On February 15, the Vermont Senate Government Operations Committee passed SB 31, the National Popular Vote Plan bill. This appears to be the first instance in 2011 in which a National Popular Vote Plan bill has moved ahead, in any state’s legislature. The legislature had passed the same bill in 2008 but it had been vetoed. Vermont has a different Governor now and if the bill reaches his desk, he is expected to sign it.
A survey of 800 Vermont voters conducted April 26, 2008 showed 75%–25% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By party, support is 86%–14% among Democratic voters; 61%–39% among Republicans, and 74%–26% for Others.
By age, support is almost the same across all age groups. Specifically, support is 78%–22% among 18–29 year olds; 74%–26% among 30–45 year olds; 74%–26% among 46–65 year olds; and 74%–24% among 65-and-older.
By gender, support is 82%–18% among women and 67%–33% among men.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#VT_2008APR
1. NO uniform definition of an Elector in the NPV scheme from Hell — allowing foreign ENEMIES, children, felons, etc. to vote for a U.S.A. Prez/VP in 1 or more usual suspect communist States.
2. NO approval by the gerrymander Congress of the obvious interstate compact NPV scheme from Hell.
3. Blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 in the NPV scheme from Hell — having OUTSIDE votes determine results INSIDE a sovereign State.
Copy and paste each time you see any NPV scheme stuff anywhere.
NPV’s mvymvy cut-and-paste machine should stick to the merits rather than polls that NPV paid for. Besides, the unfortunate reality is that most Americans do not know how the Electoral College system works, why we have it, what its effects are, and how it would change the political landscape to shift to any kind of direct national election for president.
And lost in all this is the reality that the President is not a representative (at some level of population, I’m sure that term looses its meaning; some level below several hundred million people) but an executive.
#3 How many States manage to survive by having Governors elected by ALL of the Electors-Voters in such States ???
Are ALL of the States more than a bit divided ???
Did the U.S.A. somehow become a de facto absolute monarchy / tyranny in 1932-1933 — bottom of Great Depression I ???
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.
Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. This will be more obscene than the already outrageous facts that in 2008,, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a handful of votes in one or two 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 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,000,000 votes.
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 bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » National Popular Vote Plan Bill Moves Ahead in Vermont -- Topsy.com
If a state is a signatory to the NPV compact, and do not let their own citizens vote for any candidate that appears on the ballot in any other State (or the District of Columbia) do not they violate the 14th Amendment by denying the right of their citizens to cast an effective vote for the choice of presidential electors?
And since such a denial is universal upon all male citizens over the age of 21, isn’t the apportionment of representatives for that state set to zero, and its number of electoral votes reduced to 2?
mvymvy: Isn’t a state putting the shaft to its own citizens when it enables the state’s electoral votes to be cast for a candidate who did not finish first in that state?
The reason that 48 states have winner-take-all is that it maximizes a state’s impact on the process. A few years ago, Colorado had a ballot question to ditch winner-take-all and change to the Maine/Nebraska system, and Colorado voters defeated it.
States, of course, don’t even have to provide for popular votes for presidential electors. State legislators themselves may choose the electors.
You’re really big on polls, aren’t you, mvymvy? Suppose a poll showed that 51% of Americans favored repealing the First Amendment. Would you then support doing so?
The polls showed that 60%-plus were opposed to Obama’s socialized medicine scheme, and yet Congress and Obama rammed it through anyway.
Changing to a national popular vote for electing the president would change the very nature of the process. The campaign would be conducted mainly on the airwaves and in the large population centers. Small towns and rural areas would likely never be visited by a candidate. A candidate elected by big-city votes would surely be less interested in issues important to small towns and rural jurisdictions.
In the present system, small states are sometimes crucial in close races. In 2000, e.g., West Virginia received multiple campaign visits.
For the Electoral College to be abolished, 38 states would have to ratify it, and that’s not going to happen.
#10 “For the Electoral College to be abolished, 38 states would have to ratify it, and that’s not going to happen.”
Wrong, this is not a constitutionam amendment to abolish the EC. Here is some reading for you: http://www.every-vote-equal.com/
When you’ve read your homework you can come back and raise your hand.
P.S. Are you ever going to come clean on that bet you lost in 08 where you said Romney was going to win the Rep nomination? Are you still rooting for Romney in 12? Romneycare may make it tough this time around.
#10 The small States can go straight to political Hell — Do not pass Go, do not collect a Trillion dollars.
Democracy NOW — to END the EVIL rule of the EVIL gerrymander monarchs / oligarchs — i.e. the EVIL party hacks — with the chief party hack being a Prez for one gang or the other.
See the ignoring of the 1777 Articles of Confederation in 1787-1790. Gee- any court cases back then about such ignoring ???
l. Let’s be clear; a poll supporting popular vote does not translate to support (and certainly not to informed opinion about the NPV bill).
2. While 2000 is a clear example of why the EC is a problem, it also an example of where the proposed NPV would be a disaster. A close election sparks a multitude of questions about the actual administration and logistics of NPV implementation. For brevity, I will stick with one: Just WHO or what entity will determine the election’s outcome, and then actually direct states electors to cast their votes a certain way?
The devil’s in the details.
