Blue states band together looking to bypass Electoral College

The Hill ^ | 03/03/19 | Michael Burke

[yesthatjallen]

A plan to circumvent the Electoral College is gaining momentum among blue states after Democrats suffered two crushing defeats in presidential elections over the past two decades.

The plan has been given new impetus after Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) said this week that he will sign a bill to have his state become the 12th state along with the District of Columbia to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

The states making up the compact, which already includes New York, Illinois and all the New England states except for New Hampshire, would commit to awarding their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of the results in the Electoral College.

So far, these states, with Colorado, add up to 181 electoral votes, well short of the 270 needed to ascend to the White House.

Advocates are doubtful that enough states can join the compact for it to take effect by 2020, but hold hope of garnering enough support by 2024, as a handful of states like New Mexico also consider the measure, though proponents acknowledge the path to get to 270 will be far from easy.

Colorado state Rep. Emily Sirota (D), one of the sponsors of that state’s legislation, said she sees the compact “as a way to ensure that every vote is counted equally” and force candidates to campaign nationwide instead of targeting a few battleground states that can deliver success in the electoral math.

“If we had presidential candidates campaigning across the country, instead of a handful of swing states, you'd see a lot more participation from across the country and I think that is good and healthy for our electoral process,” Sirota told The Hill.

The renewed push comes after 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton lost the election that year despite winning the popular vote, the second time it has happened since the turn of the century.

The defeat was especially crushing to Democrats after a similar loss suffered by former Vice President Al Gore in 2000.

All states that are now part of the compact voted for Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016.

Colorado voted for Clinton last time but picked former President George W. Bush in 2000.

Critics of the Electoral College system have long argued it incentivizes candidates to target swing states with a bounty of electoral votes, while discouraging turnout by voters in states that are reliably red or blue.

Opponents of the current electoral system also say that electing a president through a popular vote could improve how presidents govern in office.

John Koza, the chairman of the National Popular Vote, a group that advocates for the compact, said the Electoral College “distorts” public policy by incentivizing presidents to cater to key swing states while in office, particularly in their first term.

"It's not only unfair that the second place candidate can win, it's also not good for the office of president or the country,” he said.

“When you're sitting in the White House … you say, ‘What states do I have to win and what do I have to do to win them?' That's just not a good way for public policy to be set,” Koza added.

Advocates of the compact are holding up hope that more steps will follow Colorado in joining the compact, which was first introduced in academic research papers as a way to effectively get rid of the electoral college system without going through the daunting process of a constitutional amendment.

The most promising is New Mexico, which has already passed a popular vote bill through one chamber and has a Democratic Governor.

Should it pass, the state would add 5 electoral votes to the compact, bringing the total to 186.

Meanwhile, legislators in 16 states have introduced bills this session seeking to join the compact, according to National Popular Vote.

Of those, Democratically-controlled Delaware, Maine, Nevada and Oregon look the most promising, with a total tally of 20 additional votes that could bring the total to 206 – though even there, the prospects are far from guaranteed.

Oregon state Rep. Diego Hernandez (D), a sponsor of the state’s popular vote bill, said there may not be enough momentum in the current legislative session to pass.

“We have so many big issues we're tackling this session, when it comes to housing and the environment and education and revenue reform, that although the conversation's happening, I'm not sure that it's the top priority in terms of the collective agenda,” Hernandez said.

But the prospect of passage in some of the other 16 states where a popular vote bill has been introduced look far less certain given many have split powers or are deep-red, like South Carolina or Mississippi.

Republicans are mostly opposed to any measure to derail the Electoral College system, seeing as unconstitutional.

Opponents of using the popular vote to elect presidents have long argued it would result in candidates catering to large cities and large states to rack up votes, which tend to have a bigger share of Democratic voters, ignoring smaller or rural areas.

Rose Pugliese, a county commissioner in Colorado, said in a tweet she had petitioned the Secretary of State not to award the state’s votes to the winner of the popular vote, saying such a move “allows California and New York to decide Colorado’s votes for President.”

Nonetheless advocates of the compact remain hopeful.

Koza, the National Popular Vote chairman, said garnering the necessary support by 2020 was “theoretically” possible, but believed it was more likely by 2024.

