On the evening of November 11, the Michigan House passed the National Popular Vote Plan bill by 65-26. Since the Michigan House is fairly evenly balanced between the two major parties, this vote showed surprising support for the idea from Republicans.
… this vote showed surprising support for the idea from Republicans.
If someone who knows Michigan politics can account for this, I would very much appreciate it. I think it’s important to understand whether this represents a shift in Republican opinion, or something specific to the situation on one state.
Thanks.
MichiganLegislature.org says 65-36, which is somewhat less of a margin. (It also means there are still 9 non-votes, since there are 110 state representatives — barring vacancies already accomplished if people moved up to new posts.)
The split, as far as I can see from a quick count of roll call vote #1094 in the House Journal:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/Journal/House/pdf/2008-HJ-12-11-093.pdf
shows 46 Ds + 19 Rs = 65 voting yes
and 6 Ds + 30 Rs = 36 voting no
leaving 6 Ds + 3 Rs = 9 not voting either way
* [=======] * [=======] * [=======] *
But in another vein — are we really that hungry for more Floridas? Or more “majority fraud” (where one party controls enough of the government/structure in a state, or a major metropolitan area, that it can give a major boost to its ticket’s vote totals without fear of reprisal)?
Or, to consider another potential problem . . . what would happen if the national vote were close enough that recounts in one or more states might swing the total decision, but the votes in *those* states *weren’t* close enough to require (or even permit) a recount under their laws? Does it make a difference if the states you want recounted aren’t even participants in this compact? How much control/interest/interference could voters from state A (or states A, B, and C for that matter) have over/in/against the results of state D (or D, E, and F) and voters there?
I may be in a minority here, but I don’t see the Electoral College as worthless. If nothing else, it is a small force for consensus . . . putting a small premium (two votes per state) on winning a lot of different states, rather than running up the score in contests you’re sure to win. (Shades of the BCS!) And it gives individual voters, or small groups of voters, *more* voting power — more of an actual chance for their votes to be decisive. (Or at least so it is mathematically argued by Professor Natapoff — and, if you think about it, how likely is it that your one vote or your small group’s votes will make the difference among 100 million plus?)
Steve R…another move toward democracy. Hang in there…its coming.
Why not simply use IRV for each State to award their E.C. votes? Why not simply pass a law saying that who wins a majority of the popular vote wins the E.C. votes?
Why care? All ballots are counted at the official’s discretion in all states.
On a practical note . . . it looks as though Thursday is the Michigan Senate’s last day for the 94th Legislature. (That’s like the 110th Congress, of course, only not *quite* as old.) So the bill would have to get through all its readings and be passed without amendment — or if there were amendments, the revised bill would have to pass the House in a “tentative” session also on Thursday. Or else the powers-that-be would have to arrange to spend more time in Lansing in the week before Christmas — which is not impossible, but I wonder how likely it is that they would they spend the time addressing this issue over a few others which might clamor for prior attention. . . .