According to this news story, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire will sign SB5599 on April 28 (Tuesday). That is the National Popular Vote bill. Washington will make the 5th state to pass the bill. However, the compact won’t go into effect until states comprising a majority of the electoral college have passed it. UPDATE: the Governor sign the bill on the afternoon of April 28.
RIP, long time ballot access, reformist, Nader activist Cathy Chapman [60] of California……..
Still “Missing In Action” and unconfirmed deceased long term Reform Party of California activist Bob
The NPV scheme will NOT go into effect until it magically gets approved by the gerrymander Congress (Art. I, Sec. 10) and even more magically gets past the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 — having votes OUTSIDE of a State determine election results INSIDE a State.
Proper remedy –
Constitutional Amdt –
Uniform definition of Elector in Fed/ALL elections.
Nonpartisan nomination and election of Prez/VP (and other major Fed executive officers and all Fed judges) using Approval Voting — vote for 1 or more, highest win.
Way too difficult for the armies of New Age quick fix MORONS to understand.
Too bad the Washington legislature did not adopt this proposed amendment.
“NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. It is the intent of the legislature to enter into the agreement among the states to elect the president by national popular vote without taking into account any concerns raised by legislators or citizens of the State of Washington. This agreement is a contract of adhesion created by the first state to pass it, negotiated by people outside of the State of Washington, and without any opportunity for the legislature to revise or improve it. As with any contract of adhesion, it must be accepted in precisely the same terms that constitute the offer, without any ability to negotiate it or change its terms. The legislature specifically intends to ignore concerns raised regarding the failure of the compact to contain any procedure for a recount in the case of a close election; the failure of the compact to provide for a process when no candidate receives a majority of the popular vote cast; and the failure of the compact to require any uniform standards among member states regarding the elections process. Any material variance between the offer and acceptance precludes the formation of a contract. Because there are only three more legislative sessions before the next presidential election, it is of critical importance that the legislature act immediately and not take the time to address the concerns raised. Therefore, the agreement among the states to elect the president by national popular vote must be enacted by Washington under identical terms as contained in the agreement and as enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey, subject to only nonmaterial changes.”
From my perspective, none of the concerns raised by opponents in Washington came close to the level of preventing the state from entering the compact as written. The fact that more than 1,650 state legislators have voted for it or sponsored it, that bills have been introduced in 48 states (with public commitments from legislators in the remaining states) and 12 chambers in a third of our states have passed it suggests that the compact is a strong vehicle as it is.
The question for opponents is why the current system should be protected. Arguments in its defense are generally historically inaccurate and/or misinformed about how the system operates today. Folks might be interested in FairVote’s attempts to answer these concerns here:
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=2533
This is still a backdoor attempt to abolish the Electoral College. It will disenfranchise the smaller states. This could be the potential final nail in the coffin for states’ rights.
77% OF WASHINGTON VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL
A survey of 800 Washington state voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 77% among independents, 85% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.
By age, support was 80% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 84% among women and 69% among men.
By race, support was 78% among whites (representing 87% of respondents), 57% among African-Americans (representing 4% of respondents), 60% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 78% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
#4 # 6 How come the genius party hacks in the State legislatures do not DEMAND some constitutional election reforms via Art. V of the Constitution — rather than the blatantly unconstitutional NPV scheme ???
Majority rule = Democracy = A chance for life
Minority rule = monarchy / oligarchy = Death and Destruction (most of recorded political history)
Nonstop minority rule gerrymanders in the U.S.A. since Day 1 – results – genocide of the American Indian tribes, slavery, Civil WAR I, depressions, inflations, giant govt deficits / debts — i.e. — business as usual nonstop EVIL since 4 July 1776.
Bob –
Please explain your assertion. How does the Electoral College protect the rights of small states? And please be specific. Give examples of how the Electoral College system of electing the president has protected the “rights” of small, states like ID, UT, MN, ND, OK, AL and MS, which have generally voted Republican in the presidential races since the 60’s. Or, if you prefer, how does the EC protect the “rights” of small states like VT, RI, DE, and HI, which have generally voted Democratic in presidential races over the same span of time? What specific rights do they have that the EC system protects?
