On April 2, the Minnesota House State & Local Government Committee defeated HF 512 on a tie vote, 8-8. HF 512 is the National Popular Vote Plan bill. Democrats have a majority on that committee but not all Democrats voted for it. An identical Senate bill, SF 446, is still alive in the Senate.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Every session many bills on elections get introduced, but getting support for them is tough. Voters can get lazy and the State has a big urban vs. rural divide that plays into just about everything.
NPV is finally being revealed for the stupid, evil, foolish plan that it is. It is actually worse in possible outcomes than direct election of Pres and VP. And direct election in massive nations is a terrible idea.
The Electoral College is nearly the perfect system for electing national leaders. We need to maintain the principle that the individuals elected can go “faithless” when they feel it’s warrented and we need to adopt the Maine/Nebraska plan for allocating electors. They we will have perfected the system.
At that point, we should also consider expanding the US House to 600, 800, 1200 members or more.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,512 state legislators in 48 states.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 25 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention. A smaller fraction of the county’s population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 30%). Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
75% of Minnesota Voters Favor a National Popular Vote for President
A survey of 800 Minnesota voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 84% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 68% among others.
By age, support was 74% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 83% among women and 67% among men.
By race, support was 76% among whites (representing 91% of respondents), 60% among African Americans (representing 3% of respondents), and 63% among others (representing 6% of respondents).
The survey was conducted on January 15-16, 2009, by Public Policy Polling, and had a margin or error of plus or minus 3 1/2%.
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Here comes Susan with her rhetoric again.
#5 There is nothing on the PPP web site about such a poll. Are you sure it wasn’t a push poll?
NPV has now passed it’s shelf life as a popular idea. It’s a faiding fad for fanatic f a s c i s t fools.
NPV is now dead.
I am with Susan on this.
From a third-party point of view, NPV remedies the problem of spoiling. Nader and the Green Party have carried the onus (undeserved in my opinion) for every mistake and failure of the W Bush years. If the popular vote had gone the way it actually did in 2000, Gore, the popular vote winner by a half million votes, would under NPV have won and Nader fans could be relieved that their votes (in FL and NH) had not awarded the entire electoral vote of crucial states to the man who lost the popular vote.
NPV is more democratic. ComingBacktotheLP, your clever alliterative remark about fascism
notwithstanding, you really should admit the
difference between fascism and democracy.
Dave,
NPV is an attempt to circumvent the US Constitution and is also Constitutionally invalid. It also goes in direct opposition of the balancing factor of States rights vs Federal rights.
The Florida debacle in 2000 was at least isolated to Florida. What you and Susan propose would require a complete recount through-out the country. When margins are as close as they were in 2000, I doubt anyone would be happy with the outcome because a national recount might have favored Bush anyhow.
At least the current process supports checks and balances, which, while it may be imperfect, is far better than losing these balances through NPV.
While NPV is more Democratic it is less Republic. Remember your pledge, “…and to the Republic, one nation…” This nation is to be a republic, not a strict democracy. Democracies have shown over time to fail sooner than republics. The reason is simple. Republics offer more checks on the whims of the masses and leaders.
Richard G,
Thanks. I appreciate your careful, reasoned
response to what I wrote. Let me say in response that it seems to me that with a minimum of relevant constitutional amendments (1; or 2 if you count the amendment giving DC three votes) the whole Electoral College system has been gradually been revamped so that it is far different than it
was in the beginning. In the early years of the Republic, electors were selected by the state legislators in many states. And before 1836, the electoral votes were often split within states. The idea of party-nominated, voter-elected slates of electors voting within states as blocs has taken us far afield from the system that elected George Washington. So my question is why is it more unconstitutional to use the interstate compact power of states to revamp it once again to make it more democratic?
And I am not sure that the electors voting as a bloc in 48 states makes the system more republican. When I think of a republic, I think of elected representatives who deliberate about things like the public good. Electors, on the other hand, are reliable party hacks who don’t really deliberate as to how to represent the people of the state. I imagine that the meeting of electors takes all of a half hour, to go through the motions of casting all of the state’s electoral votes (room for exceptions in Maine and Nebraska–Nebraska giving Obama one vote in 2008) for the candidate who took the plurality of popular votes.
Dave
it would be better to award EC votes using IRV. No federal amendment required. Majority rule. Less worry about spoilage.
BTW, The EC intent had nothing to do with ‘States rights’. The founders simply felt that most white men were dirt, poor idiots. The did not want the vast majority of white men running the show.
ETJB,
I agree with you that IRV would be best. We would
accomplish in one cost-saving election what it takes the French two stages to accomplish: electing
a president with a popular vote majority.
But are you sure this could be done without amending the Constitution?
