Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[beneficii]

Even if the Republicans did get a filibuster-proof majority, I would not think all Republicans would be on board.  60 Republicans in the Senate = 5-10 Mike Castles in the Senate.

Mike Castle won't be in the Senate, he didn't even win the primary.  And even if he were, I suspect while he might not vote for such a measure, that he wouldn't offend the GOP leadership by sustaining a filibuster.

Duh.  But just like the Democrats never got 60 liberals in the Senate this Congress, the Republicans are not going to get 60 conservatives (and there are conservatives that support and have supported a national popular vote in principle).

I guess I read that kind of person differently.  It depends on how much people care about the issue, I suppose.

Still, I would be willing to bet that if Congress did act to shut down DC joining the initiative, there is going to be action to make up for it by proposing a constitutional amendment.

Need I remind you that the national popular vote has had consistent majority support in polls?

No, but except for those States where it could get passed via the initiative process, that's largely irrelevant.  Support on this issue is broad but extremely shallow.  Very few voters will base their decision on who to vote for based upon a politician deciding to support or oppose the NPVIC.

The numbers I've seen are around the 70% range.  That's not exactly shallow.  Now you do have a point in that right now most people are only sort of half-aware of the issue, but all it takes is their activation.

Not only that, it isn't just something Democrats support, as I've stated before, but there are many moderate Republicans who have supported it as well, as evidenced in the roll call votes of many states that have considered and passed it.  Essentially, this has been and is something that is supported by Democrats and moderate Republicans, which suggests in the long run it will win or will spur the adoption of a constitutional amendment relating to the matter.

From what I've seen, what moderate Republican support that there has been on this has mainly been in Democratic States where passage sooner or later was inevitable, or where the other house of the assembly was certain to block it, so why make waves?  I admire your idealism, but I just don't think that without another election such as 2000 that the idealism behind the NPVIC will triumph over the cynicism of that comes with leading a major political party.  The fact that this has so far passed only in solidly Democratic States and is only likely to pass in such States only bolsters my view that at present, this is being voted by the politicians upon a purely partisan basis.

I disagree that it would require another 2000 (though that would certainly help).  Still, you cannot deny that Republicans have and will continue to vote for it, many of whom write articles on it, so therefore it is not a partisan issue, however it may be seen in today's crazy political climate (that will calm down once unemployment improves):

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/blogs/bolen_201008.php

[True Federalist]

That there are a few idealistic Republicans (and Democrats) I'll readily admit, but the existing method of electing the President is by and large favorable to the Republican establishment given the current distribution of Republicans and Democrats.  It is also not in the interest of the establishment of either major party to broaden the scope of where a Presidential campaign needs to be fought.  It is easier for the party establishment to have some control over what happens if the battle is fought in a few battleground states instead of nationwide.

By the way, if the GOP goes after DC's approval of the NPVIC in 2013, it won't be as a standalone bill.  If the GOP does get a clean sweep, I fully expect that one of the items they pass will be an omnibus bill overriding the DC government on a whole host of matters.  It'll make the people in DC madder than a nest of hornets, but the GOP has no reason to care what the locals in DC think about them.

The numbers I've seen are around the 70% range.  That's not exactly shallow.  Now you do have a point in that right now most people are only sort of half-aware of the issue, but all it takes is their activation.

The 70% figure is what makes the support broad.  The shallow part of my statement referred to the fact that few people would base their vote on that issue, and I don't see that changing no matter how much publicity the issue gets.  It's a technical issue that rarely has a real world effect, and even when it does it happens in elections that are very close.  Indeed, there has never been a case where a candidate has gotten a majority of the public vote and yet lost in the electoral college.  Aside from 1876, all of the cases to date have involved situations where a candidate received a narrow plurality in the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college.  1876 is special case, as it can reasonably be argued that the election was stolen by Hayes and should have been rightfully won by Tilden in the Electoral College.  Leaving aside the issue of the electoral votes decided by the electoral commission, had Colorado's electors been chosen in the popular vote instead of by the State legislature, there is a good chance that Tilden would have won those 3 votes.

[beneficii]

That there are a few idealistic Republicans (and Democrats) I'll readily admit, but the existing method of electing the President is by and large favorable to the Republican establishment given the current distribution of Republicans and Democrats.  It is also not in the interest of the establishment of either major party to broaden the scope of where a Presidential campaign needs to be fought.  It is easier for the party establishment to have some control over what happens if the battle is fought in a few battleground states instead of nationwide.