#13 — 5 of 9 party hack Supremes would obviously have final control — as in Bush v. Gore 2000.
The purpose of the National Popular Vote bill is to eliminate the state-by-state awarding of electoral votes and instead award a majority of the nation’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states (and DC). It is the current state-by-state awarding of electoral votes that permits a second-place candidate to win the White House. It is the current state-by-state system that makes votes unequal in presidential elections. It is the current state-by-state system that makes 2/3rds of the states politically irrelevant in presidential elections. Under the winner-take-all method, candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or pay attention to the concerns of states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Instead, candidates concentrate their attention on a small handful of closely divided battleground states. This means that voters in 2/3rds of the states are ignored in presidential elections. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia).
Under the National Popular Vote plan, the focus of the campaigns and media in the months prior to the presidential elections will be on polls of the national popular vote, not on state-by-state polls from a handful of closely divided battleground states. There will be no red states and no blue states, only the United States.
Under the current presidential election system, voters in 2/3rds of the states are not politically relevant; every vote is not equal; states disregard the votes for the losers of their state, and do not value the votes for the winner beyond the one vote more than the leading opponent; the House of Representatives could be left to decide who will be President; and the clear will of the people may be ignored. Ultimately, the choice is whether it is more important for the winner in a particular state to receive the state’s electoral votes or for the winner of the entire country to win the White House.
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” 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/2008/certificates-of-ascertainment.html
Implementation of the compact simply involves adding up the popular vote totals in all 50 states and DC.
Neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
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.
To read the whole 888 word National Popular Vote bill, to how it would be implemented, see: http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php
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 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 small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, 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. So despite the fact that these 12 states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia and Hawaii.
Because so few of the 22 small and medium-small states are closely divided battleground states in presidential elections, the current system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states. In other words, three-quarters of the states were ignored under the current system in the 2008 election. Michigan , Ohio , Pennsylvania , and Florida contain over half of the electoral votes that mattered in 2008. There were only three battleground states among the 22 small and medium-small states (i.e., New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada). These three states contain only 14 of the 166 electoral votes.
Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.
#11: I can do without your condescending attitude.
You obviously didn’t bother to read all of my comments. I never said that the NPV proposal requires a constitutional amendment. The reason I mentioned the amendment was that mvymvy was talking about polls that showed how many people favored electing the president by a direct popular vote.
I never bet anyone that Romney was going to win the nomination. The only time I rooted for Romney was when the race came down to McCain vs. Romney… I’d pull for just about anybody against McCain. Romney won’t be the 2012 nominee; neither will Huckabee.
Aren’t you the socialist who predicted that that a##hole Charlie Crist would win the Florida Senate race? You didn’t miss that one by much, did you? I predicted back in the spring that Marco Rubio would win in November. Don’t be surprised if Rubio is the 2012 VP nominee.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
In California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.
Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
#16 What do the 2008 Certificates of Ascertainment for California, Maryland, Nebraska, and Oklahoma have in common?
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-ascertainment.html
What is special about the Certificate of Ascertainment for West Virginia?
Why are the Certificates of Ascertainment for Nebraska and Maine different than those from other states. Is this because they ascertain who their electors are in a different manner than other states?
Under the NPV scheme, how would a state ascertain who its electors were? How would they document this certain determination on their Certificate of Ascertainment?
What does the number “3,783” on the Alaska Certificate of Ascertainment mean? What about “11,783” on that for Arizona?
Still waiting for a response from mvymvy — regarding
1. NO uniform definition of an Elector in the NPV scheme from Hell — allowing foreign ENEMIES, children, felons, etc. to vote for a U.S.A. Prez/VP in 1 or more usual suspect communist States.
How many more Chicago dead would vote once again – for Prez/VP — via their estate persons ???
#16 “the National Popular Vote compact [doesn’t] permit any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states.”
This is precisely what is wrong with the NPV scheme. It is not a feature, it is a BUG. There is no single canvassing authority. There is no single definition of elector. There is no single method of voting. There is not a common candidate list.
“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 reason that U.S. Constitution permits diversity of election laws among the States is because they are electing their own representatives, so if one state permits idiots, felons, aliens, and minors to vote, it has no impact on other States. This would not be true under the NPV scheme.
#23 Perhaps not a bug — but an intentional timebomb — by the usual suspects who dreamed up the NPV scheme from Hell.
You are spot ON, Jim (#23). Mvy’s verbosity regurgitates the exact arguments in almost the exact text that some of our local proponents have put forth.
The blinding amount of verbage does not address the very real problems that would result from the implementation of this scheme.
Contrary to popular belief, the current Electoral College system is not the system the Founders intended. Nor would they approve at what the system has evolved into: a vehicle for special interest. The winner-take-all Electoral College only serves to elevate the needs of niche special interest groups that happen to reside in swing states over the concerns of Americans elsewhere. Why should people in Florida get their agenda privileged over people in Georgia? There is no reason, except that Florida is a “Swing State” and is therefore targeted not only by advertisements, but by political favors. Not only does the current system unfairly privilege the few, it also depresses civic engagement in the so-called spectator states, which happen to comprise over 3/4 of the country.
For the sake of our Democracy, we need to return to basics: one person, one vote.