Dave
Dave,
What makes NPV unconstitutional is the fact that it is a treaty/pact/alliance between states. This is strictly forbidden in Article 1, section 10, Powers prohibited of States, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation…”
If NPV is desirable, then those in favor of it should take the Constitutional steps to have the Constitution amended. These attempts over the last 230yrs has always failed because it requires 3/4 approval of the States.
ETJB, I disagree. While the leaders of the day questioned the ability of the common folks to make national decisions, it is quite clear that the EC gives each state a balanced representation in electing the President and Vice President. Also, the President is elected by state representation, and not the Federal population as a whole. Which is the whole reason NPV is being argued.
IRV, however, may work to help eliminate some of these issues that occurr in situations like 2001, but it still won’t prevent them. The system is designed to allow, when the population is too closely divided, the influence of the states to be the ultimate decision maker. IRV should be constitutional, because each individual state usually decides the method of electing electors and its election process. The only Constitutional question of IRV is whether or not it is fair and provides electors with a viable election process. I’d argue it does, but I support IRV.
I view the “senatorial” votes in the Electoral College as an incentive to national consensus — and that incentive is at the state level because it was the states’ agreement (as separate sovereigns) that made the Constitution the law of the (whole) land. Which seems to me to get me close to the same place some others here reach by other roads. . . .
As I’ve expressed in other threads on this general topic, I worry that NPV could disenfranchise voters in some states — the effect of whose votes for President would be overridden by those of voters in other states, without recourse. For one example: what if a race in state A is not quite close enough for a recount under its own law, but close enough that it would require a recount in state B — but state B’s result would be reversed by state A’s as it stands, because state B is in the NPV compact (whether or not state A is)?
Also, I’ve read some of Professor Natapoff’s work on how the voting power of individuals and smaller-than-state groups — our ability to actually decide elections — is greater under the EC than it would be with NPV. It’s more likely that your vote can swing your state (or the proportional split in your state, or your Congressional district) and that can make the difference overall than that your one vote will tip the scales nationwide.
Furthermore, to the extent that we’re not one homogenous (as in milk) nation equally balanced and blended from sea to sea, and certain parties have firm control in certain states or metropolitan areas (insert the name of your “favorite” political machine or evil genius here), NPV would give that much more incentive to run up the score with what is called “majority fraud”.
jalp
P.S.
There may be enough of a movement to get some, um, *movement* away from state-block voting. At the very least, some renewed testing of other possibilities seems wise to me. I think #11 is a bit behind the count: to my mind, there have already been two major changes to the original Electoral College mechanism:
* the 12th Amendment, which “en-ticketed” the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates for a party; and
* Clause 2 of the 14th Amendment, which ended the 3/5 count of “all other persons” for US House seat apportionment (and the EC votes that went with those seats).
I’d kind of like to hear what folks here have to say about them. For example, iIs anyone going to try to defend the second on the grounds that it enabled Jefferson to be President? See the start of Chapter 4 of Garry Wills’s _Negro President_: “In 1800, other things being equal, the outcome was determined by two factors — the twelve votes given Jefferson by the slave count, and Aaron Burr’s brilliant campaign effort in New York, which added twelve more votes. Without either one, the Republicans would have lost.”
P.P.S.
And who *is* this “Susan”, anyway? I don’t think I’ve ever seen her introduce herself . . . did I just miss that entry?
Under NPV, a candidate who receives only a small fraction of the vote and who wins ZERO electoral votes prior to the application of the NPV formula could be the final winner and end up in the White House.
NPV would allow, in fact it would encourage, f a s c i s t – s o c i a l i s t factions who can muster only a sliver of the vote to focus their lies on a handful of large urban areas and steal the White House.
NPV is anti-democratic.
NPV promotes f a s c i s t – s o c i a l i s m.
NPV will divide America into tiny factions.
NPV will result in the end of democracy and liberty in America.
The Electoral College is much more democratic and brings America together while protecting the rights of Americans by keeping the power of the Federal Government under some restraint.
But, as we can see, the NPV will be adopted in NO state this year.
NPV is dead.
Good riddance.
For something that’s “dead”, it’s interesting how well NPV keeps doing. For facts about it rather than opinion, see http://www.nationalpopularvote.com
Zero states have passed NPV this year. None. It’s dead. It’s over.
Only 4 States have passed NPV statutes in the past. Repeal efforts are now underway.
NPV is more evil, more stupid and worse than alcohol prohibition. Why pass it and suffer until we finally repeal it. People with brains can see what it will do to us. Perhaps the legislatures, as foolish as they usually are, have no stomach for something as obviously
EVIL
STUPID
and
DANGEROUS
as the f a s c i s t – s o c i a l i s t
take over attack on America known as
NPV.
Washington state just passed it, and a referendum was introduced the next day to put it to a vote. The more people realize the implications, the more resistence there will be.