Posted on 01/30/2012 8:06:46 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
HARRISBURG, Pa. (CBS) - The state capitol was the scene of two events promoting distinctly different ways of changing the way Pennsylvania’s presidential electoral votes are awarded.
Actor and former Senator and former Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson is part of a bi-partisan effort to create a compact agreement among states to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, no matter who wins the state vote for president.
(Excerpt) Read more at philadelphia.cbslocal.com ...
I didn’t say the EC ignores states. CANDIDATES ignore states.
I did not agree to the inevitability of a run off with National Popular Vote. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the MOST popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), period.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally 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 the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
With the current system, Candidates spend more than two-thirds of their time and money in just six closely divided battleground states; 80% in just nine states; and 99% in just 16 states. That’s precisely what they should do in order to get elected with the current system, because the voters of more than two-thirds of the states simply don’t matter. Candidates have no reason to poll, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the concerns of voters in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Over 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, are ignored.
With National Popular Vote, every vote would be equal and matter to the candidate for whom it was cast. No one guarantees visits by candidates. But candidates would reallocate the money they raise to no longer ignore 2/3rds of the states and voters.
Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling 18 battleground states.”
Now, policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states - that include 9 of the original 13 states - are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing, too.
Reality is, the winner now does NOT need to accumulate the assent from “more of the country”, not just the places with the “most votes”.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
What an idiot. He should go back to pimping reverse mortgages.
Nice narrative. No force of law, as it was a dissenting opinion.
But it's good to know the parameters of the argument.
-PJ
I understand that.
The purpose of the Electoral College was not to do that. It was to mainain the federated model of the Several States overseeing the Federal Government via amendments 9 and 10.
I will grant you that the Electoral College lost power with the passing of the 17th amendment, but that was because the Several States as a whole lost power. Along with the power to appoint Electoral College electors, the Several States also had the power to appoint their Senators to Congress.
I've always said that the Constitution was a tapestry, and when you pull a thread in one place, it begins to unravel the weaves into the other places in the Constitution. This is one of them.
I think the best opposition to the National Popular Vote movement is a counter-movement to repeal the 17th amendment and restore oversight power of the federal government back to the states.
You propose one correction, I propose another.
-PJ
You gotta be kidding. Disparate methods of recounting, non-uniform standards, etc. Not to mention that under NPV [in an EXTREMELY close election], even a state that went 99%-1% would LIKELY be REQUIRED to recount since EVERY vote [nationwide] contributed to the selection of the winner.
State Governors are elected by popular vote under the provisions their states’ constitutions. Senators are elected by popular vote under the provisions of the 17th Amendment of the Constitution. In BOTH cases, they are elected ONLY by the citizens of their state[s]. Recounts are mandated ONLY when the statewide vote margin is something like less than 2%.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
Absolute BULLSHIT. In 2000, there were approximately 105 million votes cast, with a differential of approximately 500,000 between Gore and Bush. Or approximately 1/2 of 1%. There WOULD have been a recount if NPV had been in effect AND it would have occurred in ALL 50 states AND DC.
Quit spouting NONSENSE …
Now that you mention that, I'm recalling that the inequality that you refer to is a changing thing.
The Constitution requires an enumeration of the population every 10 years. The Electoral College votes of each state constantly changes.
The National Popular Vote compact has no language that I saw that addresses what happens when compacting states reapportion such that they no longer comprise a majority of Electoral College votes.
To me, this would invalidate the entire effort so far, as states that already passed the compact would no longer have passed the bill that was presented, notwithstanding the language of "in substantially the same form." Exclusion of the impacts of apportionment is certainly "substantial."
Furthermore, the severability language "If any provision of this agreement is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be affected," will not apply in reverse to the instatiating provision of first attaining a compact of state comprising a majority of Electoral College votes, and then losing the justification for the initiating of the provisions in the first place.
You do have the provision "This agreement shall terminate if the electoral college is abolished." This could be revised to say that the agreement shall terminate also when the compact loses the majority of Electoral College votes, but that would make it a substantially different bill which would require it to be repassed in the Several States that already passed it.
Or... you can plan for the court challenges that would follow.
-PJ
That’s it – keep drinking the Kool-Aid. The Supreme Court has NEVER decided that Congressional consent IS NOT required of the NPV compact.
First, why don’t you READ the citations you list?
United States Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission decided that the creation of the commission DID NOT assert any new powers that the states involved DID NOT already have.
Virginia v. Tennessee concerned a boundary line between the states. This case was a technical determination of the original boundary line, so as NOT to involve any interest of the United States.
Second, DO NOT “cherry-pick” your quotations.
In Virginia v. Tennessee:
“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.”
