Mass. may join effort to bypass Electoral College

Boston Globe ^ | July 19, 2010 | Martin Finucane

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The state Legislature is poised to give final approval this week to a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

Both the House and Senate have approved the National Popular Vote bill. Final enactment votes are needed in both chambers, however, before the bill goes to the governor's desk, the Globe reported last week.ss.

[mvymvy]

The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

The political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support , hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).

In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.

[mvymvy]

Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states to enter interstate compacts. In fact, there are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones), as can be seen at
http://www.csg.org/programs/ncic/default.aspx

[mvymvy]

The states have ample authority to remedy the problem by means of state law. For example, Pennsylvania law empowers each presidential nominee to 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, constitutes an effective remedy against the perceived problem of faithless presidential electors. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

[SkyDancer]

Thanks for that very informative post. Basically I was taught that the electoral college was formed to prevent heavily populated states from constantly voting in the president they want ... it was interesting being asked down here by my friends who ask how can someone win the popular vote but loose the election ... and me telling them how it worked. They have a lot of questions on how the United States was formed ...

[mvymvy]

The potential for political fraud and mischief is not uniquely associated with either the current system or a national popular vote. In fact, the current system magnifies the incentive for fraud and mischief in closely divided battleground states because all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. Under the current system, the national outcome can be affected by mischief in one of the closely divided battleground states (e.g., by overzealously or selectively purging voter rolls or by placing insufficient or defective voting equipment into the other party's precincts). The accidental use of the butterfly ballot by a Democratic election official in one county in Florida cost Gore an estimated 6,000 votes ― far more than the 537 popular votes that Gore needed to carry Florida and win the White House. However, even an accident involving 6,000 votes would have been a mere footnote if a nationwide count were used (where Gore's margin was 537,179). In the 7,645 statewide elections during the 26-year period from 1980 to 2006, the average change in the 23 statewide recounts was a mere 274 votes. Senator Birch Bayh (D–Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, "one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes."

[mvymvy]

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.

[Political Junkie Too]

They are only legal with the consent of Congress. What has Congress said about this?

-PJ

[mvymvy]

A survey of 800 Massachusetts voters conducted on May 2324, 2010 showed 72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Voters were asked

‘How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?’

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 86% among Democrats, 54% among Republicans, and 68% among others. By gender, support was 85% among women and 60% among men. By age, support was 85% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.

http://nationalpopularvote.com/

[Diogenesis]

A whole 800 polled? That many? So what.

The entire PEOPLE must vote for any such change
(except when their vote is usurped by the DNC
or SJC or the MGC or other corrupted groups).

[VRWCmember]

The Legislature appoints. That's their role, and their only role.

And the constitution allowes the state legislatures to appoint them however they determine. If the state legislature decides to pass a law that says the electors will be appointed via a coin flip, then they could do that. If they decide to use a national American Idol poll to appoint their electors they could do that.

[Jim Noble]

If the state legislature decides to pass a law that says the electors will be appointed via a coin flip, then they could do that. If they decide to use a national American Idol poll to appoint their electors they could do that.

That is exactly correct.

The Constitution envisions a very important role for State legislatures, and, hence State legislators.

In my opinion, the only chance restoration has is if it starts in the States. Capturing the national government will be of no value if the State governments remain basket cases.

[Reily]

I stand corrected!
It was my impression that it has never been tested.

[Reily]

I stand corrected!
It was my impression that it has never been tested.

[DaveTesla]

What a stupid Idea.

By doing so:

1. the population of smaller states would
be completely disenfranchised by states with large
metropolis populations.
It is important politically, constitutionally and
electorally to balance the federal and national aspects of
the of the Federal Government.
As a federation, the U.S. system is a mixture of political
equals of the states. It is necessary that the smaller states are not
disenfranchised by the larger ones like New York and
California

2. Democrats control more populous states, which have tended historically to vote Democrat.

3. On all three occasions that the electoral vote winner and
popular vote winner has been different, the Republican
party won the election.
This is not because the Electoral College favors the Republican
party but the smaller states tend to vote more conservatively.

4. By abolishing the Electoral College the smaller states
would not only lose representation but would be taxed and controlled more heavily
and the benefits would be returned to the Larger populated ones to retain
their votes.

5. It's a Republic, If you can keep it.
By abolishing the Electoral College the Federal Government
would be further transformed from a Republic to a Democratic mob rule.
"The balance between small and large states, slavery, and
the perceived dangers of direct democracy."
Alexander Hamilton, argued that while it might not be
perfect, it was “at least excellent.”

The Mode of Electing the President
From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 14, 1788.

HAMILTON
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

The Federalist No. 39
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
Independent Journal
Wednesday, January 16, 1788

James Madison
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa39.htm