Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[Mr. Morden]

NPV advocacy featured on Bloggingheads:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/35733?in=21:22&out=37:13

[beneficii]

In Tennessee, a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the Senate and a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the House:

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1024

[beneficii]

3 Republicans have introduced it in Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2663o.asp&Session_ID=102

[Joe Republic]

In Tennessee, a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the Senate and a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the House:

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1024

3 Republicans have introduced it in Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2663o.asp&Session_ID=102

Why are Republican legislators in Republican states taking up this issue?

[Mr. Morden]

3 Republicans have introduced it in Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2663o.asp&Session_ID=102

Yes, but the Arizona legislature has since adjourned for the year.  So this isn't going to be taken up there until 2012.

[beneficii]

3 Republicans have introduced it in Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2663o.asp&Session_ID=102

Yes, but the Arizona legislature has since adjourned for the year.  So this isn't going to be taken up there until 2012.

I'm putting watching it on my calendar for next year.

[Landslide Lyndon]

In Tennessee, a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the Senate and a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the House:

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1024

3 Republicans have introduced it in Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2663o.asp&Session_ID=102

Why are Republican legislators in Republican states taking up this issue?

Perhaps because they are tired of their states being ignored by presidential candidates and want some piece of the action.

[beneficii]

In New York, the NPVIC is ready for a floor vote in both houses.  In the Republican-controlled Senate, the bill was introduced by a Republican and passed the Elections committee unanimously--which, presumably, is Republican-controlled.

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A00489&term=2011

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S4208-2011

EDIT: Indeed, the Elections committee is Republican-controlled.  O'Mara, Gallivan, Nozzolio, Ranzenhofer, and Ball are Republicans, while the remaining 3 are Democrats.

[beneficii]

This gives a good summary of what is going on on the ground in Louisiana:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110508/NEWS01/105080313/Movement-seeks-elect-U-S-president-by-popular-vote

The NPVIC is unlikely to pass there this legislature, as the state Republican Party opposes the measure, and the Republicans control both Houses and the governorship, but note how 3 Republicans still came together to introduce the bill in the House and a majority of the state's population, including a majority of state Republicans, support the idea of a national popular vote.

[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.

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.

For New York, I called the offices of Senator Griffo, the Republican who introduced the NPVIC into the Republican-controlled State Senate this year, and Assemblyman Dinowitz, a Democrat who has repeatedly introduced the NPVIC in the Assembly.  The person answering the phones for Griffo says that they're hoping to get a floor vote by the end of June, and they have a meeting with the leadership next week to discuss getting the bill a floor vote--the bill is already on the third reading calendar.  He also said that there isn't really any opposition from the leadership to the NPVIC in the Senate; it passed the Elections committee with no objections.  I told him that New York Republicans must hate being ignored in presidential elections, and he agreed.

Dinowitz's person answering the phones didn't seem as optimistic.  He said that they're hoping to get a floor vote this legislature.  I asked him if he's seen any opposition from the leadership, and he said he doesn't know if the leadership is opposed.

So it would be pretty funny if the NPVIC passes the Republican-controlled Senate but fails to pass the Democratic-controlled House.

EDIT: It took only 20 seconds for the NPVIC to report out of the Senate Elections committee when it came under consideration.  Shortly after 6:30 in the following video the consideration for the NPVIC, and by the time the video gets to 7:00 the committee had already unanimously agreed to report the bill to the floor:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/may/02/elections-meeting

[Landslide Lyndon]

The Louisiana House committee passed unanimously the NPV bill. It goes to the House floor now.

[beneficii]

The Louisiana House committee passed unanimously the NPV bill. It goes to the House floor now.

It's scheduled for a floor debate on 6/6 according to the status page.  It's nice to get an up or down vote on it, but honestly I don't expect it to pass.  It'll be an interesting show to watch regardless.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The Louisiana House committee passed unanimously the NPV bill. It goes to the House floor now.

It's scheduled for a floor debate on 6/6 according to the status page.  It's nice to get an up or down vote on it, but honestly I don't expect it to pass.  It'll be an interesting show to watch regardless.

How can it pass unanimously the committee and then be rejected by the full body?

[beneficii]

The Louisiana House committee passed unanimously the NPV bill. It goes to the House floor now.

It's scheduled for a floor debate on 6/6 according to the status page.  It's nice to get an up or down vote on it, but honestly I don't expect it to pass.  It'll be an interesting show to watch regardless.

How can it pass unanimously the committee and then be rejected by the full body?

My understanding is that 6 of 14 members wanted to defer the bill, that is basically kill it, but that failed.  After that, the committee voted unanimously to let it go to the floor.  Those 6 members were probably opposed and only allowed it to go to the floor when because of the vote they saw they couldn't kill it right there.

[beneficii]

The bill appears to be dead now in the Louisiana House.  According to the status page on the bill, it was "[r]ead by title, returned to the calendar."  According to page 28 of the Louisiana Legislative Floor Guide (which can be found on the House's website), that means the bill is "in limbo".  Basically, it seems the bill is just about dead in Louisiana, though it may be revived by the end of the current legislature.

[beneficii]

OK, the NPVIC is on the active list for today's session of the Republican-controlled New York State Senate today, which was introduced by a Republican and unanimously passed the Elections Committee about a month ago.  It is calendar no. 398:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/jun/07/senate-session-06-07-11

I have not seen it on the active list before, but I find that generally at the beginning of the session, they go through the active list.  The session today is at 1400 EDT.  So we'll see.

[beneficii]

OK, the NPVIC is on the active list for today's session of the Republican-controlled New York State Senate today, which was introduced by a Republican and unanimously passed the Elections Committee about a month ago.  It is calendar no. 398:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/jun/07/senate-session-06-07-11

I have not seen it on the active list before, but I find that generally at the beginning of the session, they go through the active list.  The session today is at 1400 EDT.  So we'll see.