We now need to look further at the decision:
”The terms 'agreement' or 'compact,' taken by themselves, are sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all forms of stipulation, written or verbal, and relating to all kinds of subjects; to those to which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with, as well as to those which may tend to increase and build up the political influence of the contracting states, so as to encroach upon or impair the supremacy of the United States, or interfere with their rightful management of particular subjects placed under their entire control.”
Still more:
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. Story, in his Commentaries, (section 1403,) referring to a previous part of the same section of the constitution in which the clause in question appears, observes that its language 'may be more plausibly interpreted from the terms used, 'treaty, alliance, or confederation,' and upon the ground that the sense of each is best known by its association ('noscitur a sociis') to apply to treaties of a political character; such as treaties of alliance for purposes of peace and war, and treaties of confederation, in which the parties are leagued for mutual government, political co-operation, and the exercise of political sovereignty, and treaties of cession of sovereignty, or conferring internal political jurisdiction, or external political dependence, or general commercial privileges;' and that 'the latter clause, 'compacts and agreement,' might then very properly apply to such as regarded what might be deemed mere private rights of sovereignty; such as questions of boundary, interests in land situate in the territory of each other, and other internal regulations for the mutual comfort and convenience of states bordering on each other.' And he adds: 'In such cases the consent of congress may be properly required, in order to check any infringement of the rights of the national government; and, at the same time, a total prohibition to enter into any compact or agreement might be attended with permanent inconvenience or public mischief.”
The question [which the Supreme Court has NEVER answered] is whether a compact such as the NPV is a “political compact”, as described, above.
It may well be determined [at a future date] that it is …
Additionally, the Court may likely conclude that [vis-a-vis the Constitution] the "United States" referred to in the quote means the States - or rather, the PEOPLE of the United States.
If so, the NPV DIMINISHES the political power of states [and their citizens] that DO NOT participate in the NPV, as well as those that do, since it PREVENTS participating states from rescinding their agreement “at any time” [after the blackout date].
Excuse me. In a state that participates in the NPV and that votes [in the majority] for the LOSING candidate [of the national popular vote] – the majority’s votes ARE EFFECTIVELY CHANGED FROM THE CANDIDATE THEY VOTED FOR AND THEN COUNTED ONLY FOR THE CANDIDATE THEY DID NOT VOTE FOR. So, I guess THEY DON’T MATTER TO THEIR CANDIDATE EITHER …
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
BULLSHIT. Every vote within a state [participating in the NPV] would count equally, as long as the winner of THAT state ALSO won the NPV. Whereas states [that participate in the NPV] where the LOSER of the NPV wins a majority of votes EFFECTIVELY CHANGE the majority’s vote to the winner of the NPV.
In Bush v. Gore [2000], the Court correctly decided 7-2 that the Florida recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It observed:
“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33.”
HOWEVER, it further observed:
“History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).”
Furthermore, it observed:
”The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).”
In Reynolds v. Sims, the issue was legislative districting, but the concepts cite are germaine to Presidential elections. The Court noted:
"Undeniably, the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal, elections. A consistent line of decisions by this Court in cases involving attempts to deny or restrict the right of suffrage has made this indelibly clear. It has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote, Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, and to have their votes counted, United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383. In Mosley, the Court stated that it is "as equally unquestionable that the right to have one's vote counted is as open to protection . . . as the right to put a ballot in a box." 238 U.S. [p555] at 386. The right to vote can neither be denied outright, Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347, Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, nor destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315, nor diluted by ballot box stuffing, Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385. As the Court stated in Classic,
Obviously included within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted. . . .
And that:
"The idea that every voter is equal to every other voter in his State, when he casts his ballot in favor of one of several competing candidates, underlies many of our decisions."
And that:
"No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right. [n38]"
And that:
"We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth [p564] more in one district than in another would . . . run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government. . . . [n41]"
And that:
"When a State exercises power wholly within the domain of state interest, it is insulated from federal judicial review. But such insulation is not carried over when state power is used as an instrument for circumventing a federally protected right. [n42] [p567] To the extent that a citizen's right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen. The fact that an individual lives here or there is not a legitimate reason for overweighting or diluting the efficacy of his vote. The complexions of societies and civilizations change, often with amazing rapidity. A nation once primarily rural in character becomes predominantly urban. [n43] Representation schemes once fair and equitable become archaic and outdated. But the basic principle of representative government remains, and must remain, unchanged -- the weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. Population is, of necessity, the starting point for consideration and the controlling criterion for judgment in legislative apportionment controversies. [n44] [p568] A citizen, a qualified voter, is no more nor no less so because he lives in the city or on the farm. This is the clear and strong command of our Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. This is an essential part of the concept of a government of laws, and not men. This is at the heart of Lincoln's vision of "government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people." The Equal Protection Clause demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races."
