The July 22 issue of the Sacramento Bee has this editorial on the National Popular Vote Plan bill and the electoral college. Many newspapers have editorialized about the National Popular Vote Plan, but this editorial is noteworthy because of its additional commentary about the electoral college itself. Thanks to Jack Dean for the link.
Agreed, on both counts. The best solution would be abolition of the EC and institution of popular election of the CEO in the “world’s greatest democracy.” But the best solution bearing any chance of passing is NPV.
Under terms of the NPV scheme, Richard Nixon would have been elected in 1960.
How do you figure that?
Kennedy 34,220,984
Nixon 34,108,157
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1960
Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).
Question? Does the majority vote only account for participating states? In other words, what if the non-participating states produce the true majority leader and the participating states majority is not the same candidate. Will the true majority receive all the participating states electoral votes even though their state’s majorities were different and were actually the minority within their states? Are you willing to disregard participating states popular vote to satisfy the desire to make this the rule? I guarantee that the first time this occurs, a few of the participating states will leave the compact.
I see this compact as unconstitutional, but even if it is not, it will probably be even more problematic than the current system. You should be very careful with what you’re asking for.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the MOST POPULAR VOTES IN ALL 50 STATES and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).
Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action
The bill says: “Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”
The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.
There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.
Even if the compact states would have had enough electors for their candidate to win?
What if the votes were really close as we have seen the last few years?
What if compact states hide a fairly wide difference between their majority candidate and the national majority but compact minority candidate?
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
“had” not “hide”, sorry.
The only time the EC system breaks down is when the population vote is close. I don’t see a difference with this either. Except greater possible litigation with higher stakes and possible more extreme protests.
The precariousness of the current state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or 2 states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. Some insider Republicans believe under the current system in 2012, President Obama could win the electoral vote without winning the popular vote.
Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their “final determination” six days before the Electoral College meets on the day set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
#2, the only theory under which Nixon got more popular votes than Kennedy is the theory that six-elevenths of Kennedy’s popular votes should be subtracted and taken away from him, because the Alabama Democratic slate of candidates for presidential elector had five electors pledged to Kennedy and six unpledged electors.
But the people who propound this theory never subtract votes away from any other presidential candidate who didn’t have a full slate of electors pledged to him. That includes Harry Truman, who did not have a full slate of electors pledged to him in Tennessee in 1948. It also includes almost all minor party presidential candidates in Minnesota for the first 70 years of the 20th century, and many other examples from other states in which minor parties didn’t submit a full slate of presidential elector candidates, for example, the Socialist Workers Party in many New York state elections, and examples in Tennessee in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
3 –
Because he’s a Republican tool.
#3 The NPV Scheme defines
“elector slate” shall mean a slate of candidates who have been nominated in a state for the position of presidential elector in association with a presidential slate;
“statewide popular election” shall mean a general election in which votes are cast for presidential slates by individual voters and counted on a statewide basis.
Alabama conducted a general election in which votes were cast by individual voters and counted on a statewide basis. But not all the popular votes were cast for an “elector slate” as defined by the NPV scheme, since the electors were not running in association with the presidential slate of “John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson”.
Therefore none of the 318,303 votes cast for Democratic electors in Alabama qualify as votes for Kennedy and Johnson.
Therefore the result was
Nixon and Lodge 34,108,157
Kennedy and Johnson 33,902,681
All members States as matter of law would have been required to appoint Nixon/Lodge electors. If we flip the electoral votes of putative members Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Hawaii, that produces a 294-228 Nixon win in the electoral college.
The NPV Scheme States:
“The chief election official of each member state shall treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate made by the day established by federal law for making a state’s final determination conclusive as to the counting of electoral votes by Congress.”
3 U.S.C. § 5 sets the date for making a state’s final determination conclusive as 6 days before the electors meet. 3 U.S.C. § 7 sets the meeting date as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
In 2008, the meeting date was December 15, and the deadline was December 9. In the past Susan Mvymvy has suggested that the Certificate of Ascertainment would be the “official statement containing the number of popular votes”.
What if this official statement was made after the December 9 deadline? Wouldn’t the chief election officer of a member State be unable to make a conclusive determination of the national popular vote, and therefore be unable to lawfully issue a certificate of ascertainment?
#5 What is the effect of a State law that violates the US or State constitution?
