National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[pat_k]

Last edited Tue Nov 29, 2016, 04:52 AM - Edit history (1)

You want our president elected by popular vote?

Help get more states to pass the national popular vote bill. When the sum total of the electors from the states that have joined the compact is 270 or more, the compact is in effect, and states that are party to the compact appoint electors based on national vote (and thus the winner of the national popular vote gets the 270 electors needed).

It has been enacted into law in 11 states (listed below -- 165 electors). It will take effect when enacted by states with 105 more electoral votes.

DONATE: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/donate

Information about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/


If your state isn't already on board, find out the status of efforts. Do whatever you can to spread the word and put pressure on state legislators.

States that have enacted the national popular vote bill:
California
Washington, D.C.
Hawaii
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington (state)

[hedda_foil]

1. Please note that they're all blue states.

This pact makes me very, very nervous. I'd prefer splitting each state's electoral vote proportionally to the actual vote count in each state. I don't think anyone has actually proposed this as a fix.

[pat_k]

3. Passed Repub Arizona House (40-16) and Repub Oklahoma Senate (28-18)

Most recently, the bill was passed by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate. And Repubs controlled NY Senate when it passed 57–4.

[pat_k]

5. Nebraska and Maine don't do "winner-takes-all"

Last edited Tue Nov 29, 2016, 03:25 AM - Edit history (1)

The proportional idea gets floated here and there. Nebraska and Maine don't have a proportional system, but they do "divide" their electors (see below).

Even if all the states decided to allocate electors proportionally, the votes cast in some states would still be given more weight than votes cast in other states. That's because the number of electors assigned to a state is equal to the Congressional delegation (Members of House + two Senators). So, Wyoming, with population of about 500,000 (typical congressional district is about 700,000) has three electors. The upshot is that the votes cast by people in less populous states (which tend to be "red&quot are given more weight. For example, one "WY vote" is worth four "CA votes."

The only way to give all votes -- whatever state they are cast in -- equal weight is to elect the president based on the national popular vote.

And, just an FYI, here's how NE and ME divvy up their electors.

From: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, “at-large” vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually happened.

[FBaggins]

18. The difference between proportionality and those two is gerrymandering

A larger state that divided electors by Congressional districts would hand more national power to those drawing the lines.

[MichMan]

2. Not a fan of this approach

So for instance a state that voted in large numbers for the candidate that lost the national popular vote would be forced to pledge the delegates to the candidate that actually lost in their state.

For example, Bush won the popular vote over Kerry in 2004. Kerry won California by 1.25 million votes, but the state would be required to assign all of their EC votes to Bush even though California citizens voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.

If all 50 states agreed, this would make every election unanimous even if the popular vote was extremely close. Not sure a lot of voters would think that was acceptable.

[Maraya1969]

4. All this means is the winner of the vote wins the election. No other country has such

a convoluted, an obsolete system as ours. If it were equitable according to population CA would get 59 electoral votes. I think Montana would get something like .5

In the case with Kerry and Bush I think that if Bush actually won the popular vote her should have been president.

That is what this would do.

[FBaggins]

19. Disagree with the Electoral College if you must...

... but don't pretend that no other country has such a convoluted system for choosing their chief executive.

Take a look at the UK as an example. They just found themselves with a new Prime Minister without an election at all and based on the power of 37% of the vote last year. Labour received about 1/6th fewer votes than Conservatives, but the Conservatives ended up with 40% more seats in Parliament... all while the SNP received 40% fewer votes than the Lib Dems but received seven times as many seats. All had potential influence on the selection of a chief executive... except for UKIP... which received the third larges number of votes... yet earned only one seat in Parliament (55 fewer than the SNP who received far fewer votes).

And people think Cricket is complicated.

[Maraya1969]

20. I didn't know that about the Brits. But they are the ancestors of the American

founders so it makes sense.

[FBaggins]

22. True... but they're hardly the only example

In point of fact, I can only think of a handful of countries that have a chief executive that is elected directly by popular vote (most in Central and South America). Most are elected by the legislature.

[tritsofme]

6. If the compact states were barely 270 votes, the entire system would be unstable and probably fail

the first time there was an election such as this year, where the traditional electoral vote and popular vote diverged.

Suppose the opposite of this year played out under the compact, that Trump won a narrow popular vote victory, but Hillary would have gained a slight victory in the traditional electoral vote.

If California provided a decisive number of electoral votes to the compact, do you really believe they would carry through and send their electors to Trump, despite Hillary winning 60+% of the vote in the state? Or would they dissolve the compact and make her president? What would DU have wanted California to do in that situation?

Current state legislators cannot bind future ones, and they will act according to their own interest at the time. If eliminating the electoral college is something you want to do, it should be done by amending the Constitution.

[davidn3600]

8. We have a habit of not thinking ahead on matters like this

Just like many were trashing Harry Reid a few years ago for not completely tossing the filibuster on all legislation (nuclear option). Some here thought there is no way a Republican would win the White House again. Many were demanding if the Democrats take control of the Senate that they use the nuclear option so that Hillary can stack SCOTUS.

You know, you can't play the game this way. You have to be careful. You don't know what the future is going to bring. You disrupt the balance of power now and a ripple can turn into a tsunami 50 years from now. Parties change. New ideas, problems, and issues thrown into the mix every cycle. 50 years from now, the Democrats might not be something you want to be a part of.

