Gallup Poll has just released a new survey that shows 62% of Americans would prefer a direct popular vote for President, whereas 35% want to retain the Electoral College. Here are the details.
This question is not the same as a poll on the National Popular Vote Plan idea. The National Popular Vote Plan ideas retains the electoral college.
Gallup asked this question 1967-1980, and the idea of a direct presidential election, without an electoral college, was also popular then as well. Gallup then apparently ceased asking the question, but started again in 2000 and has done so since then, at least once per year. This new poll is the first since since after the 2000 election to show that a majority of Republicans, as well as a majority of Democrats, favor eliminating the electoral college. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
Uniform definition of Elector
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Repeal ALL of the super dangerous timebomb ANTI-Democracy JUNK language in the Constitution.
The Sun will continue to rise each day.
Oh yes… direct popular vote all the way!
This is a continued boost for NPV.
NPV requires no amendment to the Constitution; even Jim Riley will admit to that. But of course this fact hasn’t stopped the Republican spin machine from claiming that NPV is unconstitutional.
So, Brad, I don’t feel this poll is as much of a boost for NPV as you might believe it is. NPV isn’t even mentioned. The poll question implies that only a constitutional amendment is an alternative to our winner-take all EC implementation and doesn’t even mention the NPV compact which works within the framework of the constitution, as Richard rightly states. To a small degree, therefore, this poll might work against popular support of NPV in the same numbers as resulted from the poll.
But it’s good news anyway, if old news, that 2/3 of this country has recognized that the EC system is a bizarre, antiquated and inequitable means of electing a chief executive. Hopefully as state legislatures come back into session we’ll see several more come into the fold this year. Hopefully New York, where Republican senators helped pass an NPV bill, will come on board before the end of the year. Apparently New York raises Republicans enlightened enough to realize that their individual votes for president haven’t counted for a long, long time. Or maybe they’d just like to see their candidate drop by every four years or so to discuss the needs of New Yorkers, and not just to collect campaign donations.
Your serve Jimbo…
It would be interesting to see results broken down by state.
The poll is definitely good news for NPV. It would be nearly impossible to get an amendment abolishing the EC. Small states have bought into the myth that the EC protects their interests. It does not, but they’ll vote against direct election anyway.
NPV could be positioned as the preliminary step to an amendment. A way to “test drive” direct election. If the public likes it, the next step would be an amendment. If the public doesn’t like it, NPV could be discontinued simply by a few member states withdrawing from the compact.
I’ve been using the 30 year old poll results for some time, which are far more lopsided with 80% in favor of direct popular elections. I feel bad having to use the updated numbers. These must be very conservative times!
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive,in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers — including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
Support for a national popular vote for President is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls.
By state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:
Alaska (3)- 78% among (Democrats), 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
Arkansas (6)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 79% (Independents).
California (55)– 76% (D), 61% (R), and 74% (I)
Colorado (9)- 79% (D), 56% (R), and 70% (I).
Connecticut (7)- 80% (D), 67% (R), and 71% others
Delaware (3)- 79% (D), 69% (R), and 76% (I)
District of Columbia (3)- 80% (D), 48% (R), and 74% of (I)
Florida (29)- 88% (D), 68% (R), and 76% others
Idaho(4) – 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Iowa (6)- 82% (D), 63% (R), and 77% others
Kentucky (8)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 70% (I)
Maine (4) – 85% (D), 70% (R), and 73% others
Massachusetts (11)- 86% (D), 54% (R), and 68% others
Michigan (16)- 78% (D), 68% (R), and 73% (I)
Minnesota (10)- 84% (D), 69% (R), and 68% others
Mississippi (6)- 79% (D), 75% (R), and 75% Others
Nebraska (5)- 79% (D), 70% (R), and 75% Others
Nevada (5)- 80% (D), 66% (R), and 68% Others
New Hampshire (4)- 80% (D), 57% (R), and 69% (I)
New Mexico (5)- 84% (D), 64% (R), and 68% (I)
New York (29) – 86% (D), 66% (R), 78% Independence Party members, 50% Conservative Party members, 100% Working Families Party members, and 7% Others
North Carolina (15)- 75% liberal (D), 78% moderate (D), 76% conservative (D), 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), and 80% (I)
Ohio (18)- 81% (D), 65% (R), and 61% Others
Oklahoma (7)- 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Oregon (7)- 82% (D), 70% (R), and 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20)- 87% (D), 68% (R), and 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4)- 86% liberal (D), 85% moderate (D), 60% conservative (D), 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), and 78% (I),
South Dakota (3)- 84% (D), 67% (R), and 75% others
Tennessee (11) –78% (D), 73% (R)
Utah (6)- 82% (D), 66% (R), and 75% others
Vermont (3)- 86% (D); 61% (R), and 74% Others
Virginia (13)- 79% liberal (D), 86% moderate (D), 79% conservative (D), 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), and 54% conservative (R), and 79% Others
Washington (12)- 88% (D), 65% (R), and 73% others
West Virginia (5)- 87% (D), 75% (R), and 73% others
Wisconsin (10)- 81% (D), 63% (R), and 67% (I)
Wyoming (3) – 77% (D), 66% (R), and 72% (I)
http://tinyurl.com/3oyeejj
NO uniform definition of Elector in the NPV scheme from Hell
— how many children, mentally ill, felons and foreign aliens will be voting for a Prez/VP if and when the NPV scheme from Hell takes effect ???
