On October 12, Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the National Popular Vote bill for the District of Columbia. See this story. In theory Congress could veto the District’s law sometime during the next 60 days, but that seems unlikely to happen.
Sorry for being lazy, since I know that the National Popular Vote Plan has been voted on in several states, but could somebody explain how it could cause changes? I think that the end result is that states want to give all of their electoral college votes to whomever wins the overall US popular vote, but isn’t it unconstitutional? So I wish to know HOW and not why they are doing it…thank you in advance…
1. NO UNIFORM definition of an Elector in the EVIL NPV Scheme — how many Foreign folks (even terrorists), children, felons will become Prez Electors ???
2. NO approval yet of the EVIL NPV scheme by the gerrymander Congress.
3. BLATANT violation of the equal protection clause by the Scheme — by permitting a minority of the votes INSIDE a sovereign State along with votes OUTSIDE of such sovereign State to determine election results INSIDE such State.
U.S.A.
Z 70,000,001
A 70,000,000
State of Confusion
Z 1 [the EVIL Z votes for itself in a hole in the ground]
A 10,000,000
NPV
Z wins
INSIDE SOC a mere 9,999,999 voters have their votes deemed worthless — with NPV.
Since D.C. is NOT a State, then how can it make ANY sort of inter-state compact without the direct approval of the gerrymander Congress ???
Awaiting the standard juvenile NPV responses.
The US Constitution says states may appoint presidential electors any way they please. The states are free to let the state legislature choose the presidential electors. So certainly a state is free to appoint as presidential electors those individuals who are committed to vote for the person who won the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, is not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
The winner-take-all rule is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
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. It 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.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
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 bloc. 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 bloc. 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.
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.
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”
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 and the U.S. Constitution permits states to conduct elections in varied ways.
The National Popular Vote bill does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The 6th California Super-state Parliament Circuit #11
Updated on 10/11/2010
8/6/2010 through 8/5/2014
http://www.usparliament.htm/ss11.htm
Five Elected Executives
Prime Minister Lily Montgomery [Information Not Available]
Secretary Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian]
Prime Minister Lynnette Shaw [Democratic]
Secretary Jim Doyle [Republican]
Prime Minister Virgil Hales [Green-Pot-Christ]
Two Elected Full Ministers
Attorney General Minister Jack Harrison [Peace and Freedom]
Communications Minister Alex Plewniak [Libertarian]
One Elected Deputy Minister
Deputy Attorney General Kennith Weissman [Libertarian]
One Hundred Elected Members of Super-state Parliament (MSPs)
Libertarian Party – 32 MSPs
Starchild, Mary J. Ruwart, Gail Lightfoot, Pamela J. Brown, Cory Nott, Lawrence Samuels, Kristi Stone, Marian Smithson, Sandi Web, Dale Ogden, Donna Tello, Richard Winger, Ned Roscoe, Vince Carlton [Libertarian at Large], Richard Vinable, Steve Kubby, Mark Hinkle, Alex Plewniak, Dwight Bailey, Tony Monroe, Dave LeBlanc, Richard Rider, Richard S. Bronstein, Michael Metti, Byron Stephens, Richard Newell, Andrew “Andy” Favor, Timothy J. Hannon, Angela Keaton, Kevin Takenaga, Joe Cobb and Joe Dehn
Pot Party – 20 MSPs
Bouhlod Khembisai, Mark Rodrigues, Ezekial Mitchel, Robert S., Jim Cruise, James May, Adam Meed, Phil Zek, Chuck John, Adam Morgan, Josh Nickson, Junior Stevenson [Pothead], Evan Santos, Rory Hicks [Liberal-Pot], Kyle Kirby, Jason Maya, Brad Orand, Jesse Waterman, Brent Nevile and Alex Haser [Pothead]
