Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[NewFederalist]

The electoral vote is what makes democracy work in this nation.

Well, not quite. The Electoral College has nothing to do with democracy. It has everything to do with the U.S. being a constitutional republic. I view the Electoral College as a very good institution. I hope the U.S.never becomes a democracy.

[Mr. Morden]

Today, Maryland became the second state to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in both houses of the legislature. (California had done so previously.) Unlike in California, however, Gov. O'Malley has said that he will sign the bill, so Maryland is the first state in which it will become law. Of course, Maryland's electors will not be bound to the national popular vote until a majority of the electoral votes nationwide are, so it is highly unlikely to impact the 2008 election.

Arkansas and Hawai'i have passed the bill in one house with it pending in the other. Govs. Beebe and Lingle support the Compact. Colorado had passed it in the Senate, but it failed in the House; Gov. Ritter supports the Compact. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the Compact in California after it passed both houses of the legislature, but has said that he may reconsider his position in the future.

The Compact has been introduced or is currently being drafted in every state/district but Nebraska, Idaho, Michigan and DC.

Such a movement will never gain enough energy to change the constitution.

That's not what they're trying to do.  This proposal wouldn't change the constitution.  It would just award a majority of the electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, thus making the electoral vote little more than a formality.  The constitution doesn't have to be changed for that to happen.

[Verily]

Update: O'Malley has signed the law in Maryland. It's passed both houses now in Hawaii, and Lingle looks to be going to sign it, though I'm not certain she will. Passing in Maryland seems to have given the movement some momentum. Also, the Hawaiian legislature gave the bill a veto-proof majority (35-12 and 19-4), so they may override Lingle's veto even if she refuses to sign.

[Mr. Morden]

I forget if this has already been mentioned, but does this thing have any sort of time limit?  That is, if a bunch of states passed it now but then it ran out of steam, and then, 20 years from now the final states necessary for it to be enacted pass it as well, would it go into effect at that time?  Or is there a time limit that would force the initial states to pass it again?

[Verily]

I forget if this has already been mentioned, but does this thing have any sort of time limit?  That is, if a bunch of states passed it now but then it ran out of steam, and then, 20 years from now the final states necessary for it to be enacted pass it as well, would it go into effect at that time?  Or is there a time limit that would force the initial states to pass it again?

It depends on the laws passed by the states. This isn't an Amendment to the Constitution, so there's no inherent time limit. Maryland's law contains no time limit, either, and nor does Hawaii's. Those, at least, won't go defunct if enough other states don't pass the law, so someone could conceivably pull the concept out from "the depths of the past" some time far in the future, and Maryland wouldn't need to pass the law again.

The Maryland law:

http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/bills/hb/hb0148t.pdf

Note that, in the exceedingly unlikely event of a national popular vote tie, the Electoral College would function as it currently does, on a state-by-state basis.

In order for the law to affect 2008, it must have been passed in enough states by July 20, 2008.

[Mr. Morden]

Interesting how this almost seems to be a partisan issue, whereas one might have expected it to be a "states screwed by the electoral college" vs. "states that benefit from the electoral college" issue.

The one state where it's been passed, MD, has both houses of the legislature controlled by Democrats, and a Democratic governor.  Two other states where there's been movement on it, AR and IL, also have both houses of the legislature controlled by Democrats, and a Democratic governor.  It was passed in both houses of the CA legislature (both controlled by Democrats), but vetoed by the Republican governor.  CO is an exception, as it also has both houses controlled by Dems, but it only passed in one house (but the fact that this was even considered in a swing state like CO is stunning).  And HI is another exception, as the GOP governor supports it.

Despite those exceptions, it does appear that this is getting more support from Democrats than Republicans.  So maybe the strategy should just be to pass it any state with Democratic legislatures and Democratic governors, then wait around a few years until party control in a sufficiently large number of the other states flips....and hope that states that flip the other way (to the GOP) don't bother to repeal it.