[pat_k]

10. The problem is, the "balance" is severely tilted.

Electors are allocated based on size of Congressional delegation (members of house + 2 senators). Votes cast by residents of different states are given different weight.

For example, Wyoming, with a population of about 500,000 (typical congressional district is about 700,000) has three electors. Consequently, one vote cast in WY is worth four votes cast in CA.

Does that seem to be a good "balance" to you?

This is not about electing more people from one party or the other. It's about giving all our votes equal weight.

And, BTW, I thought people who advocated the "nuclear option" were flat wrong.

[davidn3600]

13. But if you don't like the system, you have to change it. There is a process.

If we are going to simply find ways to circumvent the constitution whenever we don't like something, then why bother have the document at all.

That's not the way the rule of law is supposed to work. There is a process outlined in the constitution to change it. But its designed so that when changes to it occur, it's based on social shifts and not political power plays. Abolishing slavery and allowing women to vote are social shifts. Allowing the people to vote in Senators instead of having them appointed is a social-political shift. All these changes came by passing Constitutional amendments. They were not circumvented or re-interpreted by the Supreme Court.

It's the same thing with the 2nd amendment. I agree 100% that the amendment is totally out of date. We should revisit it. But until we get some sort of social consensus as a nation on that issue....it's not going to change.

Once again...that's the rule of law. And that rule of law is the entire foundation of our government. And it's hard to change it. Sure. But it's by design. It can be frustrating. We had to fight a civil war and 600,000+ people had to die to get the 13th and 14th amendments.
If they made it really easy to change, we'd probably have about 1,000 amendments by now and it would be changing every 4 years.

[pat_k]

9. ???

The compact is ONLY is effect if sum total of the electors for the parties to the compact is 270 (the number needed to elect) or more.

That is, the ONLY situation in which a state that has enacted the national popular vote vote bill would allocate their electors based on the national popular vote is when there are enough states in the compact to give the election to the winner of the national popular vote. I'm not sure what you mean by "barely 270," but if that's under 270, the agreement would not be in effect.

The national popular vote compact is simply a way to elect based on the national popular vote.

The states that are the party to the compact are essentially saying:

1. This agreement is NOT in effect if the total number of electors we control as a block is less than 270.

2. We believe the president should be elected based on the national popular vote. When we do have 270 (or more) electors among us, we shall allocate our electoral votes as a block to the candidate that wins the national popular vote, and thus we shall elect the winner of the national popular vote.

[tritsofme]

12. If the compact states are at 270 or just barely over, it would be incredibly unstable and vulnerable

For the reasons I laid out in my post above.

The state legislature that signed up for the compact can't guarantee it will be honored by their successors.

[pat_k]

14. It is not actually enacted as a "compact"...

... it is enacted as part of the set of "rules" that govern the allocation of electors in the state. This cannot be "dissolved" after the fact. When Florida legislators started making noise about "changing the rules" and having the legislature decide how to allocate their electors in 2000, the idea was immediately shot down. They can "change the rules,' sure, but those rules would have no effect until the next presidential election.

And, what's the worst that could happen? A fallback to what we currently have? The effort to get states to declare their belief that the president should be elected by national popular vote by passing this bill, in and of itself, is beneficial. It lays the groundwork for eventually getting a constitutional amendment.

[marylandblue]

15. Then we should never pass a law

Because there is no guarantee a future legislature won't undo it.

[Maraya1969]

21. The last time a republican won the popular vote was Bush 2004. It is probably not

going to happen for a very long time now.

I understand your logic but the idea is that our president should be the person who gets the most votes from the people in this country.

Evey person's vote should be equal. And I just realized that there were commercials to this effect before the election and it is just not true.

[davidn3600]

7. Many constitutional scholors have suggested this is unconstitutional

Violates Article I which prohibits the states from entering into compacts without the approval of Congress. So it will face challenges to the Supreme Court immediately.

But it's very unlikely you will ever get enough states to sign on. The only ones who have so far are very DEEP blue states. And after this election and the issue of changing demographics...the red states will dig their heels in deeper.

[pat_k]

11. Passed Repub Arizona House (40-16) and Repub Oklahoma Senate (28-18)

Of course, constitutionality will have to be tested.

If this method of achieving the end -- electing president based on national popular vote -- is struck down, we will have nevertheless laid the groundwork for accomplishing the same end by constitutional amendment.

[pat_k]

16. P.S.

As Wikipedia points out "Not all compacts between states require explicit Congressional approval - the Supreme Court ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee that only those agreements which would increase the power of states at the expense of the federal government required it."

I would argue that how a state allocates it's electors is exclusively the prerogative of the state. Deciding to allocate electors based on the national popular vote under a particular set of circumstances is not "increasing the power of the states at the expense of the Federal government" because the Federal government has put the power to determine how electors are allocated into the hands of state legislatures. Under the electoral count act, it is the role of Congress to judge whether or not electors were lawfully appointed, but that judgment is to be made based on the applicable state law.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

23. This proposal ends up being as odd as the electoral college.

Because it is a 'Compact" it depends on the cooperation of the states. If we have a state that suddenly decides not to honor the agreement, the other states would have to take them to court. Probably a big mess. I believe it requires a state's electors to switch their votes from the candidate they expected to support to the one that got the popular vote -- probably results in many more faithless electors and lots more voters that feel disenfranchised.