On December 10, the Michigan House Ethics and Elections Committee passed HB 6610, the national popular vote plan. The bill had been introduced on November 6, 2008. The Michigan legislature that is sitting now is the legislature that was elected in 2006. The new session doesn’t start until January 2009. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
It is difficult for me to see how the NPVP can be enforced. The states are required by the Constitution to appoint real people as Electors who are legally free agents. How can these Electors be compelled by a state to “allocate” their votes according to the national popular vote. What if the national popular vote is in doubt? The non-NPVP states would then have a disproportionate power to determine the outcome.
I have reservations that even the SCOTUS can justify ‘compacting’ around an express provision of the Constitution. Well, I guess they could by fiat.
Perhaps, a proponent of NPVP can give me a clue?
The NPVP scheme blatantly violates the Equal Protection Clause in 14th Amdt. Sec. 1.
All States
W 50,000,001
Z 50,000,000
W is elected via NPVP.
State X
W 1
Z 5,000,000
The Z votes in State X are more than a bit devalued for choosing 12th Amdt Prez Electors from THAT STATE ONLY.
General principle — each State happens to be SOVEREIGN within its State area — i.e. The laws of ALL other States have ZERO effect inside such State.
Proper remedy –
Uniform definition of Elector
NONPARTISAN nomination (nominating petitions) and election of all elected executive and judicial officers using Approval Voting – vote for 1 or more – highest win — pending MAJOR public education about head to head math.
Election related Amdts to the dying, near dead U.S.A. Const — 12, 14-2, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27 — way too difficult for the armies of New Age constitutional law MORONS to understand.
It is only some major historical luck that the larger States did not long ago get together and dump / attack the smaller States — filled with *provincial* monarchs / oligarchs — who love their minority rule power in the U.S.A. Senate and Electoral College.
REAL Democracy NOW before it is too late.
Minor Correction: The NPV bill is HB 6610.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2008-HB-6610&query=on
Thanks for the correction on the bill number.
The National Popular Vote Plan bills provide for electing real people as electors. If the plan were in force in all 50 states, each state’s Democratic elector candidates who be deemed in each state, since Obama got the bigger national popular vote total.
Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote system, each political party nominates strongly opinionated party activists for the position of presidential elector. Candidates for the position of presidential elector willingly intend to act as “rubberstamps†for their party’s nominee. In November, the voters decide which slate (Republican or Democratic) of candidates for the position of presidential elector will actually cast the state’s electoral votes. Under the winner-take-all rule (currently used in 48 of the 50 states), the state’s presidential electors are the elector candidates associated with the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in the state. In two states (Maine and Nebraska), the state’s presidential electors are the elector candidates associated with the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in each of the state’s congressional districts.
Under the National Popular Vote bill, the state’s presidential electors are the elector candidates associated with the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). This bloc of 270 (or more) presidential electors would reflect the will of the voters nationwide. No one in this bloc of 270 (or more) presidential electors would be asked to vote contrary to his or her own political inclinations or conscience. Instead, these electors would vote for their own strongly-held personal choice, namely the nominee of their own political party. Under the National Popular Vote bill, these 270 (or more) presidential electors would operate as willing “rubberstamps†for the nationwide choice of the voters, just as presidential electors currently act as willing “rubberstamps†for the statewide (or district-wide) choice of the voters.
The states already have ample authority to enforce “faithful” voting by electors by means of state law. For example, Pennsylvania law empowers each presidential nominee to directly nominate the elector candidates who run under his name in Pennsylvania. North Carolina law declares vacant the position of any contrary-voting elector and empowers the state’s remaining electors to immediately replace the contrary-voting elector with a loyal elector. Either the Pennsylvania approach or the North Carolina approach, or a combination of the two, would be an effective remedy against this perceived problem. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
Mr. Robinson,
To put it very simply, instead of Michigan allocating their electors based on who wins Michigan, they will allocate their electors based on who wins the country. Then they’ve agreed to do this only when such states would hold the balance of power in the EC.