And also, what’s “back door” about this? You speak of defending “states rights” and yet the Constitution very specifically gives state legislatures the “right” to determine what Electors will represent them in the Electoral College.
C’mon…be honest. What’s your real beef with this compact?
Thank you.
I am not sure how smaller States would lose much power without the E.C. Traditionally, E.C. Votes go to the major party candidate who wins a State’s popular vote and larger States have more E.C. Votes.
Hence, large urban cities already have been weight on E.C. as does larger States.
Why not just pass a law using IRV to award E.C. votes?
Really, every State could just decide to award E.C. Votes by using I.R.V.
Frankly, this might not amount to much more than a hill of beans because I think this country may very well go the way of the old Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the not very distant future.
It has just been signed into law. Great job Washington!
ET JB –
Your analysis is correct although I’d point out in recent years a few small (at least as far as EC votes go) states – notably NH and NM – have loomed large in EC political strategies. Under the current system no state – small OR large – will be given any significant attention by candidates if they are bound to go either red or blue. The only attention other states get is the occasional visit by the candidate or campaign underlings to appear at well-heeled fund-raising parties – usually a quick stop on a longer trip to a state that is “in play” as far as the EC goes.
But this begs the question I posed to Bob – what special “states rights” are preserved by the current system? I just don’t see it. It is tempting, I’ll admit, to think that the EC was set up as it was for the same reason that the Congress was est up as it was by the Founding Fathers. In the latter case, indeed, the “Connecticut Compromise” which gave proportional representation in the House and two Senators to each state was adopted in deference to small states. And that does indeed give them disproportionate representation in one chamber to offset their disadvantage in the other. But just because the FF”S decided to use that same method of allotting EC votes to states does not mean that they intended to “protect” small states in the presidential election. A read of James Madison’s notes to the Constitutional Convention reveals nothing of the sort.
#6 Was this poll conducted (and funded by) a private organization? What were the exact questions asked?
Were the respondents given a (mis)leading historical background? Were they asked about whether they thought the same candidates should be on the ballot, and whether they should be nominated by national primaries? Were they asked about majority election (as is required in Washington for election of all other officials)
What was the margin of error for Hispanic respondents?
#14/Jim — polls are pretty well documented. This is a VERY consistent finding from all kinds of pollsters over the years. Americans are strong in believing that they vote for president as Americans, every vote should be equal and candidates with fewer votes shouldn’t win.
Most small states get absolutely nothing from the current system set up by states.
#4 But where is your perspective from?
An interstate compact is a contract between the member States – but you are trying to prevent the contracting parties from meeting to discuss and negotiate the terms.
You are acting like a real estate agent who pretends to be acting in the interests of both parties, but who insists that the terms are non-negotiable, and is actually only working for one of the parties, and perhaps is only interested in securing your commission. You aren’t an honest broker.
Why would the language of the amendment in Washington have any effect on the compact being approved? How would acknowledgment of the fact that the Washington legislature willfully and knowingly passed the bill despite its inherent flaws be considered anything other than a nonmaterial change?
If the 1960 election had been conducted under terms of the National Popular Vote act, wouldn’t Richard Nixon have been elected President?
John F. Kennedy got more popular votes nationwide than Richard Nixon did, in 1960. The idea that Nixon outpolled Kennedy in the popular vote is the brainchild of a few people who want to deduct 6/11ths of Kennedy’s popular votes in Alabama, on the theory that only 5 of the 11 Democratic electors were pledged to Kennedy.
However, those people are not consistent. They never proposed deducting part of Harry Truman’s popular votes from Tennessee in 1948 on the theory that two of the Democratic electors in Tennessee had said before the election they would not vote for Truman (in the end, one of them did vote for Truman).
Anyway, back in 1960, Alabama and certain other states let voters vote for individual elector candidates of differing parties. No state allows that any longer, so the ambiguity of 1960 (if it is really ambiguous) isn’t a problem nowadays. The last state that let voters vote for individual electors from different tickets was Vermont in 1980.
#16 – Jim Riley –
There is no “negotiation” necessary in this case. The USC is very clear – each state legislature may decide how to allocate its electors. The wording could not be more precise. So if an individual state legislature decides to sign on to the compact, there is no “negotiation” necessary. The analogy of a real estate contract is therefore flawed.