Parties With One Seat – 12 MSPs
Christina Adams [Environmentalist], Vanessa Moreley [Defender of the Republic], Cherish Prieditis [Anarchist], John Bergamini [Food Not Bombs], Allen McKinney [Open], Sterling [Hemp], Joel Castle [Intelligence], Eddy Lepp [Nonpartisan], Marci Pinkard [Decline to State], Darryl Perry [Boston Tea], Jim Doyle [Republican] and Chelene Nightingale [Constitution Independent]
Peace and Freedom Party – 12 MSPs
Jack Harrison, Debra L. Reiger, Jan Tucker, Stewart Alexander, Karen Martinez, Dina Josephine Padilla, CT Weber, Marylou Cabral, Janice Jordan, Carlos Alverez, Mohammed Arif and Robert J. Evans
Independents – 4 MSPs
Lucia Goin, Jerry Leon Carroll, Amory and Neil Brian Goldberg
Information Not Available – 4 MSPs
Bob Watkins, Ani Defranco, Carlos Santana and Mark Williams
Marijuana Party – 4 MSPs
David Payne, James Barbee [Free Marijuana], Thressia Keys and Edward Zuniga
Free Parliamentary – 4 MSPs
Laura Booth, Daniel Penisten [Free Parliament], Adrian Hickman and James Ogle
Green Party – 3 MSPs
Virgil Hales [Green-Pot-Christ], Kevin Clark [Green Libertarian] and Ross Frankel
American Independent Party – 3 MSPs
Diane Bealle Templin, Markham Robinson and Don Lake
Free and Equal Party – 2 MSPs
Wayne Christopher and Babette Hogan
Total – 100 MSPs
President James Ogle [Free Parliamentary] and Vice President Starchild [Libertarian]
First vote count 8/6/2010
Second vote count 10/2/2010
* * *
New Cabinet Members Elected, to be Announced;
http://www.usparliament.org/ca-par-cabinet.htm
Sorry ALL — the 14th Amdt prevails over ANY thing earlier —
Art. II, Sec. 1 and the 12th Amdt — basic constitutional law.
The 14th Amdt votes INSIDE each sovereign State have ZERO to do with any votes OUTSIDE of such sovereign State.
The NPV scheme is like saying that the tax rates in the States outside of a State somehow affect the tax rates inside such State — totally N-U-T-S.
Still NO juvenile response to the basic point that there is NO UNIFORM national definition of Elector in the NPV EVIL SCHEME — i.e. allowing some of the more EVIL party hacks to have ENEMY foreign folks voting for Prez, children, murderers and traitors in jail, etc. — to get Prez POWER — now that the U.S.A. is like the late Roman Republic — almost with an Emperor-Tyrant in the person of each powermad Prez.
Proper constitutional amdt remedy — for the MORONS on this list with their standard EVIL statutory fix type schemes.
1. Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A. — including serf colonies.
2. P.R.
3. NONPARTISAN App.V.
At what point will the gerrymander party hacks start Civil WAR II — with an INTOLERABLE law/scheme???
Also what about 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 ???
Any *abridging* of the right to vote for Prez Electors INSIDE a sovereign State by the NPV scheme — by including the votes from outside such sovereign State ???
For history MORONS — see the last para. of the 1776 DOI — each State is a NATION-STATE.
See also the 1783 U.S.A.- Brit Peace Treaty — States PLURAL
See the name of the Fed regime in both the 1777 Articles of Confederation and the 1787 Constitution — the *United* STATES of America – States PLURAL.
See Art. VII of the 1787 Constitution – 9 States PLURAL.
Sorry – regardless of the ongoing destruction of the States by the SCOTUS party hacks since 1936, the States are still around.
#4 Susan Mvymvy,
If the authority of a State’s legislature is “plenary” and “exclusive” with respect to the manner by which the State’s presidential electors are appointed, can that authority be transferred to a different agency, such as the executive authority, subordinate legislative or administrative body, or even the People through the initiative or referendum process?
Some have even taken the extreme position that a Secretary of State may not close his office at the regular hours on the day of filing deadline for presidential candidates, without explicit legislation by the State legislature.
So how can Congress under terms of the 27th Amendment transfer to the Washington city council its plenary and exclusive manner to direct the manner by which presidential electors for the District of Columbia are appointed?