I welcome Susan’s accurate and useful posts. She mentioned the North Carolina law. I don’t believe the North Carolina system is constitutional. States must choose their electors in November, according to federal law. Once North Carolina has chosen its electors, I don’t believe the state can dump one or more of its electors later, based on how they vote in December. Furthermore, the North Carolina law can’t cope if all (or even a majority) of the state’s electors vote differently than the North Carolina popular vote.
#8. After the flub-up in 2004, Minnesota changed its law, so that the votes are also choosing a slate of alternates. The alternates can fill ordinary vacancies, but also can step in in case of unfaithful electors.
In the past, Minnesota electors have voted by secret ballot. Starting this year, they will be required to first declare verbally how they intend to vote, and then cast a public ballot. If in either case they fail to vote for the candidates whose banner they ran under, they will be replaced by an alternate.
NPVP should be first be tested for the nomination of presidential and vice presidential candidates. If Hillary Clinton and John McCain had been nominated (based on their popular electoral support in the primaries) there would be broad-based support for extending the system to the actual election itself.
While the States may have little authority over the selection of delegates to balloon-festooned conclaves of the national parties, they have complete authority over who appears on their general election ballots.
The States don’t farm out the nomination of gubernatorial or senatorial candidates (Illinois non-withstanding) to private groups. Why should they do the same for the presidential nominees?
After all, NPVP advocates argue that because we popularly elect governors and senators (Illinois non-withstanding), why shouldn’t the same be true for the president? Surely they can see the logical consistency.
There would be no need for States with a majority of the electoral vote to adopt NPVP for nomination for it to be effective. If just a few States adopt it, it will be imperative for candidates to participate if they wish to be elected in November. Other States may be forced to open up their ballots to candidates chosen in the national primary.
How a NPVP primary might work:
Candidates would qualify by petition of 1/100 of 1% of the presidential vote in States that have 1/2 the EV of members of the compact. In Texas, this would be about 800 signatures. Nationwide, this percentage is about 12,000 (less than some backwards States like California and Illinois require to run for Congress). Since qualification would only be required in half the States the national signature count would be less, but because of the distributional requirements, it would be somewhat more (due to wasted signatures).
Political parties recognized by a State could designate a national political party with which they are affiliated. If a national political party were designated by State parties from States with 1/5 of the EV, they would be recognized for the primary. There could possibly also be a petition process for recognizing presidential political parties.
Recognized national political parties could decide whether their primary would be open, closed, or semi-open. A party which wished to hold a closed primary in States that do not have party registration, could provide a list of voters eligible to vote in their primary.
Each party could decide which candidates would be eligible for nomination by their party. Candidates would qualify for the primary ballot without party designation, but could then be recognized as potential party candidates. Parties could not require a loyalty oath or require a candidate to withdraw if they do not receive their party nomination. A party may not require exclusivity of candidates.
Parties could also determine whether their nominee would be determined by majority or plurality vote, and also specify the process by which candidate would be nominated in case that no candidate receives a majority or specified plurality. The designated candidate must be from among those contesting the primary.
State parties not-affiliated with a national party could exercise the same authority in their respective State.
Voters would be free to vote for any candidate, regardless of party. However, they would be required to pick a party on the ballot. In case of a closed or semi-open party primary, such designation must be consistent with the party registration of the voter. In case of a semi-open primary, party selection by the voter will be a matter of public record (in effect, it would be a temporary same-day affiliation). Write-in votes would be permitted (for independent candidates only).
Who would qualify for the general election ballot?
Any candidate who received 1% or more of the total vote, regardless of party affiliation of the candidate, or the party of the voters who supported them.
In addition, in any national party primary in which at least 1/10 of 1% of voters participated, the candidate with the most votes cast by party members would be the nominee (subject to majority or plurality requirements imposed by the national party).