For the compact to be legally binding, the wording of the legislation passed by each state signing on must be PRECISELY the same. This is the case with the many interstate compacts which have been agreed in the past.
#15 Bob, The actual question asked in the PPP survey was misleading, and could be interpreted in many different ways. Effectively, it was push polling.
Were other wordings considered by the sponsors of the poll, and what were they?
#18 The NPV Compact has an explicit definition of a “presidential slate” and “elector slate”. There is no legitimate way to construe the 1960 Alabama Democrat electors as being nominated in association with the John Kennedy-Lyndon Johnson presidential slate.
Therefore, none of the votes cast in Alabama for the Democratic electors can be included in the “National Popular Vote” for John Kennedy-Lyndon Johnson. The presidential slate of Richard Nixon-Henry Lodge received the most popular votes, and would have been elected if the NPV Compact had been in effect in 1960.
The modern presentation of the 1960 election results is revisionist, and was not understood that way at the time.
Whether Alabama or other States let voters cast their ballot for individual electors in the general election is irrelevant to the actual circumstances of 1960.
California permits independent elector slates not associated with any presidential or vice presidential candidate. It would likely lose any legal challenge by a political party to have electors not associated with any presidential or vice presidential candidate.
So are Hawaii and Maryland and Washington proposing to dump ballots cast for such elector slates in California into the dumpster?
#19 You miss my point. It is not an issue of legality or necessity, but one of utility or wise public policy.
Susan could apparently never understand that. Just because something is legal does not necessarily make it wise public policy. Do you not agree?
No one is arguing that a State legislature may not provide for the method by which it appoint its electors in the manner it chooses (in fact some of us believe that Anderson v Celebrezze and Oregon v Mitchell were wrongly decided because they applied notions of a “national election”, to a process that was intended by the Constitution to be determined independently in each State).
And no one is arguing that a State may not legally enter into an interstate compact, even with regard to the manner by which presidential electors are appointed. And I’m not even questioning the legality of a State joining an interstate compact via a contract of adhesion.
I would think that advocates of the NPV compact would welcome the intent language of the amendment proposed in Washington. The intent did not modify the language of the compact in any meaningful way. It cheerfully acknowledged that it was the willful intent of the legislature to enter into a contract of adhesion, thereby disregarding any legitimate public policy concerns or issues that have been raised.
Regardless of the legality, do you think the following are wise public policy:
(1) No recount provisions for close elections, such as occurred in 1880;
(2) No uniform set of candidates on the ballot;
(3) No provision for nomination of party candidates by primary election;
(4) No uniform electorate, registration procedures, nor other standards with regard to conduct of the election;
(5) No provision for majority election.
Do you agree there is no reason that such provisions could not be provided for in an interstate compact?
Jim Riley –
I don’t think I’m missing your points. I simply disagree with them.
The state legislatures which are signing on to the compact know EXACTLY what effect it will produce. There is no need for an interstate conference or forum of state legislators to decide on the policy. They know what policy they are adopting. And I agree with it. You may not. But there isn’t any need for interstate negotiation on the matter. If a state chooses not to sign on, they may do so. If another state chooses to sign on, they may do so. The language of the agreement is very clear, and its effect even clearer.
HOWEVER…there is a generally accepted premise that if one state modifies the language of the compact in adopting it, even in the very slightest of ways, then that action would probably void their participation in the compact. I am not a lawyer, so I can’t speak with authority on that matter. But it doesn’t sound implausible to me.
Now…could some of the provisions you cite have been added to the agreement? Possibly. But I don’t see that their exclusion is a reason not to sign on to the compact, and I also think that including any of them in the NPV might have scuttle it for good.
1) “Recount provisions” – We have no national standard for recount provisions now. That’s been made abundantly clear by recent events.
2) “Uniform set of candidates” – I’m quite confident that both major parties and any credible third/fourth/fifth party will manage to find a way to see that their “slates” are registered to appear on the ballots of participating states in whatever manner needs to be in order for them to qualify to be counted. Having participated in two efforts to place a candidate on primary ballots in my own state, I believe the campaign people for any credible candidate will manage to do so.