Blatant violations of Art I, Sec. 10 (interstate compact about a BASIC part of the Const — Art. II, Sec. 1 and the 12th Amdt) and 14th Amdt, Secs 1 and 2.
Par for the course by New Age constitutional law MORONS trying to have a statutory quick fix.
SCOTUS awaits the NPV scheme.
#4 Barneysaurus,
I’ve recognized that what most attracts many advocates of the NPV scheme is its cleverness. Its pamphlet spends dozens of pages on the legality of interstate compacts, but ignores whether it was a wise compact to enter into.
Did Tennessee and Virginia actually negotiate that compact, or did some itinerant snake oil salesman simply carry a contract between Nashville and Richmond and get the legislatures to pass a resolution?
I bet there was real negotiation between the two parties before they entered into their agreement.
Can you imagine what would happen if the governor of Maryland were to come before a legislative committee in another State and thrust the NPV compact across the table and refuse to negotiate as he sat there with his arms rigidly crossed in front of him, stating “my way or the highway”, and then stalked out of the room if the other State wanted to really negotiate.
Yet isn’t that what is happening here? Why not encourage States to add a preamble to their resolutions similar to that proposed in Washington? It would not have any legal impact on the validity of the compact would it?
#12 The Amazing Technicolor Republican Tool –
Actually adding a preamble could have precisely the effect of negating the compact, which I presume is why you, as an opponent of NPV, argue for preambles from time to time.
As for the “cleverness” of NPV, it speaks the limits of your intellect that you think the NPV plan is anything but quite straightforward, or that it requires protracted, involved “negotiation.” Hell, the Constitutional Convention accepted our wretched EC system after only about 20 minutes of explanation by Gouverneur Morris.
So here is the NPV plan again, in all of its incredible, “non-negotiated” complexity:
NPV provides a means for state legislatures which choose to join the compact to assure that the person who gets the most popular votes to be elected president. Since the constitution provides that state legislatures can appoint electors in whatever many they choose, it’s perfectly fine for them to do so without any negotiation, even if “Professor” Riley is the only person who doesn’t understand that no negotiation is necessary.
But don’t fret, Jimbo. After a few election cycles under NPV, even you will be able to figure it out.
#12 What about *ABRIDGE* in 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — which AMENDS Art. II, Sec. 1 and the 12th Amdt (regarding E.C. Electors) ???
Since when can election results inside a sovereign nation-State in the Union be determined by results outside of such State ???
Answer – only in the EVIL clever minds of NPV schemers from Hell.
Any NPV FANATIC going to answer the question in 10 ???
How many of the NPV FANATICS want a tyrant Dictator Prez — leftwing or rightwing — with NO bothersome Congress and State legislatures ???
13 –
Amendment 14 – no one’s right to vote is abridged if their state chooses to join the compact.
Amendment 12 – NPV would change nothing to which the 12th amendment (or the 20th amendment, which modified a provision of the 12th) relates.
Regarding your first question in 10 – the states’ constitutional right to determine their electors as they choose has been confirmed and reconfirmed by SCOTUS, as recently as 2000.
As for the question in 10 which you’ve asked many times before – “how many children, mentally ill, felons and foreign aliens will be voting for a Prez/VP if and when the NPV scheme from Hell takes effect ???”…the answer is just as many or few as can vote for president under the current system.
To answer another question, I don’t want a dictator president, for whatever that is worth.