In addition, in any nationally-non-affiliate State party primary in which at least 1/10 of 1% of State voters participated, the candidate with the most votes cast by party members would be the nominee (subject to majority or plurality requirements imposed by the State party). Such candidates would be limited to the State ballot where they were nominated.
In the general election, a candidate could carry the nomination of multiple parties, but would only appear on the ballot once. Candidates would not be permitted to withdraw, except for reason of death, catastrophic illness, or conviction of felony.
Any candidate who qualified for the general election ballot would of course be free to not campaign. Each qualified candidate would name their vice presidential nominee, as well as their presidential electors.
Because the national primary would only be conducted in States that are member of the compact, it would be possible for a national canvass to be organized. It would also be possible to generally coordinate their other electoral regulations.
NPVP should make provision for a runoff election.
One of the major flaws of the NPVP is that it is possible for a candidate to carry not a single one of the compact States, and yet win the national EV (perhaps unanimously).
If a candidate carries both a State and the country, participation in the compact has no effect. But if a candidate carries the country, but not a State, the State agrees to cast its EV for someone else.
This may be particularly prevalent in cases where their are significant 3rd party candidates. A 3rd party candidate might bleed off votes in non-compact States, and force a different EV to to be cast in a compact State where the 3rd party candidate was not even on the ballot.
Is a national popular vote runoff constitutional? Yes.
States have absolute authority to control the manner in which their presidential electors are appointed. They have since the 1789 election used runoff procedures for determining electors, including requiring majority popular vote for electors.
The Constitution deliberately uses different language for the “time” when electors are appointed; and the “day” when electors meet in their respective States. It is only the latter that is required to be uniform.
The schedule for the the first election in 1789 was set by Continental Congress, which set the first Wednesday in January, February, and March in 1789 for the appointment of electors, meetings of electors to cast their electoral votes, and the initial meeting of Congress, respectively. The 1st Wednesday in March was March 4th, which thus became the starting date for terms of the President, Vice President, Senators and Representatives, until passage of the 20th Amendment.
Congress did not immediately establish a quorum, and thus they were unable to count the electoral votes, or if necessary elect the President. George Washington was not inaugurated until June 1789.
Because presidential and congressional terms were concurrent, Congress in 1792 provided that the outgoing, lame duck, Congress would count the electoral votes, and if necessary, elect the president (this would increase the controversy of the 1801 and 1825 elections). Congress also specified that the electors would meet on the first Wednesday in December 1792, and that the electors would be be appointed in the 34 preceding days. The December meeting date for electors, provided for time for the electoral votes to be transmitted to Philadelphia and for the lame duck Congress to count the electoral votes and determine the president.
States that had popular elections tended to hold the elections toward the beginning of the period in early November. This permitted them to hold the elections, conduct a statewide canvass, and provide time for the electors to travel to the meeting of electors in their State. By 1840, when all States but one used popular elections to choose their electors, the elections were conducted over a 13 day period from October 30 to November 12. The South Carolina legislature met in late October to appoint its electors.
In 1845, Congress set the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the time for appointing electors. This simply consolidated elections that were held over a two-week period, and allayed concerns about voters moving from State to State (still possible for presidential primaries).
An issue was whether South Carolina would be forced to comply with this schedule, or whether an exception could be made for legislatively-appointed electors. Without an exception, the legislature would have to meet in special session, or be coerced to hold popular elections.
During the debate, it was noted that an exception had been made for States that required majority election of electors. This exception still exists (3 USC 2). Ultimately, no exception was made for South Carolina, but the exception was retained for States that required a runoff.
In 1848, no slate of electors achieved a majority vote in Massachusetts (Martin Van Buren running as the candidate of the Free Soil party received 28% of the vote, finishing ahead of the Democrat Lewis Cass). The legislature then chose the Whig electors who supported Zachary Taylor over the Free Soil electors.
Massachusetts could have held a popular runoff. They simply chose to have the legislature choose from among the top 2 candidates.