"You never know how a bandwagon can get rolling,” he said. “So at the moment, I couldn't name states that would get us there in time for 2020, although there's theoretically ways to do it. It seems perfectly plausible that we should get there by 2024."

[rxsid]

That's like asking...how does one explain the actor Reagan beating out the incumbent Brown big time in 1966 CA governors race?

The irony of the two states historical political party strength is that Texas has elected more Democrats at both the state and national level, than California has.

Since Texas doesn't register by party, it's more difficult to find trends, but the way Texas is being swamped with illegal aliens and how migration into the state is generally occurring (more growth in liberal big cities), it is not unreasonable to think Texas could go back to being blue in the near term.

Texas Population Projections 2010 to 205

 

https://demographics.texas.gov/Infographics/2017/UrbanTexasPt2

[rxsid]

** Texas Population Projections 2010 to 2050

[Verginius Rufus]

What is to stop the legislatures in Democrat-dominated states from rescinding their participation in the compact if Trump wins the popular vote?

The whole scheme incentivizes voter fraud in all the big cities--especially in states which are reliably Democratic. Before it could be taken for granted that the Democrat would carry the state so no strong reason to manufacture a lot of fraudulent votes. Now the fraudulent votes could swing the national outcome.

[arrogantsob]

That will be a helluva case and I am sure that this idea will wind up before the Supremes within a few decades or sooner.

You are right about the unknown implications to be drawn from the amendments wrt to this issue. I have no doubt that the Founders would have considered it constitutional (as long as no state confederacy is formed to procure it.)

[jjotto]

Such a compact becomes the equivalent of federal law enforced by federal courts. Changing the rules AFTER an election is a big no-no. Ask Al Gore.

[arrogantsob]

Reading the Constitution is like reading the Bible, one thinks he understands each but then a bottle comes flying out of Left field and whacks you in the head. Then I get all confused again.

[arrogantsob]

Urban areas are a larger percentage of the population every year, the leeches therein provide the Demons with their instruments.

How is this to be countered? Chicago has not had a Republican mayor in 75 yrs.

[Verginius Rufus]

So if it looks like Trump is going to win, they will have to change their rule just before election day?

How many states have a way of forcing the electors to vote as they are pledged to? It seems that in recent elections there has always been one or more "faithless electors." It would be more if a Democrat was being told to vote for a Republican.

[jjotto]

So if it looks like Trump is going to win, they will have to change their rule just before election day?

That's a very good question!

If the compact allows such short notice for withdrawal, it would seem to be OK.

But such issues may be why the Court would ultimately disallow such a withdrawal even under the rules. A campaign is conducted for two years under one set of rules and assumptions, and then in the last few days, the rules change. Big problem.

Also note that even one state pulling out may dissolve the whole compact because the compact would drop below the 270 vote threshold. Such a foreseeable consequence is another reason the Court may simply declare such a compact unConstitutional all the way around.

[nicollo]

Uh, no. The Constitution assigns numbers of electors by representation in Congress but in no way prescribes how they are selected.

Go do your own homework, I’m already tired of doing yours.

[TheNext]

A State or Congress may not post fact modify an Elector’s certified tally. Period.

A State can only declare rural red counties have no Elector, that all Electors belong to the red big city capital. That is suicide, so States avoid that.

That is NOT what compact States are doing. They are modifying certified tallies. Clearly illegal & punishable.

Free people, who know better, best understand this or the Republic is doomed. Readers at Free Republic should know better, but do not.

There is no legal way to perform the compact.
None.

[david1292]

Actually no, they can’t. States are actually not allowed to make deals with each other against other states without permission from Congress.

That’s to prevent situations where certain states could hog resources and control certain monopolies.

So this idea would be unconstitutional unless Congress approves of it since you have a number of states making a deal with each other. Not to mention you can see the intent is to go around the Constitution. The Constitutional has an electoral college. If you want it by popular vote, you need to get rid of that through the amendment process.

The Supreme Court would kill this whole thing.

[zencycler]

Upon further consideration though, i think the Constitution empowers state legislatures to vote their ECs in any manner they choose, so I doubt one state could block another from using its vote totals in their own popular vote methodology. Barring SCOTUS barring the anti-EC strategy, which they may not be able to do, then perhaps the counter-move I proposed by pro-EC states might be to only remedy. But if some other works better, and can get by SCOTUS, then I hope it’s found and used.

