of the masses... the electoral college gives the voice to the STATES... you know.. those things that actually give the power to the fed (not the other way around)... each state then has a voice, pretty important in a union of states

This is exactly right - and it's a good point. One argument given by Cuomo is that the Electoral system is no longer effectively protecting voters in small non-swing states. Candidates spend all their time in places like Ohio and Florida while ignoring too much of the country. He's proposing a legal change to election law which would give presidential candidates an incentive to visit and listen to voters that are currently being ignored because, under the current system, they do not represent an electoral payoff. Does this change better capture what was originally intended by the Electoral College, with its desire to effectively distribute electoral power across regions that would otherwise be crushed by a popular vote? I don't know - and that's why it's important to discuss these things in detail. However - and this is my point - FOX doesn't want a debate; they just want to press the same tired psychological buttons of their captive audience, who will then spill into the public square with hysterical talking points about the end of America.

FYI: I'm not as concerned about what people ultimately decide as much as I'm concerned about the absolute failure of civic literacy that comes when voters reflexively import talking points without displaying an ability to understand all sides of the debate. This is emphatically a bipartisan problem.

Also, I'm not sure Cuomo's move is a slam dunk for Democrats. Think about it. New York is solidly Blue - and current demographic trends are going to make it even more Blue. So you'd think he would have no interest in changing that. However, if a charismatic Independent or Republican candidate won the popular vote, than Cuomo is saying that New York's votes would be shifted to the Republican, which could flip the election in favor of the Right. This is obviously just one hypothetical, and I don't think its one Cuomo fears. Regardless, my instinct is to be against this change, but I'd need a lot more information before making a decision.

. Horseshit. A candidate can "visit" one borough of New York City and meet more people than he would in all of Iowa and save lots of gas. No matter how it's put, it benefits large, urban democratic areas.

 

[rightwinger]

Lest the left forgets... each branch is chosen differently ON PURPOSE... to ensure there is not just a system of tyranny of the masses... the electoral college gives the voice to the STATES... you know.. those things that actually give the power to the fed (not the other way around)... each state then has a voice, pretty important in a union of states

This is exactly right - and it's a good point. One argument given by Cuomo is that the Electoral system is no longer effectively protecting voters in small non-swing states. Candidates spend all their time in places like Ohio and Florida while ignoring too much of the country. He's proposing a legal change to election law which would give presidential candidates an incentive to visit and listen to voters that are currently being ignored because, under the current system, they do not represent an electoral payoff. Does this change better capture what was originally intended by the Electoral College, with its desire to effectively distribute electoral power across regions that would otherwise be crushed by a popular vote? I don't know - and that's why it's important to discuss these things in detail. However - and this is my point - FOX doesn't want a debate; they just want to press the same tired psychological buttons of their captive audience, who will then spill into the public square with hysterical talking points about the end of America.

FYI: I'm not as concerned about what people ultimately decide as much as I'm concerned about the absolute failure of civic literacy that comes when voters reflexively import talking points without displaying an ability to understand all sides of the debate. This is emphatically a bipartisan problem.

Also, I'm not sure Cuomo's move is a slam dunk for Democrats. Think about it. New York is solidly Blue - and current demographic trends are going to make it even more Blue. So you'd think he would have no interest in changing that. However, if a charismatic Independent or Republican candidate won the popular vote, than Cuomo is saying that New York's votes would be shifted to the Republican, which could flip the election in favor of the Right. This is obviously just one hypothetical, and I don't think its one Cuomo fears. Regardless, my instinct is to be against this change, but I'd need a lot more information before making a decision.

. Horseshit. A candidate can "visit" one borough of New York City and meet more people than he would in all of Iowa.

What difference does it make if we have one man, one vote?