[Verily]

Interesting how this almost seems to be a partisan issue, whereas one might have expected it to be a "states screwed by the electoral college" vs. "states that benefit from the electoral college" issue.

The one state where it's been passed, MD, has both houses of the legislature controlled by Democrats, and a Democratic governor.  Two other states where there's been movement on it, AR and IL, also have both houses of the legislature controlled by Democrats, and a Democratic governor.  It was passed in both houses of the CA legislature (both controlled by Democrats), but vetoed by the Republican governor.  CO is an exception, as it also has both houses controlled by Dems, but it only passed in one house (but the fact that this was even considered in a swing state like CO is stunning).  And HI is another exception, as the GOP governor supports it.

Despite those exceptions, it does appear that this is getting more support from Democrats than Republicans.  So maybe the strategy should just be to pass it any state with Democratic legislatures and Democratic governors, then wait around a few years until party control in a sufficiently large number of the other states flips....and hope that states that flip the other way (to the GOP) don't bother to repeal it.

This is not strictly true - in New York the bill is being supported by all of the Republicans and opposed by around 2/3 of the Democrats, and I'm pretty sure the Arkansas House passed the bill unanimously.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact's advisory board consists of 5 Republicans (John Anderson, John Buchanan, Tom Campbell, David Durenberger and Jake Garn) and only 2 Democrats (Birch Bayh and Tom Downey).

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Let us nullify the concept of states when it comes to district boundaries for congress(for both houses).

[Verily]

Lingle has vetoed the bill, but the legislature could easily override her veto. We shall see.

Let us nullify the concept of states when it comes to district boundaries for congress(for both houses).

Agreed.

[zorkpolitics]

The MD law has some nice opportunities for controversy.

The MD law requires each state election official to send out a count, but does not require that it be the official Certified State total that is sent to the National Archives.  Thus, a partisan Election Official could send the compact one total while the Governor certifies a different total.  Then what happens?

What happens if a state has not completed its count (Hawaii finished a recount in 1960 2 weeks after the Electoral college met), does the law again allow the election official to choose what ever count he feels like?  What happens if an election is close and recounts occur in all 50 states (Kennedy won in 1960 by less than 1 vote per precinct)? 

Furthermore, all the provisions only apply to “member states”, what happens if a non-member state delays finalizing its states’ total?   

What happens if a state decides to award 100,000 (or 100,000,000) bonus popular votes to that state’s official winner?  Doesn’t this mean any single state could select the President?

The MD law prohibits any other member state from withdrawing within 6 months of the election, can one state prohibit another state from passing a law? 

[Verily]

The MD law requires each state election official to send out a count, but does not require that it be the official Certified State total that is sent to the National Archives.  Thus, a partisan Election Official could send the compact one total while the Governor certifies a different total.  Then what happens?

I cannot imagine that the intent was to be anything but the certified total. The courts would rule against any official who tried to send out a different count.

What happens if a state has not completed its count (Hawaii finished a recount in 1960 2 weeks after the Electoral college met), does the law again allow the election official to choose what ever count he feels like?

The idea of a state not finishing its count is absurd; even Florida managed to finish its count in 2000 by the deadline. Hawaii 1960 occurred in extremely exceptional circumstances that are highly unlikely to happen again, especially not with computerized counting.

What happens if an election is close and recounts occur in all 50 states (Kennedy won in 1960 by less than 1 vote per precinct)?

0.2% is far more than can, statistically, be overturned by a national recount. The odds of an election so close that a national recount would be merited (within 0.01%) are miniscule to the point of being irrelevant.

Furthermore, all the provisions only apply to “member states”, what happens if a non-member state delays finalizing its states’ total?

Again, there's no reason to expect that this would occur.

What happens if a state decides to award 100,000 (or 100,000,000) bonus popular votes to that state’s official winner?  Doesn’t this mean any single state could select the President?