3) “Nomination of party candidate by primary election” – Nice idea. But we don’t do that now, do we? If an attempt had been made to insert that into the language of the NPV compact it would have NEVER gotten approved. Never.
4) Ditto (3)
5) “No provision for majority election.” Well, we don’t have that now, and although I’m certainly unhappy about candidates being elected with fewer popular votes than their opponents, I have no problem with candidates being elected with a plurality less than 50%. In fact, I’d argue that the NPV makes third party candidacy more plausible than it is now. If the theoretical bar for being elected is lowered from 50% or so to 33.33%, I’d expect that third parties will attract more support, especially since it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for a third party candidate to get ANY EC votes under the current system, even when they come close to 20% nationwide on the popular vote.
Short response to your reservations about the NPV – it is aimed at fixing a single weakness in our method of electing a president. In my view it is one of the biggest weaknesses. So let’s fix that. Then, perhaps, we can move to some of the other areas of weakness that you identify and fix them, too. But if proposed fixes for them had been woven into the NPV, we’d see no states signed on at this point. Of that I’m confident.
So in answer to your last question. I believe many of the effects you seek are good ones and provisions for them could have been included in the compact. However I’m also 100% sure that the compact would never succeed if it had been burdened with any of them, for two basic reasons:
1) Any individual state legislature might agree with the goal of electing a president by popular vote but disagree with one of the additional provisions you propose.
2) Any foray into those other areas could conceivably have exposed the NPV to overturn by the USSC. While I think it will be very hard for them to find constitutional grounds for voiding an an agreement which very simply states how individual state legislatures will exercise their constitutional right and duty to allocate EC votes, I think they vey well might find grounds for voiding the agreement if it established arbitrary interstate rules for recounts, uniform ballots, party nomination procedures and other state and local election procedures.
So, while I understand your points, and in some cases agree with your intent, I disagree that the NPV is the place to attempt to right those wrongs.
Cheers…
#23 The States that have entered into the agreement have all included various prefatory text:
“The State of Maryland hereby enters the agreement among the states to elect the President by national popular vote as set forth in this section.”
“Enactment of agreement”
“Ratification and approval of compact. The State of Illinois ratifies and approves the following compact:”
“The State of New Jersey hereby enacts into law and enters into the “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote” as set forth in this section, and substantially as follows:”
You would agree that these are not identical. So the prefatory text in Washington would simply be more verbose.
I don’t think that there was anything in it that would indicate that legislature in Washington didn’t understand EXACTLY what they were approving. In fact, it gives greater confidence that they did understand. You can’t really be sure about New Jersey, Hawaii, and Illinois.
#23, I think you are being careless by not distinguishing between ‘necessary’ and ‘useful’.
You are advocating for a poorly thought out contract that does not cover many important contingencies if you wanted a truly national election. So you are just like the real estate salesman arguing for a buyer to sign on the dotted line so you get your commission.
If you really wanted a useful national election you would have the members of the interstate compact actually form a commission that would normalize the State election laws with regard to the presidency, so that would be a framework for negotiation.
The NPV compact is a hack. We can do better.
#23
“3) “Nomination of party candidate by primary election†– Nice idea. But we don’t do that now, do we? If an attempt had been made to insert that into the language of the NPV compact it would have NEVER gotten approved. Never.”
We don’t elect our president by popular vote now, do we?
If it is important that the President be the candidate that receives the most national popular votes in the general election; why is not important that the presidential nominees receive the most national popular votes in the primaries?
Presumably, you want to avoid a situation like 1960 where Nixon received more national popular votes than Kennedy; but Kennedy was elected. So why would you not want to avoid a situation like 2008, where Clinton received more national popular votes than Obama?
#23
“1) “Recount provisions†– We have no national standard for recount provisions now. That’s been made abundantly clear by recent events.”
We don’t need them, because the election in each State is separate.
#23
“2) “Uniform set of candidates†– I’m quite confident that both major parties and any credible third/fourth/fifth party will manage to find a way to see that their “slates†are registered to appear on the ballots of participating states in whatever manner needs to be in order for them to qualify to be counted. Having participated in two efforts to place a candidate on primary ballots in my own state, I believe the campaign people for any credible candidate will manage to do so.”