#17, no state any longer lets voters vote separately for each candidate for presidential elector. That has been true starting in 1980. The National Popular Vote Plan bill was written just a few years ago, to conform with current procedure. If the National Popular Vote Plan had been written back in 1960 or so, I’m sure it would have been written to handle the different situation back then.
#14 California law does not require a slate of independent elector candidates to designate their presidential candidate (Elections Code 8303 is permissive, not prescriptive). Further, the name of the presidential candidate only appears on the ballot if all elector candidates pledge themselves to the same candidate (Section 8304).
If as a matter of the law, the name of the presidential candidate CAN NOT appear on the ballot because only some of the electors have pledged their support to that candidate, how could votes for that slate of electors be considered to be a vote for a presidential candidate?
Alternative, if the electors have pledged themselves to different presidential candidates, would each popular vote count as a vote for each presidential candidate?
17 –
Jimbo, that’s a GREAT idea! Let’s say a state which has voted Republican is unhappy that the popular vote nationwide went Democratic. Why, that state could then decide to hold back their certification until after December 9th to make sure that the NPV compact states would not be able to ascertain the total votes cast by all states nationwide. Brilliant!
Oh wait…that would mean that the margin of victory by the Democratic party would actually increase nationwide, wouldn’t it?
Nahhh…that one doesn’t quite work, does it?
But by all means…cc your thoughts to Scalia, Thomas, Alioto and Roberts.
#19 Your comment is not responsive to 17.
It appears to be responding to 16.
In 1960, Alabama did not permit voters to vote for individual electors. You may be correct that Kennedy received the “most national popular votes”, but under the language of the NPV scheme, Nixon would have been elected. Therefore, contrary to its claim, the NPV scheme does not ensure the election of the presidential candidate who receives the most national popular votes.
California law does not require independent presidential electors candidates to be pledged, or pledged to the same presidential candidate.
Do you think if a slate of unpledged elector candidates gathered a few 100,000 signatures on their petition that a court would keep them off the ballot?
#21 Barneysaurus
In 2008, how many States did not issue their certificate of ascertainment until after December 9?
Do you think that something from the AP counts as an “official statement”? The FEC report which Richard Winger favors does not come out until December 9.
#22, the votes for the various Democratic candidates for presidential elector in Alabama in 1960 were as follows:
C. G. Allen, 318,303
Dave Archer, 317,171
C. L. Beard, 318,266
Edmund Blair, 322,593
J. E. Brantley, 317,226
Frank M. Dixon, 324,050
Karl Harrison, 316,934
Bruce Henderson, 323,018
C. E. Hornsby, 322,124
W. W. Malone, Jr., 322,084
Frank Mizell, 320,957
Your statement “In 1960, Alabama did not permit voters to vote for individuals electors” is flat-out wrong. I hope you will acknowledge that you are wrong. I have the official election returns, and also I have a copy of the ballot, showing that voters were free to vote for individual candidates for elector.
25 –
Being a Republican tool, facts are optional for Jimbo.
#24. Thanks. I was aware of the Democratic primary which produced the split elector slate, I was not aware that voters could vote for individual candidates. However that has nothing to do with the claim that under the terms of the NPV scheme, the Alabama popular votes would not count for Kennedy-Johnson.
Did Alabama hold a “statewide popular election”? You say no, since votes were not cast by individual voters for presidential slates.
So in your role as the 1960 California SOS how do you count the votes from Alabama?
And you still have not addressed number 17.
17 –
Wow, what a great point. I mean, whatever would we do if an election were to be close, and one state were to be unable to accurately determine the popular vote count by a designated date? You’re so right. And thank goodness we have the current Electoral College scheme. Because, if such an event were to take place, the procedures to follow would be crystal clear, etched in granite, and we’d be able to resolve the matter in a jiff. No fuss, no muss, no court decisions, no “safe harbor dates.”
Right again, Jimbo.
#26, there were several states that still chose presidential electors individually in 1960; it wasn’t just Alabama. I can just say that the legal environment back in 1960 was different than it is today, because states don’t do that anymore. So again I just say, if the National Popular Vote Plan were being proposed back in 1960, it would need to be different than the current version.
I am not disputing anything you said in #17.
#28 So if the NPV Scheme had been in place in 1960, Richard Nixon would have been elected President.
#29, have you calculated the national vote totals from 1960 by subtracting the votes for Richard Nixon and John Kennedy, from all the states that chose presidential electors individually? It is not intellectually consistent to just subtract Alabama votes and not the votes of similar states. Also have you subtracted the Nixon Alabama votes?