Could New York state delegate to the New York city council the authority to direct manner by which some of the presidential electors for New York are appointed?
#4 Susan Mvymvy,
How would the NPV handle a close election like 1880 or 1960?
What would a Certificate of Ascertainment for a State that was a member of the NPV compact look like? Could you photoshop up an example.
In response to #12, Congress can under the 23rd Amendment delegate selection authority to the local city council in the District of Columbia, just as a state Legislature under Article II can delegate regulatory power to a state agency. The question in both is whether the Congress or state Legislature has done so, and then whether the agent’s action is consistent with the delegation.
The problem in Mississippi was that no express delegation had occurred, and the secretary of state’s deadline contradicted the Legislature’s deadline for presidential papers.
# 6 The Supremes in the 2010 CU case sort of read the 1st Amdt quite literally — fictional invisable corporations created for very limited purposes somehow being *persons* for speech purposes.
The NPV SCHEME is NOT quite like having an interstate compact regarding tree leaves crossing State lines.
Thus – since the SCOTUS MORONS have screwed up the NATION-STATE status of the States for a LONG time, 5 of 9 just might over-rule their earlier JUNK interstate compact opinions — as in the CU case.
You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/certificates_of_ascertainment.html
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-ascertainment.html
RE: #13
If you’re trying to bring up the possibility of recounts . . .
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
A nationwide recount would not happen. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election. The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires. The larger the number of voters in an election, the smaller the chance of close election results.
Recounts in presidential elections would be far less likely to occur under a national popular vote system than under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state).
Based on a recent study of 7,645 statewide elections in the 26-year period from 1980 through 2006 by FairVote:
*The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 274 votes.
*The original outcome remained unchanged in over 90% of the recounts.
*The probability of a recount is 1 in 332 elections (23 recounts in 7,645 elections), or once in 1,328 years.
So, if the President were elected from a single nationwide pool of votes, one would expect a recount once in 332 elections, or once in 1,328 years.
Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, there are 51 separate opportunities for recounts in every presidential election. Thus, our nation’s 56 presidential elections have really been 2,084 separate state-level elections. In this group of 2,084 separate elections, there have been five seriously disputed counts. The current system has repeatedly created artificial crises in which the vote has been extremely close in particular states, while not close on a nationwide basis. Note that five seriously disputed counts out of the 2,084 separate state-level elections is closely in line with the historically observed probability of 1 in 332.
Electoral College Fans,
Start digging your bunkers. NPV is coming.
#18 — More like Civil WAR II is coming — due to the party hack Donkey/Elephant gerrymander powermad control freaks — who WILL exploit the NPV SCHEME to the max if and when it somehow takes effect.
#14, So a state legislature could designate the governor as the agency to determine the manner by which presidential electors are appointed; and the governor might variously choose to (1) directly appoint them; (2) issues writs for a popular election; or (3) based on the popular vote in all 50 states, but excluding the District of Columbia?
Mississippi required presidential filings to occur by a specific date with the Secretary of State, and required the Secretary of State to maintain regular office hours. For particular express purposes, Mississippi did set a time outside of what might regarded as regular business hours. On one instance, this was because there was another deadline at 5 pm in the counties, and those filings had to be relayed to Jackson. In another case, it was to comply with federal law. There is no reason to presume that there is need to specify exceptions for non-exceptional circumstances. The legislature confirmed this by explicitly setting the deadline to 5 PM.
#16, Susan Mvymvy,
I think you misunderstood my request. Imagine you are the Secretary of State for the State of Perdition and were charged with preparing the Certificate of Ascertainment, and Perdition had signed on to the NPV Compact. What would Perdition’s Certificate of Ascertainment look like, and how would you go about determining its contents?
Correct me if I am wrong, but did any States use the national popular vote in either 2004 or 2008?
#17 I am asking about how the NPV compact would handle an election like 1880 or 1960.
What percentage of those 7,645 elections had popular vote margins less than 10%