Look back at 2004 when you had an organized effort by one of the parties to keep another candidate off the ballot in as many States as possible.
I think what you are really saying is “I hope it works out OK, if not, we’ll just muddle through.”
“5) “No provision for majority election.†Well, we don’t have that now, and although I’m certainly unhappy about candidates being elected with fewer popular votes than their opponents, I have no problem with candidates being elected with a plurality less than 50%. In fact, I’d argue that the NPV makes third party candidacy more plausible than it is now. If the theoretical bar for being elected is lowered from 50% or so to 33.33%, I’d expect that third parties will attract more support, especially since it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for a third party candidate to get ANY EC votes under the current system, even when they come close to 20% nationwide on the popular vote.”
The Presidency has always required majority election. Having the House of Representatives decide is the runoff procedure.
When Congress set the uniform (election) date for appointing electors, they purposefully made a provision for handling cases of presidential elector candidates not receiving the majority of the vote.
If 3rd parties attract more support, then it will make the elected president less credible. You can see that in Texas where the current governor received slightly less than 40% in a 4-way race. Had there been a runoff, nobody would comment.
#23
“1) Any individual state legislature might agree with the goal of electing a president by popular vote but disagree with one of the additional provisions you propose.”
The States would agree on general principles and join a compact, and would then appoint commissioners who would hash out the details. The decisions of the commissioners could be made binding on the member States.
“2) Any foray into those other areas could conceivably have exposed the NPV to overturn by the USSC.”
On what grounds? And if the USSC overturned an agreement among the States, you would have a constitutional amendment approved in no time.
#24 – If the “prefatory” text you would have preferred to see would not have been substantive, then I don’t care.
#25 – I’ll stand by my assertion that the NPV compact effectively addresses the most glaring weakness and injustice of our current EC system. All of the other problems you cite exist now under the current system. Under the EC system they would still exist, but millions of currently disenfranchised voters (do I really need to recite the current list of solid red and solid blue states?) would then be participants in every subsequent election. That done, we can then move on to solving other problems. I don’t see why they have to be addressed all at once, and I oppose doing so if there is even a scintilla of a chance that by doing so we lessen the chance of getting a national popular vote in place.
#26 – See 25 above. Again, I agree with you that the nomination system we have now is awful. But do you really think Iowa would give two seconds of thought to signing on to the NPV compact if they were also agreeing to a national primary system? Seriously?
#27 – You must have been out of the country in late 2000.
#28 – Uh…how’d they do? But just for fun, see 25 above, again.
#29 – If you think the EC method qualifies as election by a majority, goodonya. But try selling that to the American public. They ain’t buyin.
You and I clearly disagree about third parties. I have lots of reasons to believe we need credible third party influence in this country. If stronger “minor” parties had the effect of weakening the Executive branch of government, I’d have yet another reason to hope for stronger third minor parties. But that’s a topic for another discussion.
I have no problem with election of the president by a plurality of popular votes.
#30 1) – And that can’t happen after the NPV is agreed upon as it is presently constituted?
2) – Why, on any flimsy grounds that pack of Republicans could grab hold of. C’mon, man. You did read their opinion in 2000, didn’t you? Do you think they need a sound, legal basis for taking the opportunity to influence national elections to their liking? And as for getting an amendment approved in “no time,” well, I don’t see that.
We seem to agree upon much more than we disagree. You seem to support the basic concept of election of the President by popular vote. My suggestion to you is that you consider devoting your energies and considerable knowledge and persuasiveness to support of the NPV. When it’s approved you and I can then join hands again to argue for the other needed electoral reforms.
Kirk out.
How is one not disenfranchised if their choice for the nominee of their party is not the person who had the most popular votes?
How is one not disenfranchised if they are not able to choose among the same candidates that their fellow citizens may?
How is one not disenfranchised if voters in another State outside the jurisdiction of its courts are permitted to illegally vote by lax administration of elections, ow where voter qualifications are different?
“We seem to agree upon much more than we disagree. You seem to support the basic concept of election of the President by popular vote.”
If there is to be a popular election of the President, then shouldn’t there be the same standards as when we elect a hides inspector?