If the NPVP had a provision for a runoff, it need only be conducted in the States that were members of the compact. Since they controlled a majority of the electoral votes, the winner chosen in their runoff would become president. Further, it would ensure that the persons elected president was supported by the citizens of the compact States.
If a candidate receives a majority of the popular vote in November, they are quite likely to win the popular vote in many of the states that are members of the compact.
NPVP is a crock, designed to thwart the Constitutional provision that provide for stability in our Republic. The NPVP provides that even if a state voted 100% in favor of another candidate, all of its electors would go to the national majority candidate. I cease to see how this will fairly represent the will of the people one way or the other. Furthermore, it provides a method to have a government who gives the appearance of unity, similar to Saddam Husseins elections, and allows for a dictatorship to easily come into power. The NPVP is how a Republic throws off democracy to “thunderous applause.” Mark my word, it is a huge mistake!
Richard G:
That is the most unbelievable inflammatory tripe I’ve read in a while. Do you really think it is so bad to elect a president by a national vote? Do you really think that such a process would lead to instability? Do you really think that electing a national leader with national support is less stable than occasionally electing a president without national support? (how stable were things in 2000?) Can you honestly not see how people are more fairly represented by the candidate with the most votes winning than the current system? Do you think that Governors should be elected by county or else our country will fall into an abysmal dictatorship?
I can maybe buy some people here writing about whether this is allowed by the constitution (I think it is), or whether it there is some beneficial aspects of the current system (I think they are outweighed by the democratic argument). But comparing a national vote for president (i.e. democracy!) to Saddam Hussein’s regime involves a suspension of logic and a sadly poor grasp of reality.
lemur: to beleive in pure democracy is to be a fool. NPVP is pure democracy. Cultures that follow that path ultimately self-destruct. A much better mechanism for electing the President is to elect him/her district by district or percentage wise. The NPVP is destructive and goes directly against our Founding Fathers vision. It subverts the Constitution and seeks to destroy state’s rights. It’s a huge mistake. The Electoral College already does what you seem to seek, but allows wide dissent. Your NPVP does not allow dissent, but forces its results upon the states. The Electoral College or the House always provides for a majority representation. The current process allows for negotiation and true statemanship support for any elected President. Those who want NPVP have no understanding of the Electoral Process and the pitfalls it prevents. Small states must be able to have a weighted voice to prevent the mobacracy of the big states. NPVP squelches the voices of smaller states and erodes support from them. NPVP will lead to an abolution of the country through civil war.
I’m not sure if its legal anyhow, the Constitution provides that states are not allowed to enter into treaties with each other or other countries. NPVP is a treaty between the states. However, most people in this country don’t really care about abiding by any law anymore. We claim to be a country of Law and Order, but contrary to the claim, more and more are willing to throw the Constitution away to get what they want one way or another.
Another argument against the NPVP is in ballot disputes. Currently, because each state is separate in the process, ballot disputes are localized and contained within counties or a state. If a NPVP election is too close, all states would be involved because every single vote would need to be recounted. Be careful what wish for!
Demo: Where do you get the idea that small states have greater power than large states in the Senate and EC? The small states only approach an equal status in the Senate. All states get two Senators. That’s equality in one house. In the House they have almost no say whatsoever and have very limited representation. (eg Wyoming has only one Representative, do you really think they can sway the House? I think not.) The EC is a blending of the two, so once again the small states only approach parity with large states but never reach parity. so its impossible for small states to control the government. For the most part, it takes complete unity of the 35 smaller states to even have a chance at out voting the large states. Seems to me the large states still have plenty of power and ability to manipulate.
The rather simple solution would be to award E.C. votes in a State using Instant Runoff Voting.
I also support IRV.
#16 States may enter into agreements and compacts with other States (and foreign governments) with the consent of Congress. See Article I Section 10 (paragraph 3).
We don’t need this. What we do need is to stop giving away electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. This method, which 48 states follow, creates a greater discrepancy between electoral and popular votes.
We should have IRV in all elections. Also I would support the elector by CD. method used in some states.