Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[Mr. Morden]

And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

You don't seem to understand how it would work.  Each state law would only go into effect once a sufficient number of other states have passed similar laws as well.

Let's say that the 11 biggest states (which collectively have 271 electoral votes) all decide that they are being screwed by the small states in the electoral college.  If those 11 states all decide to vote as a block for the popular vote winner in every election, then the popular vote winner will always win.  So I don't think it's as simple as "handing your voting power to other people".  You're also taking away voting power from other states.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Mr. Morden]

I wonder how many states will sign onto this before it starts getting major media attention.  Right now, nationwide passage looks so distant that hardly anyone cares about this issue.  It gets essentially no media coverage.  But what if we get to a point where states representing, say, 180 electoral votes have signed on?  The media might start to notice that the country's electoral system is potentially on the brink of changing.  It might actually become an issue that people care about, and the nature of the debate in the remaining states would take on a different flavor.

[Mr. Morden]

So this has now been passed in 6 states and DC.  What do you guys think of the prospects of this (eventually) actually being adopted by enough states to reach 270 EV?  Is there a decent chance that the 2020 or 2024 election might be decided by the national popular vote?

[Mr. Morden]

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

I don't think there's any clear way to do that with an interstate compact though.  It would have to be done via constitutional amendment, and that's pretty much impossible to pass.

Maybe if NPV passes though, then there might be less resistance from the states to change things further by going to NPV via a constitutional amendment.

[Mr. Morden]

In my view, once the NPVIC crosses a certain threshold of EV's, such as 150-200, then with the increased national coverage and people caring about it, it should take off like a rocket and would be adopted, or lead to the adoption of a constitutional amendment modifying the presidential election process.

I could definitely see it getting a huge burst of publicity once we reach the point at which it only takes one or two more states to reach 270.  But that might not happen for some time.  And I'm not exactly sure how this issue will play politically once it reaches that stage.  A national popular vote might be popular in the abstract right now, but once such a radical change in the electoral system comes close to reality, the people who benefit from the current system will come up with all sorts of creative reasons for why this has to be stopped.

[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

[Mr. Morden]

NPV advocacy featured on Bloggingheads:

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

[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.

[Mr. Morden]

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

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/5/rnc-nixes-national-popular-vote-initiative/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Of course they could change it, but it would mean that Republicans from highly Democratic states such as California and New York would gain influence at the expense of those who currently have it in the party.  Still, I expect this factor is of less importance than the perception that the Republicans by and large have the advantage in the small population States that have a greater influence in the EV than they would in the PV.

There are many ways to measure "party strength" in a state besides the presidential vote.  It's reasonable for the GOP to grant more delegates to Florida than New York, since, despite having nearly equal populations, there are more Republicans in Florida than New York.......but there are much smarter ways of measuring that than their current formula.

[Mr. Morden]

With it now seemingly becoming a partisan issue, I wonder if the more realistic way forward for the NPV is to try to convince Republicans in strongly GOP states to sign on (making the case to them that they're getting screwed by the electoral college), or if it would actually be more realistic to try to get swing states to sign on during a period when the Democrats control the state legislature (which is not the case in nearly any of the swing state legislatures at the moment).

All of the states to sign onto the NPV so far are states that have gone to the Dems in recent presidential elections, and have not been seriously contested in the last few cycles.  If the NPV cannot expand beyond that base, then it's dead.

[Mr. Morden]

So there's talk now about how Obama is doing better in statewide polls than he is in national polls.  While it's quite a longshot, what do you think would be the impact on the NPV's prospects if Obama ends up winning reelection via the electoral college despite losing the national popular vote?  Would enough Republicans suddenly become supporters that it would start passing in heavily GOP states, and actually manage to reach 270 EV and be enacted by the end of the decade?

[Mr. Morden]

So there's talk now about how Obama is doing better in statewide polls than he is in national polls.  While it's quite a longshot, what do you think would be the impact on the NPV's prospects if Obama ends up winning reelection via the electoral college despite losing the national popular vote?  Would enough Republicans suddenly become supporters that it would start passing in heavily GOP states, and actually manage to reach 270 EV and be enacted by the end of the decade?

I don't see small GOP-controlled states going that way. The EC gives them more voice than NPVIC. It would be interesting to watch a state like TX, however. They could suddenly be on the radar for presidential campaigns with NPVIC in place.

It doesn't have to be the small GOP-controlled states, large/medium ones will do as well.  The NPVIC just needs something beyond the present band of Democratic-leaning states where it's been passed.  If it passes in NY, then that group will be mostly tapped out.  It needs to pass in some Republican or swing states, which means that it needs more GOP support.  If Romney wins the popular vote but loses the presidency because of the electoral college, then maybe it'll pick up some of that needed GOP support.

[Mr. Morden]

Maybe. maybe not.  While in 2000, the NPVIC would have worked to Gore's advantage, in both 2008 and 2012 it would have potentially worked to the advantage of the GOP assuming a uniform swing to a tight election.  So it makes some sense that GOP states would start to sign on, but also that some Democratic states would choose to leave it.

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama. The buildup of overwhelming margins in the cities for Dems and their inroads with information economy voters in the traditionally GOP suburbs has shifted the structural advantage to the Dems. As a partisan activity, that should shift the interest in popular vote to the GOP.

That's part of it, but I actually think there's also an undercurrent of ideological disagreement on the issue, even though it doesn't seem like it should be a very ideological issue.  The GOP, as a party, voices more reverence for the original intent of the founders, and shows more hostility to more modern democratic innovations than the Dems.  This would probably apply to other electoral reforms as well.  For example, even if you could convince everyone that introducing IRV would give no net electoral advantage to either party, I bet you'd have more takers among Democrats than Republicans.

Republicans, on average, are also more likely to voice support for the virtues of the indirect character of American democracy.  Heck, some of them want to repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Mr. Morden]

The four most populous states where this hasn't yet been enacted are now TX, FL, PA, and OH.  If it passed in all four states, then it would reach 270, and would go into effect.  So in principle, it's "only" four states away from passage now, if the big ones were to do it.

But I'm not holding my breath on that. 

[Mr. Morden]

Is Bush 2000 the only reason it's only Democratic states signing on? Or is there some kind of status quo conservatism involved?

Bush 2000 is most likely the biggest reason for the partisan divide.  But I do think there's a bit of an ideological division as well.  Republicans in general seem to be more wedded to the old constitutional order, with many movement conservatives even favoring the repeal of the 17th Amendment.  They're more likely to think that something is gained via the indirect nature of American democracy.  And they're more likely to favor a system that treats the states as states.  Democrats seem more likely to be open to experimenting with more modern electoral innovations.

For example, even if you showed them that it would make absolutely no difference in terms of the relative strengths of the two major parties, I bet you'd be able to get more Democrats than Republicans in favor of something like IRV.

[Mr. Morden]

According to this:

http://ballot-access.org/2016/01/20/arizona-legislature-gives-substantial-support-to-national-popular-vote-plan/

the NPV has been introduced in the Arizona legislature, where it has overwhelming bipartisan support.  If passed, Arizona would be the first state with a GOP majority in both houses to pass the NPV.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

Well, Trump says he supports deciding the election via the popular vote:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/26/trump-electoral-college-popular-vote-555148

So maybe this'll get some traction in Republican states now?