It passed 47-13-2.

[Californian Tony]

OK, the NPVIC is on the active list for today's session of the Republican-controlled New York State Senate today, which was introduced by a Republican and unanimously passed the Elections Committee about a month ago.  It is calendar no. 398:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/jun/07/senate-session-06-07-11

I have not seen it on the active list before, but I find that generally at the beginning of the session, they go through the active list.  The session today is at 1400 EDT.  So we'll see.

It passed 47-13-2.

Really ? So it has a strong chance to pass with a democratic House and Governor.

[I left.]

OK, the NPVIC is on the active list for today's session of the Republican-controlled New York State Senate today, which was introduced by a Republican and unanimously passed the Elections Committee about a month ago.  It is calendar no. 398:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/jun/07/senate-session-06-07-11

I have not seen it on the active list before, but I find that generally at the beginning of the session, they go through the active list.  The session today is at 1400 EDT.  So we'll see.

It passed 47-13-2.

Really ? So it has a strong chance to pass with a democratic House and Governor.

I suppose New York Republicans have nothing to lose by doing this....it's not like they're going to win New York in the near future.

[Rockefeller]

Okay, so I have a question about this NPVIC thing…

Let us assume that it actually garners enough support to go into effect.  Let’s also assume that it withstands any legal challenges that it might encounter and that it is upheld by the SCOTUS. 

THIS IS THE SCENARIO:

The year is 2020. 

The closest national election in twenty years has just taken place.  In it, the Republican candidate has 48.9% of the national popular vote--the most of any candidate.  Because of this, the NPVIC should elect him president.

NOT SO FAST!!!

Only minutes after the Republican is declared the winner, political junkies (who’s lives have been made a lot less exciting by the NPVIC) do insanely fast calculations to conclude that if electoral votes were being allocated under a statewide-WTA (the old way of doing things) then the Democratic candidate would actually win the election with a 273-265 electoral college victory!

Since the Democratic candidate and his army of super-lawyers are sexy, master statesmen they are able to do enough arm-wrangling in the NPVIC states to coerce the state legislatures to send electors to the electoral college who will support the statewide popular vote winner, who turns out to be the Democratic candidate.  At the electoral college meeting on December 18th they do exactly that, all of the NPVIC member states (except for one) decide to cast their electoral votes to the Democratic candidate.  In a clear violation of the NPVIC, he is elected president despite losing the popular vote.

So, this is the loophole in the NPVIC.  Its not legally binding!  A state could “pull-out” of the NPVIC at the last moment and thus swing the election.  Even worse, the other member states could take no action against those who violate the agreement--as the states are given the right to appoint their electors in whatever manner they see fit in the Constitution. 

So, how is this problem reconciled?

[Californian Tony]

I know politics are extremely cynical, but I like to think that people in the loser's party would be honest enough to respect the compact their State engaged in. Otherwise, well, I'd just feel sad for the country.

[Mr. Morden]

Is there anything to stop a state legislature from overturning the results after the fact in the current system either?

[True Federalist]

Is there anything to stop a state legislature from overturning the results after the fact in the current system either?

If they do so, they would lose the safe harbor provisions of 3 USC 5.  Note that this was part of the controversy in Bush v. Gore and one of the errors in that decision.  SCOTUS ruled that the Florida legislature considered having its electors be protected by the safe harbor provisions of 3 USC 5 to be so important that any procedure for determining who the electors would need to be concluded by six days before the meeting of the electors so as to be protected under the safe harbor provision.  If a court was going to make that sort of ruling it should have been a Florida court that made it, not SCOTUS.

(Note, SCOTUS likely correctly inferred the intent of the Florida legislature, as losing the safe-harbor provisions is one reason why the legislature stayed out of the controversy despite considering inserting themselves into it. However, it wasn't their job to do the inferring.)

[beneficii]

Okay, so I have a question about this NPVIC thing…

Let us assume that it actually garners enough support to go into effect.  Let’s also assume that it withstands any legal challenges that it might encounter and that it is upheld by the SCOTUS. 

THIS IS THE SCENARIO:

The year is 2020. 

The closest national election in twenty years has just taken place.  In it, the Republican candidate has 48.9% of the national popular vote--the most of any candidate.  Because of this, the NPVIC should elect him president.

NOT SO FAST!!!

Only minutes after the Republican is declared the winner, political junkies (who’s lives have been made a lot less exciting by the NPVIC) do insanely fast calculations to conclude that if electoral votes were being allocated under a statewide-WTA (the old way of doing things) then the Democratic candidate would actually win the election with a 273-265 electoral college victory!

Since the Democratic candidate and his army of super-lawyers are sexy, master statesmen they are able to do enough arm-wrangling in the NPVIC states to coerce the state legislatures to send electors to the electoral college who will support the statewide popular vote winner, who turns out to be the Democratic candidate.  At the electoral college meeting on December 18th they do exactly that, all of the NPVIC member states (except for one) decide to cast their electoral votes to the Democratic candidate.  In a clear violation of the NPVIC, he is elected president despite losing the popular vote.

So, this is the loophole in the NPVIC.  Its not legally binding!  A state could “pull-out” of the NPVIC at the last moment and thus swing the election.  Even worse, the other member states could take no action against those who violate the agreement--as the states are given the right to appoint their electors in whatever manner they see fit in the Constitution. 

So, how is this problem reconciled?

The NPVIC already handles this.  This is from the text of the NPVIC:

Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that 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.

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php

[Simfan34]

If the NPVIC will requirers all states to sign on, why not just have an amendment?