On July 27, the Massachusetts legislature gave final approval to the National Popular Vote Plan bill. Governor DuVal Patrick is expected to sign it. Massachusetts will be the sixth state to approve the plan. The others are Hawaii, Washington, New Jersey, Maryland and Illinois.
Hell Yeah!!! This would be great.
Now you Electoral College lovers don’t get your underwear all bunched up over this and start posting crazy stuff on this site.
Popular Vote is coming and you’re just gonna have to live with it. EC lovers get ready…dig that bunker in the backyard, stock up on food/drink and consipriacy theory books from the library. Then wait around and see what actually happens. I suspect that the Republic will survive. All hail the voters of the United States of America…each and every state, not just ten of ’em.
Great news indeed.
Some good blogs today take apart arguments against of National Popular Vote. See our “tweet” on it (at http://www.twitter.com/fairvote):
Why National Popular Vote opponents stumble. See Jonathan Chait (http://tinyurl.com/26pzj75) & Rick Hertzberg: http://tinyurl.com/2aylk8k
Assuming you both live in Blue States, have you really thought this through? What if all of your State’s electoral votes go to Sarah Palin in 2012 — making her PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES — simply because she manages to get a huge outpouring of votes in conservative States that would have otherwise been irrelevant, even though Barack Obama would have been re-elected using the “current” system. Of course, you think that can take advantage of large urban areas voting with increased numbers, but what if . . . ?
What’s more is that Obama could be campaigning all next year and into 2012 as if there will be the traditional “battleground” States, thereby wasting a lot of effort and money, only to have the last State change the rules of the game right before July 20, 2012 (three short months before Election Day). Why do you think that one candidate having to physically campaign in all 50 States is necessarily “better” than concentrating on 10? Won’t that take up even MORE time that a sitting President should be devoting to actually working on problems faced by America?
JakeD, you should tell us what state you live in, just for the sake of the argument. I live in a non-competitive state, California, and I am green with envy that people in certain states have a chance to see and sometimes even ask questions of major party presidential candidates.
I live in the blood red state (although trending blue) of Texas. The only time presidential candidates come down here to “campaign” its because there is a private donor party and the candidate decides to show their face for an afternoon event or a quick rally before jetting back to the “battleground” states.
Jake, your scare tactic is pretty weak. Sarah Palin…please, you are too funny. How about if NPV was in place…Al Gore would’ve been president and not G. Bush due to his +500K popular vote majority.
The president won’t and doesn’t have to be campaigning in 50 states. His supporters should be campaigning in all 50 states! Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have grass roots efforts be the engine for campaigns.
“No one is safe when the legislature is in session.” Similarly, you’re better off when a politician is campaigning, because he’s not in the office dreaming up new ways to plunder one set of constituents to pay off another group.
Or maybe a candidate is better working in his office for his constituents instead of out getting on the campaign trail trying to rake in as much $$$ as possible and getting vested to special interests in the process. Truly let’s continue spinning this game back and forth if you want. Push, pull. Ying, yang. NPV is good for democracy. Why does this simple fact escape you?
Interesting that all six are left-wing states.
Richard, you remember when California was a competitive state. Once upon a time, it usually went Republican for president, even going for Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter in 1976. The day may well come when California is again competitive.
Sometimes, in close races, small states are battlegrounds, e. g., West Virginia in 2000.
#8: “NPV is good for democracy.”
Yes, raw, direct democracy gave us the “top two open primary” in California and Washington state, so, by all means, let’s have more of that!!
Direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
Direct democracy is the right of the 51% to pee in the popcorn of the 49%.
Steve/#10 direct democracy is what we have in the 51 states choosing electors by popular vote in their state. We’re kind of settled the fact that people get to vote for president.
But the fact is that under the winner-take-all rule, the campaigns ignore two thirds of those states, including 12 of the smallest 13.
As to #3– if Sarah Palin wins the national popular vote in 2012, she should win the election.
Be careful what you wish for. The Founders new all about the dangers of democracy. IMHO, James Madison said it best in his Federalist letter Ten: “Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
The quote that “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing what to eat for dinner.” has been attributed to Ben Franklin.
Certainly, democracy is tyranny of the majority where 50%+1 can take away the rights of the minority.
The REAL SOLUTION to the Electoral College is to go back to actually voting for presidential electors instead of invisible slates. Make the electors campaign and secure name recognition. It’s good that the Repub and Dem parties are moving their conventions back so far… constitutionally, the names of their presidential candidates shouldn’t even be on the ballots. We have no federal elections.