[Political Junkie Too]

It's always going to be a point of contention.

"Any manner they choose" has Constitutional limitations. They cannot choose a method that violates other parts of the Constitution. They cannot choose a method that forces other states to give up their own Constitutional powers or protections.

An extreme literalist might say that the Framers never envisioned instantaneous nationwide communications where each state's total vote count were available in near real time, therefore the method of choosing would never have thought to be expressly limited to only the votes within the state's control, given how it took days or weeks to receive news from other states.

Others might argue that the states were sovereign and would never have ratified the Constitution if it included methods where other states can override any single state's Constitutional powers, as the NPV compact does when it disenfranchises the will of the state's voters to the will of larger states' voters.

Another argument is that the compact is unnecessary (and therefore unconstitutional) because the states can already do this without the compact. Any state can choose to allocate its EV to the winner of the national popular vote; they don't need a "gang of 270" to do it. The issue here is political viability of doing so. Any one state legislature is afraid of the blowback of overriding the state's result if it doesn't lead to supporting the winner. They want safety in numbers to ensure the result they want, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to subvert the Constitution to achieve that.

And the final argument is that choosing a method that results in non-compacting states giving up their own rights is unconstitutional. In this case, the non-compacting states are forced into the compact when their desire is to continue single-state sovereign uncombined Electoral College tallies.

-PJ

[zencycler]

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, and of course I’ll settle for any strategy that effectively stops the NPV gang of 270.

Hey, here’s another thought. What if we could get ONE state, say Alaska, to revert back to having the legislature choose their electors without any input from state voters? Then, effectively, there is no longer ANY presidential national popular vote totals for any purpose.

[Political Junkie Too]

I'd love to see something like that.

I know that the howls of protest would be the same regarding repealing the 17th amendment, which is that it's a step back from democracy, that legislation to remove peoples' right to vote is anti-American, and so on.

That said, what if a state appealed to its voters by saying that the Electoral College slate will be determined by the party that holds the most seats in the state legislature's lowest chamber?

So, this means that state voters would have to vote for their assemblymen, and then the party with the majority in the Assembly selects the Electors to the Electoral College.

This leverages the people's representation, assuming that the majority will for their statehouse aligns with the majority will for the White House, but there is no statewide "popular vote" for President.

Would it fly? Who knows? People might say that it doesn't reduce election costs because it takes away only one question on the ballot. On the other hand, it would eliminate endless Presidential campaign commercials on TV if the elections are for local assembly candidates.

Imagine an election in a state where the majority in the Assembly selects the Electors. You would be voting for Joey Bagadonuts for your local district, and if there are ads at all (beyond lawn signs and mailers), what would they say? Joey would say that he supports Trump while Mary Bagelschmear would support Bernie Ocasio Harris. Meanwhile, Joey wants to improve the local high school while Mary wants to raise taxes for the hospital.

How do the national candidate ads play out in this state? Do Trump hold a rally with Joey Bagadonuts? What if there are a dozen Assembly districts in the state? Does he hold one large one, or several regional ones, or does he stay away and just endorse Joey?

Meanwhile, the other states don't get a popular vote for that state.

-PJ

[zencycler]

Nice - and more viable that way.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Doesn’t a change to the electoral college require a constitutional amendment?

One would think.

But, the lawyerly wrinkle here is that the Constitution leaves it to the States to select their electors for the electoral college however they please. So the argument is that this is constitutional.

The Constitution also says that the States shall enter into no compacts with each other, unless with the consent of Congress.

Which, raises two questions. First, this is clearly an interstate compact. In the event of a Democratic Congress, could it be approved? And would it be subject to veto?

And second, is the obvious one that this was never the way electors were intended to be selected, not the way they have ever been selected. That would obviously wind up in the Supreme Court.

As to the outcome of that--who knows anymore?

What is clear is that the last fraud standing would control the election, and that the recounts could go on for YEARS.

[DrymChaser]

Proposed solution. A couple of deep red states only report electors and do not certify a count of votes which, in pretty much all cases (except huge landslides), would cover off the gap between the candidates and render any so-called national popular vote count moot.