FINALLY, an oft-overlooked paragraph from the Constitution [14th Amendment, Paragraph II]:
" ... But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
The NPV VIOLATES these concepts by allowing a state to value citizens' votes OUTSIDE of its boundaries OVER the votes cast WITHIN it's boundaries - if the majority of the state's voters backed the LOSER of the NPV ...
Arguing for a purely popular vote is nonsense, it is completely at odds with the founding fathers intent and desires. Smaller states are statistically OVER REPRESENTED by design in the system to keep larger states in check. To argue otherwise is mathmatically, and historically ignorant.
“With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.”
The fact is that with a “national popular vote” election, a candidate could win outright majorities in the “11 most populous states”, and not get a majority in any of the other 39 states, and still win the election; making the “popular vote” winner an actual choice of only 22% of the nation - by jurisdiction.
As I said, while you keep harping on the “winner take all” allocation of the electoral votes, there is a remedy to that that does not change the electoral college system or make a legislative attempt at an end-run around the constitution, and that remedy is not the “national popular vote” but for states to vote to change the allocation of their electoral votes to a proportional allocation among the candidates, in accordance with the districts in which they did obtain majorities.
And guess what, not only would that be fair, and resolve your complaint about “winner take all” allocations of the electoral votes, but the results of the last eight presidential elections would not have been changed either, becuase low-and-behold the winner of the electoral vote DID obtain a majority of the votea in a majority of counties across the country - a fact that mirrors obtaining a majiorty of the votes in a majority of the local districts.
Though local districts do vary in size, and in population accross the country, a winning majority of those juridictions is a vastly greater represenation of a majority “of the nation” than any “national popular vote” could ever be.
“National Popular Vote does not/would not eliminate the electoral college. It does not disenfranchise anyone.”
It will disenfranchise the majority of voters in any state where that majority choses one candidate, gives one candidate a clear and even potentially a commanding majority of the votes, and 100% of that state’s electoral college votes (not just some proportional allocation) are, by legislatve fiat handed to a candidate that clearly MOST of the voters in that state did not chose.
The enactment of this agenda is an attempted legislative end-run aorund the Constitution AND, potentially around a state’s own voters.
It will lose in the courts.
“The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not even require states to allow their citizens to vote for president.”
The “national popular vote” agenda is not about the “state legislatures making a choice”.
It is about state legislatures holding their own citizens to their state NOT “making a choice” but abandoning their own state’s selection of an actual choice, deferring by fiat to a “choice” set completely beyond their own control, remitting state sovereinty to a “national popular vote”.
Its an abomination againt original intent.
It will be struck down.
Do the math.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
You seem to have missed Article IV of the National Popular Vote bill. It simply says:
“This agreement shall take effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted this agreement in substantially the same form and the enactments by such states have taken effect in each state.”
It would not be in effect if/when states do not possess a majority of electoral votes.
Because each state has independent power to award its electoral votes in the manner it sees fit, it is difficult to see what “adverse effect” might be claimed by one state from the decision of another state to award its electoral votes in a particular way. It is especially unclear what adverse “political” effect might be claimed, given that the National Popular Vote compact would treat votes cast in all 50 states and the District of Columbia equally. A vote cast in a compacting state is, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact does not confer any advantage on states belonging to the compact as compared to non-compacting states. A vote cast in a compacting state would be, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact certainly would not reduce the voice of voters in non-compacting states relative to the voice of voters in member states.
National Popular Vote is not a purely popular vote.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states).
The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. That majority of Electoral College votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
Statistical overrepresentation does not mean political relevance for 19 of the 22 smallest states.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (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 elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE —75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH—69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by three jurisdictions.
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored.
Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections— NH, NM, and NV. These three states contain only 14 (8%) of the 22 medium-lowest population states’ total 166 electoral votes.
* * *
With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where more than 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Presidential campaigns spend 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they aren’t hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and can win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state. 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored. That’s over 85 million voters. Once the primaries are over, presidential candidates don’t visit or spend resources in 2/3rds of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored. More than 85 million voters have been just spectators to the general election. States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.
With national popular vote, with every vote equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.
My point is that the article you cite talks about when the compact initially takes effect.
There is no language regarding what happens after the compact takes effect but then no longer comprises states that make up a majority. The compact only addresses what happens when a state wishes to drop out of the compact, or when the Electoral College ceases to exist. Those are the only exit clauses that I see.
What happens if the compact takes effect, no states drop out and the Electoral College remains, but reapportionment reduces the compacting states back into a minority?
Does the compact remain in effect regardless, because once in effect it never terminates unless the Electoral College abolishes?
-PJ
The quoted piece of the bill explains says when it is in effect.
If reapportionment reduces the compacting states back into a minority the compact does not remain in effect.
It is only in effect when there are a majority of electoral votes among the compacting states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.