Steve,
You are right. I don’t know what the heck I was thinking. It should definitely be 49% peeing in popcorn of the 51%. Boy, was I stupid to actually think that the winner of an election should be allowed to promote and push forward an agenda considered and decided on by the constituent/voters. Thanks for bringing me around to lucidness
I’d suggest that we have a big toilet bowl of pee right now in DC and looky, looky the 60%ers in the Senate and the 59%ers actually have huge majorities and they are not deciding what is for dinner without the 40%ers and 41%ers.
Your antiquated argument is under water my friend.
Arguments against the national popular vote never cease to amaze me. It’s coming. 73/270 Get scared. 😉
Where is the approval of the NPV scheme by the gerrymander Congress — Art. I, Sec. 10 ???
Since when can the votes OUTSIDE of a *sovereign* State determine the election results INSIDE such *sovereign* State ??? See the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amdt, Sec. 1.
NPV example —
A 70,000,001
B 70,000,000
Sovereign State Z
A 1
B 10,000,000 who have detected the EVIL of candidate A.
Any endless recounts for the party hack Supremes to worry about ???
—–
Proper remedy – one more election related constitutional amendment — along with
12, 14 Sec. 2, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27.
Uniform definition of Elector
P.R. legislative and App.V. executive/judicial — pending major public education about head to head math.
For the many MATH MORONS in the U.S.A. —
A plurality of the votes in a number of States/DC having a bare majority of the total E.C. votes = about 28 percent of ALL popular votes = ANTI-Democracy minority rule in electing U.S.A. Presidents since 1832 — i.e. a giant EVIL oligarchy system.
— and it shows — Civil WAR in 1861-1865, genocide of the American Indian tribes, too many undeclared wars to count, national bankruptcy due to accumulated deficits, the party hack Supremes appointed by party hack Presidents, etc.
REAL Democracy NOW — regardless of all utopian MORONS (delusional unanimity and anarchy) and minority rule fanatics (delusional monarchy/ oligarchy – see WW I and WW II with the EVIL monarchists / oligarchs at work in Germany, Japan, etc.).
How many of the *sovereign* States manage to survive with majority rule executive office winners for Governors, Mayors, etc. ???
Any MORONS on this list trying to get the 13th Amdt repealed to bring back slavery ??? Give it a try and see what happens.
Ahhhhh, I was waiting all night for post #15. I can sleep better now.
“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” — John Adams
“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.” — Fisher Ames, known as one of America’s “forgotten” Founding Fathers
“Democracy is the most vile form of government… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” — James Madison, who wrote the Constitution.
Gee, I never imagined how apocalyptic it would be to go from an electoral college vote to a popular vote for the US presidency. You mean to tell me that the founding fathers would believe it would be armageddon to decide between two candidates (essentially these days) via a popular vote? That’s like saying Adams would think the USA would descend into hell if we choose paper over plastic at the grocery store.
America’s democratically chosen federal, state and local executive officiers seem to be doing pretty well here for the last 235 years. Not perfect, but I haven’t seen any fire and brimstone reported in the papers lately based on popular vote elections for these executives.
Steve, are you still upset about the 17th amendment or something?
“…are you still upset about the 17th amendment or something?”
Actually, yes.
# 17 How about those nonstop MURDER/SLAVERY regimes of ANTI-Democracy minority rule monarchs/oligarchs during WW I (Central Powers) and WW II (Axis Powers) ???
WW I – the EVIL Kaiser Bill, etc.
WW II – the EVIL Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito, etc.
How many folks just LOVED such terror regimes — especially the zillion murdered / tortured / enslaved victims of such ANTI-Democracy terror regimes ???
The ONE law in such ANTI-Democracy terror regimes – obey or DIE — for many folks — just DIE — Holocaust victims, etc.
Are New Age ANTI-Democracy MORONS a new species of monarchy / oligarchy EVIL or what ???
See the New Age BARBARIANS in central Asia — quite ready to destroy Western Civilization — same as the Old Age BARBARIANS.
I live in Connecticut, but even I am aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences (thanks, at least, whomever above remained consistent by admitting that Gov. Palin would get all of the Massachusetts electoral votes. I would wager that SOMEONE who thought this was a good idea, however, would file a lawsuit against it if Palin won like that:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=979537
Assuming the Compact Clause argument wouldn’t work, though, what about an Equal Protection violation and the Constitutional guarantee to a REPUBLIC?
BTW no one answered my original hypothetical question about the impact of these rules changing fairly dramatically on July 19, 2012.
To Brad Moore (if any of this sounds crazy, just let me know):
What would prevent all of the traditional Red States to simply crank up the turn out for a Republican to 100%, knowing that Blue States are legally bound to award the Republican THEIR electoral votes? Sounds like a win-win situation (unless the Blue States out-do the turn out).