And finally, NPV does nothing to change the role state legislatures and Congress have in electing the president. States will still be appointing their electors in whatever manner they choose, which is how the “scheme from Philadelphia” was designed (and I’m sure residents of Philadelphia would object to you referring to their city as “Hell”). As for Congress, anyone who would like Congress to have more of a role in determining who the president will be (other than counting the EC votes and breaking a tie) should get a time machine. Then they could go back to Philadelphia, muscle their way into Constitution Hall and argue against the results of committee deliberations which hatched the EC scheme. When the matter of electing the president was referred to committee, the majority of delegates of the convention as a whole preferred that the president should be appointed by Congress. When the EC scheme came out of committee, it was debated for a few minutes, the delegates did a collective “Ho hum,” and the now antiquated EC system was born for reasons which, largely, no longer apply.
So much for the “genius” and “carefully crafted” EC method of determining the president, and the myth that there was unanimity of support for our “wonderful” EC system.
So Demo – is your time machine registered, insured and road-ready?
#12 You are the one arguing for preservation of the “wretched” electoral college.
“I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.” Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton
All the States that have entered into the NPV scheme have included preambles. They would not be changing the agreement, but simply stating why they were entering into the agreement.
#12 Any State (except a member of the NPV scheme) is free to give each voter any number of popular votes it believes is appropriate.
Any member of the NPV scheme is obligated under the full faith and credit clause to use the reported results. You will be able to go online to the National Archives website and verify the results yourself.
15 –
No, I’m arguing for electing the president by popular vote employing a means that is consistent with the EC as constitutionally constructed. As I’ve said in the past, after the NPV is put into place, we can talk about an amendment to get rid of the truly wretched EC entirely. Until then, there’s a way to use popular vote results that requires no constitutional amendment. Don’t blame me. Blame the FF’s.
The Executive as created by the constitution was a far cry from what Hamilton supported before and during the Con Con. But he did support the strong federal government created by the Constitution, and his overarching objective in penning all of the Federalist papers for which he was responsible was to convince New York to ratify, as you know. He also believed that a monarchy might not be such a bad idea. By quoting, of all the FF’s, Hamilton, are we to believe that you would prefer a monarchy?
As for the preambles, is your plan for opposition to the NPV to throw out a lobster boat full of red herrings? As long as the preamble doesn’t make it into the text of the 555 word compact that a state legislature is agreeing thereby jeopardizing its legality, I don’t care whether they issue a separate preamble or not.
16 –
You trot out that idea every few weeks. I didn’t think Republicans had such clearly anarchistic tendencies, but when it comes to preserving a system you feel you and your Republican cohorts have gamed, I suppose you’re capable of trying nearly anything.
Like Ohio 2004, for instance.
SCOTUS awaits the EVIL clever so-called legal arguments about the NPV scheme from Hell —
Art. I, Sec. 10 interstate compact
14th Amdt, Sec. 1 Equal protection clause
14th Amdt, Sec. 2 Abridge votes for E.C. electors
General sovereign stuff of each of the 50 nation-States — election results inside a State being determined by election results outside of such State.
See the EVIL very clever Hitler in 1933 with his infamous *Enabling Act* to have a tyranny in 1933-1945 in Germany. Lots of the usual suspect MORONS approved the E.A. — and were then put in concentration camps or killed.
#15 Would you have opposed this amendment?
On page 5, line 28, after “compact,” insert “and the secretary of state has certified that the candidates for president whose names appeared on the ballot in Washington also appeared on the ballots of every other state and the District of Columbia and the candidates for president that appeared on the ballots in other states and the District of Columbia also appeared on the ballot in Washington,”
You are not opposed to the principle are you? If the governor of Maryland were to negotiate, he could realize that this is a reasonable change, and convince his legislature to modify the compact.
#15 How about this?
On page 1, line 9, after “vote.” insert “The compact only binds the state when the top vote getter for president receives more than fifty percent of the votes cast.”
Or this:
On page 1, line 9, after “vote” insert “as long as the national election is not decided by less than two hundredths of one percent between the first place candidate for president and the second place candidate for president”
#15 How about this?
On page 5, line 30, after “compact” insert “so long as the election did not result in a recount in any state”
#15
“NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. The secretary of state shall submit this act to the people for their adoption and ratification, or rejection, at the next general election to be held in this state, in accordance with
Article II, section 1 of the state Constitution and the laws adopted to facilitate its operation.”
#15 This was the proposed change:
“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.”
#15 This was the proposed change:
“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.”
As Val Kilmer’s Doc Holliday said, “You’re a daisy.”