All votes are equal regardless of where they are. Right now, Florida and Ohio votes are worth more than NY votes and Iowa has more clout than it deserves

 

[The T]

This is exactly right - and it's a good point. One argument given by Cuomo is that the Electoral system is no longer effectively protecting voters in small non-swing states. Candidates spend all their time in places like Ohio and Florida while ignoring too much of the country. He's proposing a legal change to election law which would give presidential candidates an incentive to visit and listen to voters that are currently being ignored because, under the current system, they do not represent an electoral payoff. Does this change better capture what was originally intended by the Electoral College, with its desire to effectively distribute electoral power across regions that would otherwise be crushed by a popular vote? I don't know - and that's why it's important to discuss these things in detail. However - and this is my point - FOX doesn't want a debate; they just want to press the same tired psychological buttons of their captive audience, who will then spill into the public square with hysterical talking points about the end of America.

FYI: I'm not as concerned about what people ultimately decide as much as I'm concerned about the absolute failure of civic literacy that comes when voters reflexively import talking points without displaying an ability to understand all sides of the debate. This is emphatically a bipartisan problem.

Also, I'm not sure Cuomo's move is a slam dunk for Democrats. Think about it. New York is solidly Blue - and current demographic trends are going to make it even more Blue. So you'd think he would have no interest in changing that. However, if a charismatic Independent or Republican candidate won the popular vote, than Cuomo is saying that New York's votes would be shifted to the Republican, which could flip the election in favor of the Right. This is obviously just one hypothetical, and I don't think its one Cuomo fears. Regardless, my instinct is to be against this change, but I'd need a lot more information before making a decision.

. Horseshit. A candidate can "visit" one borough of New York City and meet more people than he would in all of Iowa.

What difference does it make if we have one man, one vote?

All votes are equal regardless of where they are. Right now, Florida and Ohio votes are worth more than NY votes and Iowa has more clout than it deserves

What YOU want is a Pure Democracy. The Founders in their wisdom decided against it for good reason. YOU just cannot stand it. YOU prefer Tyranny. ADMIT IT.

 

[Rozman]

Look at a map of the US on election night.
Most of the country is tagged red....

Then look at California and NY tagged blue...
California (55) New York (29),

California and NY...55 and 29... electoral votes.

Those are big numbers that beacuse of the liberal makeup of those states they will always vote
Democrat.

Republicans win a whole lot of States but Democrats get California and NY and all those wins by the GOP get wiped out by 2 states.....

 

[AvgGuyIA]

That is putting it down to the individual, not the state.... big difference.. the state as an entity matters in a union of states

I know it does

And those states are deciding on how they want to distribute their electoral vote

If it is based on state results or results of counties or parishes within the state, I have no problem with it... if it is based on something OUTSIDE the state like the popular vote of the rest of the country, I have a problem with it

Let's give every county in the US a vote that will be determined by who wins the most votes in that county. The majority of counties in a State will determine that state's EC vote.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The president being elected by a popular vote is stupid? Interesting...

Yes, it is a stupid idea, because it completely ends the concept of soverign states. A concept that modern/liberal socialists have never really understood. We are not a nation with 50 political sub-divisions, we are 50 soverign states united to form a union that benefits all.

We fight wars as one nation, we bury our dead soldiers under one flag, we travel the world using one passport, we think of our people killed or imprisoned in foreign lands as Americans above all else, and we elected one President to lead the nation. There's a not a reason in the world why the President shouldn't be elected by popular vote.

There are many reason not to.

 

[The T]

Look at a map of the US on election night.
Most of the country is tagged red....

Then look at California and NY tagged blue...
California (55) New York (29),

California and NY...55 and 29... electoral votes.

Those are big numbers that beacuse of the liberal makeup of those states they will always vote
Democrat.

Republicans win a whole lot of States but Democrats get California and NY and all those wins by the GOP get wiped out by 2 states.....

And NOTE that NY and California and other BLUE states are bleeding people...to RED States...will the Demographics change?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

He has a point. Bush being elected by the Supreme Court once and the people a second time still pisses me off.

If you were not so ignorant about the Constitution, you would know that Bush was going to become the President regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled.

BTW, the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2, that the Florida recount was unconstitutional. That stopped the patently illegal recount. Then the Court ruled 5 to 4, that time had run out and the Florida Supreme Court did not have time to conduct a legal recount.

Yes I know, the court gave him the election. He lost the Popular vote.

But he won Florida.