This is what is called "stuffing the ballot box". It's illegal; states can't just add votes to their popular vote, and the courts would call them on it.

The MD law prohibits any other member state from withdrawing within 6 months of the election, can one state prohibit another state from passing a law?

The Maryland law only prohibits Maryland from withdrawing within 6 months of an election.

[So the Heroes Fall]

and smaller states would also be ignored on the campagin trail

yeah, it's a shame candidates will no longer try for places like North Dakota and Wyoming.

Seriously, the Electoral College doesn't force candidates to campaign in the whole country, just swing states. The entire election basically comes down to Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Well over half the country in safe states is completely ignored, including some strong swing regions (upstate New York and downstate Illinois being the two classic examples.) Time to abolish it. No reason the election should be done any differently than state elections, you don't see states using some sort of county electoral college.

[muon2]

The IL House passed the electoral college compact act earlier this week. In the end the voting was strictly along party lines with one exception. If that pattern continues then it should easily be approved by the Senate and Governor as well. However, the original Senate version was never released from Rules Committee, so the House version may or may not see the same fate.

I found it interesting that the debate had no effect, and few seemed to care at all about the ramifications in the decades to come when there might be three or four strong candidates in a race. The proponents didn't really want to consider any what-ifs. It was clear that in IL it was a purely partisan issue and Dems saw it as an advantage in the next one or two cycles and that was all that mattered.

[Verily]

The Hawaii Senate has overridden Lingle's veto. The House has adjourned and will consider overriding the veto in July.

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/03/hawaii-legislature-will-decide-on-national-popular-vote-plan-in-july/

The IL House passed the electoral college compact act earlier this week. In the end the voting was strictly along party lines with one exception. If that pattern continues then it should easily be approved by the Senate and Governor as well. However, the original Senate version was never released from Rules Committee, so the House version may or may not see the same fate.

I found it interesting that the debate had no effect, and few seemed to care at all about the ramifications in the decades to come when there might be three or four strong candidates in a race. The proponents didn't really want to consider any what-ifs. It was clear that in IL it was a purely partisan issue and Dems saw it as an advantage in the next one or two cycles and that was all that mattered.

Sen. Kirk Dillard (R) is supporting the Compact in Illinois, so it clearly isn't strictly partisan. Rep. Jim Durkin (R) cosponsored the compact in 2006; I assume he was the one not voting along partisan lines in the House this time.

One could of course argue that it was the Republicans who were opposing it because they saw partisan disadvantage, a position strengthened by the fact that some few Republicans supported it but no Democrats opposed it. Unfortunately, the immediate assumption is that the opposition, whoever they are, is seeking partisan advantage, so debate rarely achieves changes in votes anyway.

[muon2]

The Hawaii Senate has overridden Lingle's veto. The House has adjourned and will consider overriding the veto in July.

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/03/hawaii-legislature-will-decide-on-national-popular-vote-plan-in-july/

The IL House passed the electoral college compact act earlier this week. In the end the voting was strictly along party lines with one exception. If that pattern continues then it should easily be approved by the Senate and Governor as well. However, the original Senate version was never released from Rules Committee, so the House version may or may not see the same fate.

I found it interesting that the debate had no effect, and few seemed to care at all about the ramifications in the decades to come when there might be three or four strong candidates in a race. The proponents didn't really want to consider any what-ifs. It was clear that in IL it was a purely partisan issue and Dems saw it as an advantage in the next one or two cycles and that was all that mattered.

Sen. Kirk Dillard (R) is supporting the Compact in Illinois, so it clearly isn't strictly partisan. Rep. Jim Durkin (R) cosponsored the compact in 2006; I assume he was the one not voting along partisan lines in the House this time.

One could of course argue that it was the Republicans who were opposing it because they saw partisan disadvantage, a position strengthened by the fact that some few Republicans supported it but no Democrats opposed it. Unfortunately, the immediate assumption is that the opposition, whoever they are, is seeking partisan advantage, so debate rarely achieves changes in votes anyway.

Durkin voted against it in the House this year. Rep. Froehlich was the only crossover.

[Verily]

The North Carolina and California Senates have passed the Compact. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the Compact in 2006 but has said that he may be receptive to it in the future. Gov. Easley has said that he will sign the bill if it passes the General Assembly.

[Verily]

Some news form my home state. The Compact has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Codey (State Senate President) himself, meaning the odds of it not passing are practically nil.

[TommyC1776]

They are campaigning to get enough states to award their electoral votes to the National Popular vote winner, rather than their state winner.
see:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/

This part confused me.  so wait.......are u saying that the popular vote winner would win all 50 states and DC?  Because u say that the ppl want their states EV's to go to the National Winner.

[Verily]

They are campaigning to get enough states to award their electoral votes to the National Popular vote winner, rather than their state winner.
see:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/

This part confused me.  so wait.......are u saying that the popular vote winner would win all 50 states and DC?  Because u say that the ppl want their states EV's to go to the National Winner.

Each state passes the law individually. When enough states have passed the law that 270 electoral votes (over half) fall under the law, it comes into effect. Then, the winner of the national popular vote wins the electoral votes of every state that passed the law no matter which candidate that state voted for.

This ensures that the national popular vote winner will always win the electoral vote also. Until there are enough electoral votes bound by the law, it doesn't take effect, so, while Maryland has already passed the law, its electoral votes will not be bound to the national popular vote winner until 260 other electoral votes are as well.

[muon2]

They say that no idea is ever dead in the legislature. The IL bills with the electoral compact language had both been killed in Senate Rules before the constitutional deadline. In a common trick, another election bill was gutted and amended to have the compact language. Rules released it the day before the deadline and it was approved. The Senate vote was not quite as partisan with three R's voting in favor and 3 D's opposed. Since this was an amended House bill it now must return to the House for a vote to concur with the amendment. The House will likely take it up sometime next week.

[Verily]

Seems unlikely that the Illinois House will not re-pass the bill.

It's also been rejected by a couple of committees in some states. Texas, Kansas and Florida have recently shot it down for 2007.

[Verily]

Thought I'd bump this to mention that New Jersey passed the Compact a couple of weeks ago. Since the campaign seems to be dying down, I haven't been paying much attention.

Illinois is waiting on Blagojevich's signature, which I believe he has stated he will provide.

[Χahar]

Since Arnold doesn't seem to get the idea, we can pass it once he's gone in a couple of years, which will mean a lot of EV's in the Compact's corner.

[muon2]

Thought I'd bump this to mention that New Jersey passed the Compact a couple of weeks ago. Since the campaign seems to be dying down, I haven't been paying much attention.

Illinois is waiting on Blagojevich's signature, which I believe he has stated he will provide.

Technically it only arrived at the Governor's desk on Feb 7, as the Speaker held the bill the maximum number of days after its passage on Jan 9. The bill was called that day since there was a nearly full complement of legislators prepared to pass a major and somewhat controversial mass transit bill. The bill was passed on partisan lines with three votes to spare.

The Gov has up to 60 days to act on the bill from the day it arrived. Since the action on this bill is rooted in part on Obama's candidacy, there may be some timing on the Gov's part before signing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

it was a purely partisan issue and Dems saw it as an advantage in the next one or two cycles and that was all that mattered.

Come on, you know that this is trivializing this whole issue. If there had been a uniform 2.2% swing to Kerry in the 2004 election, he would have won Ohio and the election while losing the popular vote. Nixon tried to get rid of the popular vote. This current Interstate Compact campaign has former Senator Garn R-UT,  former Senator Durenberger R-MN, former Rep. John Buchanan R-AL, former Rep. Tom Campbell R-CA, and Republican and then Independent John Anderson for it.