"That there are a few idealistic Republicans (and Democrats) I'll readily admit, but the existing method of electing the President is by and large favorable to the Republican establishment given the current distribution of Republicans and Democrats."

There is no evidence for this, and what evidence there is goes against it.  Polling in 2000 before the election actually showed Gore winning the EV (and winning the presidency), but Bush winning the PV.  The actual results went the other way, but they didn't have to.

The same thing almost happened to Bush again in 2004, in that if Kerry had 60,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won, even though Bush would have had more than 3,000,000 votes ahead of Kerry.

Now if you're referring to the Republican Party's perception, then you do have a point there.

By the way, if the GOP goes after DC's approval of the NPVIC in 2013, it won't be as a standalone bill.  If the GOP does get a clean sweep, I fully expect that one of the items they pass will be an omnibus bill overriding the DC government on a whole host of matters.  It'll make the people in DC madder than a nest of hornets, but the GOP has no reason to care what the locals in DC think about them.

Are you saying that no one in the GOP would be opposed to this, even someone like Mike Castle?  Such a bill would be very controversial and violate the previous understanding between DC and the Fed of DC's self-governance.  I would think that the GOP passing such a bill would be like the Dems passing the health care bill, or worse: It would be a long slog as the GOP leadership tried to strong-arm and bribe its moderates to do that.  The GOP leadership is not going to waste its political capital on something that would easily be shown as a spiteful attack on DC, unless they're idiots.

The numbers I've seen are around the 70% range.  That's not exactly shallow.  Now you do have a point in that right now most people are only sort of half-aware of the issue, but all it takes is their activation.

The 70% figure is what makes the support broad.  The shallow part of my statement referred to the fact that few people would base their vote on that issue, and I don't see that changing no matter how much publicity the issue gets.  It's a technical issue that rarely has a real world effect, and even when it does it happens in elections that are very close.  Indeed, there has never been a case where a candidate has gotten a majority of the public vote and yet lost in the electoral college.  Aside from 1876, all of the cases to date have involved situations where a candidate received a narrow plurality in the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college.  1876 is special case, as it can reasonably be argued that the election was stolen by Hayes and should have been rightfully won by Tilden in the Electoral College.  Leaving aside the issue of the electoral votes decided by the electoral commission, had Colorado's electors been chosen in the popular vote instead of by the State legislature, there is a good chance that Tilden would have won those 3 votes.

[/quote]

"It's a technical issue that rarely has a real world effect, and even when it does it happens in elections that are very close."

The electoral college's structure affects every election: any candidate who wants to win knows that he has to focus on the swing states and not waste his time with the safe states.  That has a huge effect on what issues are discussed, on turnout, and who benefits and who doesn't.  It creates a system where most of the country is ignored, including swing voters in safe states.

[True Federalist]

Yes I believe the Republicans can be just as great a set of overreaching idiots in 2013 as the Democrats were in 2009.  The Republican advantage in small States means that more often than not, they would benefit from the Senatorial EVs.  Of the three times where there has been a discrepancy, twice (1876 and 2000) there would not have been one were the Electoral College base solely on the number of Representatives.  While the GOP does suffer from wasted votes in safe States, it is nowhere near the level it was with respect to the solid South and the Democratic Party.  (That the Democrats didn't suffer from this effect more than once in 1884 with Cleveland is likely because the solid South also had low voter turnout, which got even lower in the 20th century.)

There's no evidence that turning the Presidential election into a national election instead of a State-by-State election would have a major effect on either the issues or the results.  That might be the case if we were like Canada, where a province (Quebec) has an issue that they care about but the rest of the country largely doesn't care pro or con on the issue.  But by and large, the issues today in the national elections of the United States are the same all across the country, with just what the majority position on them differs among the States.

As far as distortions in the electoral issues that occur from having elections being conducted State-by-State instead of nationally, the use of the same States each time to hold the early primaries and caucuses is a far more significant effect than campaigns concentrating on the swing States in the electoral college during the general election.

[phwezer]

We should be working towards IRV rather than this nonsense..

Seconded.

[emailking]

Using IRV determine the electoral votes for each state is an improvement but unlikely to occur anytime soon. Most people don't think about vote splitting or consider it a problem if they do. 

