Electoral College: Closer to being gone than you think

[ichab]

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/07/why...-the-electoral-college-with-the-popular-vote/

The simple compact proposes that states pledge their electoral votes “to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.” This rather brilliantly obviates the need for an amendment dumping the Electoral College from the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would only take effect when a sufficient number of states sign on such that their combined electoral votes constitute the magic 270 we’ve always needed to elect a president.

So far 165 electoral votes from 11 states have been secured. Of the remaining 105 required, 82 are seriously in play, having passed at least one legislative chamber in 10 states. Optimistically, we’re 23 new electoral votes away from ridding ourselves of the Electoral College....

Wow! Would be very curious to see how the powers that be in Washington react to this.

It would certainly change the way campaigns are in ran in this country as now all states would have to be in play as turnout would be more important than before. No more ignoring the solid red or blue states. Thoughts?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

This idea has been around for a while (hence why it has so many states signed on at this point) but the question remains as to whether it's actually Constitutional, since states are generally not allowed to make compacts between themselves without federal approval.

 

[MacLeod]

One other alterantive is award EC votes proportional to votes won in that state (I think 2 steas already do this but I could be wrong), instead of the winner take all system.

 

[otto]

No state uses a proportional system.

Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.


Nebraska in 2008 was the first time any state in the past century gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state.


2016 is the first time an electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state.


In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).

In 2012, the whole state was ignored.

77% of Maine voters have supported a national popular vote for President

In 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill


Republican leaders in Maine proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed at referendum, would require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting decisions. Then they changed their minds and wanted to pass a majority-only plan to make redistricting in their favor even easier.

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.

In 2012, the whole state was ignored.

74% of Nebraska voters have supported a national popular vote for President


After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008,Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.

A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.


The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

 

[otto]

One other alterantive is award EC votes proportional to votes won in that state (I think 2 steas already do this but I could be wrong), instead of the winner take all system.

There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.


Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.


The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.


It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;


It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.


It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),


It would not make every vote equal.


It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.



The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

 

[otto]

This idea has been around for a while (hence why it has so many states signed on at this point) but the question remains as to whether it's actually Constitutional, since states are generally not allowed to make compacts between themselves without federal approval.

Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

The U.S. Constitution provides:
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state…."

Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
"Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

"The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."

Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
"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."

The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"

The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

 

[otto]

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/07/why...-the-electoral-college-with-the-popular-vote/



Wow! Would be very curious to see how the powers that be in Washington react to this.

It would certainly change the way campaigns are in ran in this country as now all states would have to be in play as turnout would be more important than before. No more ignoring the solid red or blue states. Thoughts?

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."


Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”


In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."


Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Michael Dukakis (D-MA), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), and Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969).


Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL), and Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN).


Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

 

[Starbreaker]

This would likely mean no more Republican presidents ever. It's bad for business right now because they control all three branches of government.

 

[MacLeod]

Parties openess to changing a voting system is inversely porportional to how they thing it will impact on them. If they think they'll do better they'll be for it. If they think they'll do worse then there are against it.

Beside Politicans have to be the least trusted profession(ahead of the likes of Bankers and Jorunalists) just expect a Politican to lie everytime they open their mouths and you won't be dissapointed.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

A Constitutional Amendment proportionally awarding EC votes within each state is the best compromise between the current EC system and a straight up popularity vote. Clearly, certain thresholds would have to be met for awarding votes (e.g. if a candidate wins, say, Wyoming with more than 2/3 of the vote, the losing candidate would not receive an EV from the state). But this would, by definition, give more value to each vote, within each state. As it stands right now, votes in swing states comprise a much higher value than votes cast in, say, California, or Texas, or New York. But imagine if a vote cast in those states could swing an EC vote or two in a different direction? This would preserve the protections provided by the EC, while also providing real value to each vote cast within each state.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Well, that thread title got my hopes up for a second.

This is a clever idea, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of circumventing the Constitution, even if it's an idea I agree with. We need an Amendment that eliminates the Electoral College and institutes direct popular voting, so that there is no ambiguity or inconsistency.

And Article II of that Amendment also needs to institute ranked voting, because the Electoral College is only half of the problem.

 

[MacLeod]

Of course one other change that would make the system fairer is that each state is awarded EC relative to it's population. Or put another way each EV= roughly the same number of population. i.e 1 EC vote = 200 000. Couple that with proportiopnal awarding EC votes to candidates.

 

[USS Triumphant]

There's nothing wrong with the Electoral College. If it wasn't for the Electoral College, a candidate could potentially put together a campaign pandering to just 4 major cities at the expense of the rest of us, and win. What needs correction is *gerrymandering*, because the electoral districts are the same as the House districts.

 

[MacLeod]

Irreswpective of any consititional issues what is the argument against electing the US President by Popular vote. Wouldn't every vote no matter which state you are in matter?

So there would be none of this blue/red state so why bother voting when the other party will win the state.

 

[otto]

There's nothing wrong with the Electoral College. If it wasn't for the Electoral College, a candidate could potentially put together a campaign pandering to just 4 major cities at the expense of the rest of us, and win. What needs correction is *gerrymandering*, because the electoral districts are the same as the House districts.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.


Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.


16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.


16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.



The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

 

[otto]

Of course one other change that would make the system fairer is that each state is awarded EC relative to it's population. Or put another way each EV= roughly the same number of population. i.e 1 EC vote = 200 000. Couple that with proportiopnal awarding EC votes to candidates.

That would need a constitutional amendment, that could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the Twenty-third Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three.

 

[otto]

Well, that thread title got my hopes up for a second.

This is a clever idea, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of circumventing the Constitution, even if it's an idea I agree with. We need an Amendment that eliminates the Electoral College and institutes direct popular voting, so that there is no ambiguity or inconsistency.

And Article II of that Amendment also needs to institute ranked voting, because the Electoral College is only half of the problem.

There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, pragmatically, The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes.

Since 1828, one in six states have cast their Electoral College votes for a candidate who failed to win the support of 50 percent of voters in their state

Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

If the current Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.

Since 1824 there have been 17 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), Clinton (1992 and 1996), and Trump.

Americans do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.

 

[otto]

A Constitutional Amendment proportionally awarding EC votes within each state is the best compromise between the current EC system and a straight up popularity vote. Clearly, certain thresholds would have to be met for awarding votes (e.g. if a candidate wins, say, Wyoming with more than 2/3 of the vote, the losing candidate would not receive an EV from the state). But this would, by definition, give more value to each vote, within each state. As it stands right now, votes in swing states comprise a much higher value than votes cast in, say, California, or Texas, or New York. But imagine if a vote cast in those states could swing an EC vote or two in a different direction? This would preserve the protections provided by the EC, while also providing real value to each vote cast within each state.

A constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

The proportional method easily could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of 270 electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

Awarding electoral votes by a proportional method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. If done nationally, the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.

In a situation in which no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, with the current system, the election of the President would be thrown into the U.S. House (with each state casting one vote) and the election of the Vice President would be thrown into the U.S. Senate. Congress would decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every voter equal.

It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

 

[Timby]

words words words

You're posting stuff I've found, word-for-word, on at least a half-dozen other sites. You're either a bot or a spammer. I don't care which, but go away.

 

[MacLeod]

Since 1824 there have been 17 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), Clinton (1992 and 1996), and Trump.

Americans do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.

Not sure where you are getting your figures from

US 1860 Election

Lincon wins most votes + college vote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860

US 1912 election

Wilson recieves most votes + wins college vote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912

US 1916 Election

Wilson receives most votes + wins college

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1916

As for elections where the winning candidate didn't win the popular vote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...ons_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote