On June 7, the National Popular Vote Plan made a big leap forward. The New York State Senate passed it by a vote of 51-7. A majority of Republicans voted for it, as well as a majority of Democrats. Generally in other states Republican state legislators have tended to vote against it.
The bill in New York is S2286. It had been introduced on February 17, 2009, and had passed the Senate Elections Committee on February 8, 2010. Thank to Barry Fadem for this news.
Woot, that’s more than 1/3rd of the way to the goal! (Right? Was at 61 EV, and NY is 31 more, putting it at 92/270?)
Dale (#1), not exactly. The New York bill still has to get through the lower house and be signed by the governor.
I for one, hope that it doesn’t pass, and will push against it if it comes to NC (as it has in the pass). I agree that we need to reform the Electoral College but abolishing it, going to the NPV, is not the answer.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote) have come about without federal constitutional amendments, by state legislative action.
Jordan, we really need a federal ballot access standard in the U.S. for federal office. The U.S. and Switzerland are the only nations in the world in which each subunit of the nation has its own ballot access laws for that subunit, for elections for national office. The standard should be the same across the country. That is why Ron Paul, Tim Penny, and John Conyers, each introduced a federal ballot access bill, in most congresses starting in 1985.
The surest way to get a federal election ballot access standard is to get rid of the Electoral College. And the best way to get rid of the Electoral College is for states to pass the National Popular Vote Plan. The National Popular Vote Plan doesn’t abolish the electoral college, but it is obvious to me that if the National Popular Vote Plan comes close to getting implemented, the Constitutional amendment for a direct popular vote will be much more likely to pass. The amendment has been sitting in this Congress and many previous congresses.
Oh, I support federal standard for ballot access like in Ron Paul’s bill, as it is for Federal Office, for US Congress basically as authorized in the Constitution, I just believe that to protect minority rights we need to keep the Electoral College which I believe the NPV would not respect.
I was mistaken in the bill being discussed abolishing the Electoral College though, sorry about that, my mistake.
This is easy to get behind. It takes away the unfair advantage some individuals receive merely by living in a smaller state. This levels the playing field as it should be. Candidates will have to listen to the popular voice. And finally, a better picture will form with alternate candidates who wouldn’t manage to get an electoral vote, but still receive meaningful support.
There is a little negative that comes out of this as a side effect. No longer will there be safe states so that voters may vote for a third party knowing their state is not in contention. This may hurt the vote count for alternate candidates. However, perhaps there will be a silver lining that encourages people to look at alternate voting systems such as approval and range voting.
Jordan,
With due respect, I think the often-stated principle that the EC protects minority rights is really largely fallacious:
1. Contrary to what many political science texts say, the EC doesn’t force candidates to work small states specifically. It forces candidates to work purple states, irrespective of size. (Wyoming and Rhode Island be damned, but so too California or Texas).
2. In most states the minorities who voted for the
candidate(s)who came in number 2 (and lower) in November are in effect disenfranchised in December, when ALL the state’s electoral votes go to candidate number 1.
3. The nearly 20 percent who voted for Perot in 1992
earned their candidate not a single one of the 538 electoral votes.
In addition, and even more important, there are those
other infirmitives of the EC. Notably, as Richard W.
says, it underwrites the patchwork of state by state
ballot access standards that so disserves challenges to
the duopoly.
And finally, it gives no incentive for virtuous
citizenship. I live in SC, where voting turn-out is
usually quite low. I think that Minnesotans, who are
much more participatory citizens than we South Carolinians are, should get some reward for their participation. But because each state gets its EVs on a formula that has nothing to do with turn-out, each Minnesotan’s share of the decision about who will be elected president is actually DIMINISHED by the fact of that state’s high turnout, and each South Carolinian’s share is INCREASED by the fact that SC has low turn-out. Where is the fairness in that?
I wish we could just get rid of the EC. But that could
happen only through a constitutional amendment, which is
absolutely impossible on this issue. So the NPV is the
best option we have.
NY would be a tremendous addition.
#8 Its not the EC that disenfranchizes the voters in December. Its individual state laws that require an all or nothing approach. Furthermore, the NPV is worse. It is all or nothing on a greater scale. NPV leads to a strict Democracy. Societies with strict democracies tend to fall much sooner than a republic. Republics tend to last longer. The EC protects the republican form of government from decending into the strict democracy form of government.
Maybe you like strict democracies that allow the majority to rule with an iron fist, but I don’t. The EC is another form of checks and balances on our system. To destroy it is to destroy our form of government.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a “republican” form of government or is a “democracy.”
A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a “republican” form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
#10 Your argument is dizzying.
The EC is an antique that doesn’t work well. And I support destroying the EC, thus our government.
Well…darnit! I forgot about our three branches of government and the checks and balances thing. I guess I’ll just have to support destroying and the EC and watching our government continuing performing with absolutely no impact at all.
National Popular Vote is just as evil and just as bad for free elections as the “Top-two” system of Proposition 14.
This is another Trojan Horse.
Richard Winger, you need to wake up and oppose the NPV.
#12 its only dizzying because you really haven’t thought your chaotic ideas out and the direction/consequences of those actions!!
#11 is exactly right when he or she says this has nothing to do with being a “republic” or a “democracy.”
People who oppose the EC give concrete examples of its
faults. People who favor it tend to speak in
glittering generalities. Please tell us in concrete
terms what the negative consequences would be from
abolishing the EC or from adopting NPV.
It is not sufficient to say if “it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” It IS “broke,” and it needs fixing.
10 –
I have to congratulate you for being among the very few opponents of the NPV plan who acknowledge that the current system effectively disenfranchises voters. A rough list of states in which that has happened for several election cycles now would include HI, AK, CA, UT, WY, MT, SD, ND, KS, OK, NB, TX, AL, MS, SC, IL, MD, DE, NY, CT, VT, RI, MA.
I probably missed a few, but even this list paints a picture that citizens of virtually every other democratic nation on earth would find pitiable and laughable.
But your solution? Tell you what…you come to RI where I live and try to convince the solidly, PERMANENTLY Democratic state house to adopt an alternative system that would give Republican voters a shot at even just one of the state’s three EC votes.
Not a chance.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A. — even in D.C. and the U.S.A. colonies.
Equal ballot access.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
End the ROT.