I see IRV is a separate issue. Yes, the best thing would be a national ballot determined by IRV (or condorcet really, as I would prefer). But right now there's a lot of support for a nationalizing the vote. Not so much for changing the ranking method.

[beneficii]

I spoke with the office of New York State Rep. Dinowitz, who sponsored the bill, and the person there said with the Assembly adjourning yesterday, the bill is effectively dead.  The person also said it's unlikely any action on the matter would be taken by the Republican-controlled Senate next Legislature, despite the bill having a lot of Republican crossover votes this year.

It looks like New York will not become part of the compact anytime soon.

[True Federalist]

I spoke with the office of New York State Rep. Dinowitz, who sponsored the bill, and the person there said with the Assembly adjourning yesterday, the bill is effectively dead.  The person also said it's unlikely any action on the matter would be taken by the Republican-controlled Senate next Legislature, despite the bill having a lot of Republican crossover votes this year.

It looks like New York will not become part of the compact anytime soon.

Which doesn't surprise me in the least.  A fair number of those crossover votes were likely made to avoid making waves on a bill that wasn't see as likely passing the other house.

[zorkpolitics]

The Electoral College nullification Compact loses 2 EV. 
With new reapportionment, the 6 states + DC that have passed the Compact collectivley lost 2 EV: MA-1, NJ-1, IL-1, but WA +2.  So far states (+DC) .

So imagine if the compact had 270 EV and the states implement it requirment to award votes by popular vot ein 2012 and  then the compact drops back to 268, what happens?  Chaos!

[Californian Tony]

The Electoral College nullification Compact loses 2 EV. 
With new reapportionment, the 6 states + DC that have passed the Compact collectivley lost 2 EV: MA-1, NJ-1, IL-1, but WA +2.  So far states (+DC) .

So imagine if the compact had 270 EV and the states implement it requirment to award votes by popular vot ein 2012 and  then the compact drops back to 268, what happens?  Chaos!

Come on, do you imagine a candidate winning a block of 268 EVs and still losing the Electoral College ?

[True Federalist]

The Electoral College nullification Compact loses 2 EV.  
With new reapportionment, the 6 states + DC that have passed the Compact collectively lost 2 EV: MA-1, NJ-1, IL-1, but WA +2.  So far states (+DC) .

So imagine if the compact had 270 EV and the states implement it requirement to award votes by popular vot ein 2012 and  then the compact drops back to 268, what happens?  Chaos!

Come on, do you imagine a candidate winning a block of 268 EVs and still losing the Electoral College ?

The way the compact is written, if reapportionment caused the toral to go from 270+ to 269-, then the compact would go into abeyance until more EV's joined, so no it wouldn't be chaos.

[Mr. Morden]

Saul Anuzis, who is running for RNC Chairman, supports NPV, and one RNC committee member from Alaska is going after him on the issue:

link

[A-Bob]

Saul Anuzis, who is running for RNC Chairman, supports NPV, and one RNC committee member from Alaska is going after him on the issue:

link

good thing he lost

[zorkpolitics]

The constitution is clear:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:...."

While the Compact says: "a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

So can a current state legislature bind the hands of a future Legislature?  Will the Compact's requirement that any changes by states made 6 months before an election must be delayed to a future election hold up in Court if a state makes a change effective less than 6 months before an election?

If the states truly want to go to a National Popular Vote, then have the states pass a Constitutional Amendment rather than pass this cute legal trick to circumvent the Constitution.

[beneficii]

The constitution is clear:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:...."

While the Compact says: "a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

So can a current state legislature bind the hands of a future Legislature?  Will the Compact's requirement that any changes by states made 6 months before an election must be delayed to a future election hold up in Court if a state makes a change effective less than 6 months before an election?

If the states truly want to go to a National Popular Vote, then have the states pass a Constitutional Amendment rather than pass this cute legal trick to circumvent the Constitution.

Hi zork,

States can indeed bind the action of future legislatures by signing onto an enforceable compact.

[will101]

The constitution is clear:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:...."

While the Compact says: "a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

So can a current state legislature bind the hands of a future Legislature?  Will the Compact's requirement that any changes by states made 6 months before an election must be delayed to a future election hold up in Court if a state makes a change effective less than 6 months before an election?

If the states truly want to go to a National Popular Vote, then have the states pass a Constitutional Amendment rather than pass this cute legal trick to circumvent the Constitution.

Hi zork,

States can indeed bind the action of future legislatures by signing onto an enforceable compact.