Final question:
What’s stopping Massachusetts from violating the NPV compact after the fact (if Gov. Palin won, for instance), just like they changed the rules on how the Governor got to appoint a replacement Senator? There is a provision that states “withdrawal” is not effective for six-months, but no enforcement mechanism.
There is a section in the compact that says any state can vote itself back out again EXCEPT from between 6 months before election day until the electors cast their votes, officially electing the next President. This prevents any sort of attempted political moves by states based on how the voting seems to be going.
So really, no, Massachusetts could do nothing after the fact if Palin were to win the vote and thus the Presidency- and that’s the whole point. Everyone in Massachusetts would have voted and had their votes counted, as would every other state. If Palin was then the winner, that would be the choice of the majority of the country as their leader, and at the end of the day the crucial outcome is that the candidate with the most votes from the people he or she will be leading becomes the President of our nation. Despite being someone who dislikes both Palin and her politics, I am very ok with that scenario because it means that the President was fairly chosen by the majority of America.
I say that ALL the Blue States should sign up immediately then!
Napoleon once said: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”.
Seriously, though, I still think it’s a bad idea. There is NO enforcement mechanism (and which other liberal Blue State is going to sue Massachusetts to enforce Sarah Palin becoming President?). Bottom-line, the non-compact States will challenge this in court if it ever gets enough compact States. And, once your side “legalizes” 20 million illegal aliens, the Red States are going to “legalize” 100 million dead people, for whom next of kin can cast absentee ballots. It will simply keep escalating. You can at least see how MADD this will become.
Relax people, the math for NPV isn’t even there. Its a side show to distract from our real problems.
All they need are States to add up to 270 electoral votes.
#22 I would say to Red States knock yourself out and go to town…everyone in the nation will know what’s going on (ie NPV) and then Blue States will also try to up their votes for their candidate. Let’s get voting levels above a pitiful 50%.
#23 Many states have no mechanism or penalty for electors not voting for that state’s top popular vote getter. I respect your concern states carrying through on the compact. I suspect there will always be voting issues. Its not like we dont’ have them now in many elections, but I truly feel NPV will be better for the country electorate.
#25 Game on that’s what I want.
#26 I am not sure what side you think I’m on. I think both the Democrats and Republicans are full of horseshit. I am for a greater particiaption in elections at all levels and a common-sense 21st century method for electing our nations leader, not an 18th century anachronism. You’ll have to talk to Ronald Reagan about the inflation of illegal aliens helping out Blue candidates. The funny thing is that I think Hispanics would naturally gravitate toward Red candidates (conservative, entreprenuership, self-reliant) if it wasn’t for the thinly veiled racism and bigotry of the Republican party that wards them off.
#27 I would say not too many people are worried about NPV right now. Wait until NPV gets to +200 EC votes with states then we’ll hear a lot about it. FOX will be in hysteria over it. MSNBC will be all over too with ‘what if’ scenarios. “distraction”…ha…you make it sounds as if people can’t think about this and chew gum at the same time. Very funny.
“Your side” is the one (liberal or conservative) that panders for votes, hoping to unfairly take advantage of the system. There are good reasons for allowing time and cooler heads to prevail.
A “common-sense” 21st century method for electing our nations leader would amend the Constitution to provide for a uniform, fool-proof and easy computer system that would make sure that only U.S. citizens vote (one time each ; )
How about having the Asian hoards (or even outer space folks) be adopted voters for NPV purposes ??? — since there is NO uniform definition of an Elector in the NPV scheme.
Obviously lots of FOREIGN folks would like to have the POWER to vote for a New Age U.S.A. Prez/VP.
i.e. the NPV scheme is one more New Age MORON fix — like IRV for single offices.
Thank you, Demo Rep.
There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting block. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting block. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party’s dedicated activists.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
In the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon race, Mississippi elected a slate of unpledged electors. They wound up voting for Sen. Harry Byrd Sr. of Virginia; as I recall, Byrd also got a few other electoral votes.
Having failed (repeatedly) to abolish the Electoral College, the anti-EC forces have come up with this NPV scheme to circumvent the Electoral College.
“Scheme”?!….c’mon Steve…can’t you come up with something a little more negative than that. Like ‘Undemocratic Conspiracy’, ‘Evil Plot’, etc, etc. Tune into FOX NEWS for some brainstorming.
I wouldn’t call them anti-EC “forces”, but rather “Vote Liberators”. Or how about “Democracy Advocates”. What about “Defenders of Electoral Freedom”…yeah, I like that one.