19 – NPV is not designed to address all of the weaknesses of our current method of electing the president, but that apparently doesn’t stop you from periodically suggesting that it should. Uniform ballots are not requisite for counting popular votes nationwide, particularly given the reality that this is a two party political system. But…you want to fix this problem? Knock yourself out. I’ll support you. After NPV is put into effect.
20 – I have no problem with presidents being elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. Neither should you, since you have no problem with presidents being elected with fewer popular votes than one of their opponents!
21, 22 – See comment on 19. The current EC implementation prevents close elections? The current EC implementation prevents recounts or provides for a uniform method of handling recounts? Were you asleep in the fall of 2000? Or did you join the Republican party apparatchnik mob outside the Miami Dade election commissioners’ office and get accidentally pummeled senseless by one of your associates?
23 – Read our Constitution again, Jimbo. It’s the state legislatures, not the people of the states, which have the constitutional authority to determine how electors should be appointed. But if any state legislatures should choose to put the matter to a referendum before agreeing the compact, I’d have no problem with that.
24, 25 – This stuff strikes me as “legislative bitching.” Isn’t this what speeches are for?
Jimbo, you really are a daisy. A Republican, daisy tool.
#26/19 Susan Mvymvy has suggested that “equal protection” is just a legal nicety, and while it requires that the candidates on the ballot for governor be the same in all counties, there is simply no reason for that to be true for President.
What you describe as “was not designed to”, can better be described as “was a flaw that was ignored when the NPV scheme was drawn up because the lawyers were focused on process rather than end result”
There is no reason that an interstate compact could not provide that all compact members should include all candidates that qualify in any State (or the District of Columbia) be on their ballot. Let’s say that you live in New Jersey. Why should New Jersey count popular votes for candidates who New Jerseyans can not vote for?
#26/20 Under the current electoral college system, if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, then the House of Representatives determines which among the top 3 is elected president.
The NPV scheme could arrange for a runoff if there was no candidate had a majority.
#23 The US Supreme Court has ruled that all parts of the legislative process including concurrent majorities, quorums, gubernatorial vetoes, initiative and the referendum are encompassed within the meaning of the term “legislature thereof” when applied to prescribing the manner of electing Senators and Representative (Article I, Section 4)
You aren’t going to seriously suggest that “legislature thereof” when applied to “directing the manner of appointment of presidential electors” (Article II, Section 1) has a different meaning? Are you? Seriously?
I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning, if any.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment says:
“no state [shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
It has been argued by some that it is not permissible, under the Equal Protection clause, for some states to close their polls at 6 PM while others close at 9 PM ; for some states to conduct their election entirely by mail while other states conduct their (non-absentee) voting at the polls; and for some states to permit violent felons to vote while others prohibit it (absent a pardon). However, the U.S. Constitution does not require that the election laws of all 50 states are identical in virtually every respect. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only restricts a given state in the manner it treats persons “within its jurisdiction.” The Equal Protection Clause imposes no obligation on a given state concerning a “person” in another state who is not “within its [the first state’s] jurisdiction.” State election laws are not identical now nor is there anything in the National Popular Vote compact that would force them to become identical. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways. The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and preserves state control of elections and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President.
The National Popular Vote bill does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
#30
Assume the NPV scheme from Hell is in force.
U.S.A.
A 66.6 Million
Z 66.6 Million + 1
Chaos State
A 10 Million (detect that Z is the Devil)
Z 1 — votes for itself
Gee — do the 10 Million voters INSIDE the Chaos State have *equal protection* in the value of their votes ???
SCOTUS awaits ALL of the EVIL clever legal arguments about the NPV scheme from Hell.
How many Stalin/Hitler clones worked on producing the NPV scheme from Hell ???
#26/25 You aren’t saying that it is inaccurate, are you?
It is quite customary for legislatures to explain why or why they are enacting certain legislation.
Is the NPV scheme a contract of adhesion?
#30 Susan Mvymvy, The senatorial candidates in Texas are different than the senatorial candidates in New York, but it doesn’t matter, because Texas does not use “popular votes” from New York to determine who it elects to be its senator.
But it would matter if senatorial candidates in Cameron County were different from those in Dallam County, or those in El Paso not the same as in Orange, since in that case all the “popular votes” are used to determine who is elected senator from Texas.
Surely you understand the underlying principle? You don’t think that there isn’t some underlying principle, and that there is just some rote mechanical adherence to the “equal protection clause”.