That's like saying states should be prohibited from building anything or signing a contract that will last more than a year.

[beneficii]

It looks like a bipartisan group has introduced the compact in the Missouri House of Representatives (lower house), which to be quite honest is surprising in this state, including the Republican Speaker and the Democratic Minority Leader.  Might this bill have some wings?

EDIT: The House elections chair also sponsors the bill.  This, combined with the Speaker and Minority Leader, suggests that this bill does have some wings, at least in the House.  We shall see what happens and what happens with the Senate and the Governor.

[beneficii]

It looks like Vermont is about to sign onto the Compact:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=VT

It's not a large state, but it is still one more under NPVIC's belt.

[True Federalist]

It looks like Vermont is about to sign onto the Compact:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=VT

It's not a large state, but it is still one more under NPVIC's belt.

More troublesome for NPVIC supporters is not Vermont's size, but its politics. This only reinforces the image of this being a Democratic measure rather than a bipartisan one, and this will need real bipartisan support to get close to 270.  (Not just weak gestures towards bipartisanship that a few Republicans have made where it doesn't matter.)

[beneficii]

It looks like Vermont is about to sign onto the Compact:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=VT

It's not a large state, but it is still one more under NPVIC's belt.

More troublesome for NPVIC supporters is not Vermont's size, but its politics. This only reinforces the image of this being a Democratic measure rather than a bipartisan one, and this will need real bipartisan support to get close to 270.  (Not just weak gestures towards bipartisanship that a few Republicans have made where it doesn't matter.)

I want to see what happens in Missouri, where both the Republican House Speaker, the Republican Elections Chair, and the Democratic House Minority Leader introduced NPVIC.  Because of that, I think it can pass the Missouri State House.  I think the progress of that bill will be a lot more interesting to follow, especially if it can grow some wings.

EDIT: It's next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, at 8:15 am:

http://www.house.mo.gov/BillHearings.aspx?bill=HB974

EDIT 2: They even analyzed the fiscal impact, of which there is none:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/Oversight/OVER11/fishtm/2029-01N.ORG.htm

[beneficii]

Both the Democratic and Republican Caucus Chairs in CA support the NPVIC, and it just passed the Assembly Elections Committee 5-4:

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=CA

Perhaps the Republicans in solidly Democratic states are beginning to recognize that they have become largely irrelevant in elections for president?

[True Federalist]

Both the Democratic and Republican Caucus Chairs in CA support the NPVIC, and it just passed the Assembly Elections Committee 5-4:

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=CA

Perhaps the Republicans in solidly Democratic states are beginning to recognize that they have become largely irrelevant in elections for president?

More like the Republicans in solidly Democratic states are saving their ammunition on fights that matter.  Unlike financial or social issues, this isn't one that they can excite their base by opposing. Now that Brown is governor I would be shocked if California didn't pass the NPVIC, even if every single Republican member of the Assembly opposed it.  Passage in California is not significant.

Passage in Missouri would be significant. I don't know Missouri politics well, but even if it passes the House, the Senate could be more difficult since the GOP is even stronger in that body than the House and half the membership will not be up for reelection in 2012.

[beneficii]

Both the Democratic and Republican Caucus Chairs in CA support the NPVIC, and it just passed the Assembly Elections Committee 5-4:

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=CA

Perhaps the Republicans in solidly Democratic states are beginning to recognize that they have become largely irrelevant in elections for president?

More like the Republicans in solidly Democratic states are saving their ammunition on fights that matter.  Unlike financial or social issues, this isn't one that they can excite their base by opposing. Now that Brown is governor I would be shocked if California didn't pass the NPVIC, even if every single Republican member of the Assembly opposed it.  Passage in California is not significant.

Passage in Missouri would be significant. I don't know Missouri politics well, but even if it passes the House, the Senate could be more difficult since the GOP is even stronger in that body than the House and half the membership will not be up for reelection in 2012.

The California Republican Caucus Chair came out in support and also mentioned that the attitudes of Republicans are changing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWqkvI9eXjY&feature=player_embedded

It''s one thing to just sort of go along with it and not fight it, but another to actually appear on TV saying that you support it and that the attitudes among Republicans are changing.

[True Federalist]

As I said, California Republicans supporting this is insignificant.  Missouri Republicans would be.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Vermont became the 8th state to join the compact.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110422005311/en/Vermont-Eighth-State-Enact-National-Popular-Vote