Not circumvent- the states are using their Constitutional power to achieve a goal supported by over 70% of Americans. The attempts to do this through an Amendment process have failed because a federal constitutional amendment can be and has been blocked by states representing 3% of the entire national population. But, as I said, there is no need for an Amendment since states are simply exercising the right the Constitution gives them (and the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed) to allot their presidential electors through whichever method they choose.
#38 Excellent point. So really anyone who is against NPV is against the constitution…hmmmm, maybe we should re-constitute the House Un-American Activities Committee, report some folks and get the hearings going ASAP.
So, I guess that does mean you would have no problem with all of the Red States enacting laws giving 100 MILLION dead people the right to vote and said “dead” vote electing GOP Presidents in perpetuity. I was just joking before, but your same “logic” would apply to such States “using their Constitutional power to achieve a goal” supported by over 170% of Americans at that point.
Of course amending the Constitution is tough (that’s the way it’s supposed to be). Bottomline, the States’ plenary does not permit COLLUSION. It’s either a violation of the Compact Clause or Equal Protection Clause. If you think this will hold up in front of the ROBERTS Supreme Court, then you are in for quite a shock.
The NPV plan addresses states compacts in great detail. Robert is one judge. There are eight others.
I’m not worried about dead people. Just brain dead people who vote.
#37: In the immortal words of Algore, “It’s a risky scheme.”
If a state’s electors vote for a candidate who did not carry their state, the people of that state are getting shafted.
You’re obviously a great fan of the dinosaur media.
#40: You won’t have to worry about a lawsuit, since this scheme won’t be implemented. Not even all of the left-wing states will approve it.
Brad Moore:
Unless you get CONGRESS to consent, the Compact Clause will be an issue for Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and (hopefully) Kennedy.
Steve Rankin:
I hope you are right, but we need to plan for the worse-case scenario.
If the people of the nation get a national president voted for by the majority of the country, who cares what happened in your state? Under the current system 15 swing states decide the elections, so your state has zero say in the election if you’re in the other 35. That’s getting shafted.
That’s a good point, Alex.
Also, as I said earlier, this is entirely within states’ Constitutional rights…but there is also work being done to submit this to Congress to approve. The idea would be that the states take the lead, then Congress, and over time it becomes successful enough nationally and so self-evidently better an electoral system that a Constitutional Amendment is possible without the endless complications put forward now by a small minority opposition. This was the pattern followed to get women the vote, to get direct popular election of Senators, etc.
I’m not so sure that Congress will consent or that the Equal Protection violation is “entirely” within States’ Constitutional rights ; )
Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.
The U.S. Constitution provides:
“No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state….”
Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can “not be read literally.” In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
“Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.
“The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta.”
Specifically, the Court’s 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
“Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”
The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
“The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States”
The National Popular Vote compact would not “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States” because there is simply no federal power—much less federal supremacy—in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.
In the words of the immortal bard… much ado about nothing.
# 48 — What about 14th Amdt, Sec 2 regarding Prez Electors ???
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. [[[But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States]]], Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, [[[is denied]]] to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, [[[or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime]]], the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Look up *abridged* — from the verb abridge.
—-
Sorry — such bracketed language came AFTER Art. II, Sec. 1 and amends/repeals ANYTHING earlier.
—-
Uniform definition of Elector – to repeal all the NEGATIVE language in the nearly dead U.S.A. Const.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
To HELL with the small States and their ANTI-Democracy monarchs / oligarchs since 1776.
Long live REAL Democracy in the U.S.A. and ALL other nations.
The time of the EVIL rule by the EVIL party hack minority rule MONSTERS for 7,000 plus years is coming to an end.
#44: If the electors pledged to Jones for president got the most votes in my state, and my state’s electoral votes were instead awarded to Smith, a lot of people would care.
As I noted earlier, sometimes, in close presidential races, smaller states get a lot of attention, e. g., West Virginia in 2000.
We don’t have national elections. We have elections in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
You say you want the president to be elected with a “majority” of the vote. So does that mean that, if no one gets 50%-plus, you favor a runoff provision?
Yes, elections continue in 50 states and DC. Nothing changes. If you don’t like the NPV in your state then talk to your state lege. I am sure there are other state laws you don’t like either.
Non-majority winner problem?! Are you trying to change the subject? Nice move. If you can’t dazzle them…baffle them. Keep ’em on their toes. Get away from the issue at hand. Jump and jive. Jab and duck. You are good.
NPV is gonna happen. Start digging that bunker.
#52: So you’re responding for Alex?
NPV was introduced in my state’s legislature, and it got… nowhere.
When NPV takes effect, the celebration will be led by Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis.