In some states, legislators are already introducing bills for the 2017 session, even though no state legislature has yet convened. Montana Representative Ellie Hill (D-Missoula) has introduce a bill to have Montana join the National Popular Vote Compact. See this story.
Notice that it is a Democratic representative in a heavily Republican state that is filing this bill. I will be profoundly surprised if it passes there.
IMO, the reality is that unless a key swing state like Michigan, Colorado, Ohio, or Pennsylvania passes the NPV compact. it will not go anywhere. All the states that have passed it are strong Democratic states, and it has gone nowhere in any Republican leaning state.
They need Texas!
Texas, Michigan, Montana, and Pennsylvania lifts it up to 242. If Florida also says yes they now carry legal force.
Walt, Montana is less Republican than you think. They have a Democratic governor, who just got re-elected. Their house of reps is 41 Democratic, 59 Republican. Senate is 29 Republican, 21 Democratic.
I think Republicans would get behind a proportional system. You get 1 electoral vote for each corresponding percentage. For example, 10 electoral votes, would mean 1 electoral vote for every 10 percent of the statewide vote. Fractions of 10 percent (12% for example) would be floored or ceiled to the nearest 10%, with pure ties of 5% (5% to two candidates) for the last electoral vote, going to the one who’s gotten the least electoral votes so far in that state.
This would mean that Democrats would pick up electoral votes in typically Republican states (Texas for example), but Republicans would do the same in typically Democratic states (California for example).
@AMcCarrick:
The trouble is that there is no incentive for any state to use a proportional system as long as ANY OTHER state is winner-take-all. A better alternative would be instant runoff voting because when all the votes are transferred, the winner in a particular state would actually get more votes than a mere plurality system.
Walt, that would still highly unlikely make any difference to how the electoral votes are awarded. Would it matter if Clinton got 65% of the vote in a NY or 70%? Or if Trump got 48% (with all the other below him) of the vote or 52%?
95% of the time Instant Run-Off doesn’t change the outcome of the race, unless a strong second place finisher (in the first round) is a center leaning candidate. Say they get 45% in the first round and the first place finished got 47%…. there’s a chance a center-leaning candidate could get 6% transferred to them…. in all other circumstances, the first place finisher will end up with over 50% on round two or three. It unlikely instant run-off would change most people’s voting habits.
@AMcCarrick:
It’s hard to know without a vote transferrable system in place exactly how the votes would shift, but, lets say for the sake of argument that all of McMullin’s votes would have transferred to Trump, and all of Stein’s votes would have transferred to Clinton, and Johnson’s votes would have split 50-50.
I think Stein’s votes were decisive in Wisconsin and Michigan, and possibly Pennsylvania, too. If those three states flipped to Clinton after Stein’s votes were transferred, Clinton might have carried the electoral college.
Politico says Stein had more votes in Wisconsin and Michigan than Trump’s margin over Clinton, but not Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania’s state Website agrees:
http://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/ENR_NEW
(BTW, I am just one of the people I know who voted for Stein in Michigan and would NOT have voted for either Clinton or Trump, even as a lower choice in IRV. And proportional allocation of EC votes is already arguably required by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment and the solid caselaw that diluting votes is one way to unconstitutionally deny the right to an effective vote.)
@ John Anthony
Yes, you are correct about Pennsylvania. But let’s suppose in PA, you get down to transferring Johnson’s votes, and more of them went for Clinotn, enough to flip then state. Them, with the EV’s from MI, WI, and PA, Clinton wins.
Of course, I cannot guarantee this outcome, but it IS possible for IRV, which I think is the alternative most likely to be accepted.
Const Amdt — or a New Const for the Democracy States —
1. Uniform definition of Elector-Voter.
2. P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
3. Total Separation of powers.
Difficult ONLY for law, political science, election and history MORONS — stuck in the late DARK AGE —
the same sort of morons who still love *divine right of kings*, slavery, etc. etc.
@Walt Ziobro: One can suppose anything. I believe Rachel Maddow was also supposing that all votes for Jill Stein and half of those for Gary Johnson could have gone for Clinton, and on that basis loudly blaming Clinton’s loss on those stubborn, foolish third-party folks.
My info on Pennsylvania was just to indicate what one would have to suppose to make the scenario you were describing work. And so was my info on the fact, personally known to me and shared to readers here for whatever use they want to make of it, that not everyone who voted for Stein in Michigan would have voted for Clinton (or Trump) as even a lower-ranked IRV choice . . . so more suppositions would be required.
AMcC wrote “95% of the time Instant Run-Off doesn’t change the outcome of the race…”
The assumption that nothing else will be different except the voting system is way off base. IRV/RCV will have a significant impact on every aspect of politics, not just elections. Potential candidates will likely change their decisions to run or not run. Donors will likely change their patterns of donations. The big two parties will be less powerful, with less coattail effect and with less allegiance to the home team. Most importantly, candidates will wage campaigns much differently, working to be the 2nd choice on as many ballots as possible, under the assumption that very few elections will be decided without doing additional rounds of tallying. The scorched earth approach of, for example, Trump’s campaign will be much less effective with IRV.
In a conventional runoff, voters get to consider the merits of the continuing candidates. They may seek the endorsement of the eliminated candidates.
For the many IGNORANT about the 3 choice / DIVIDED MAJORITY problem —
26 AB
25 BA
49 Z
100
In reality both the majority and the minority may be split into many parts.
Condorcet in the 1780s (repeat 1780s) noted head to head math.
I.E. IF a choice beats each other choice head to head, then that choice should be made.
BUT due to plurality math morons his work has been ignored by the MORONS in the media for hundreds of years.
Condorcet math is effect calculus type election math when compared simple plurality math.
Thus there would be Number Votes to do the Head to Head math and a tiebreaker — perhaps YES or NO or the addition of place votes.
Instant runoff voting also allows voters to know the endorsements of the defeated candidates, before anyone is defeated. Here in California, where four cities use IRV, it is now common for candidates to endorse certain opponents before any votes are cast. Candidates ask supporters to cast a 2nd place vote for a particular candidate other than themselves.
It is undisputed that IRV raises the courtesy level of candidates toward each other. No candidate wants to enrage the supporters of any other candidate, because a candidate is trying to get 2nd place and 3rd place votes from as many people as possible, so it is not desirable for any candidate to become hated by any segment of the population.
Exactly, how many voters pay never mind to these endorsements? If a candidate asks a voter to cast a 2nd place vote for another candidate, it is probably a ploy to get the voter to vote for them.
Otherwise the meaning of such an endorsement is, “I’m probably not going to win, so go ahead and vote for Smith so your vote isn’t wasted.”
Take a look at the San Francisco 2011 mayoral election. 27% of voters either did not care to express a preference between Lee and Avalos, or were prevented by defective election equipment from doing so. The final results were:
Lee 43%, Avalos 29%, NOTA 27%.
Turnout in San Francisco mayoral elections is down under IRV.
In Burlington, Vermont, everyone agreed that Bob Kiss was a nice guy, but when there were critical issues he floundered. Meanwhile party operatives attacked the Democratic candidate so that he would be eliminated.