National Popular Vote Legislation- Should Dems support it-Help me understand

[barbiegeek]

Hi! I've been receiving some emails that various States have past legislation in supporting changing to a Popular Vote system instead of the Electoral college. I believe 7 States have past this legislation. Now normally I would be all for this, especially after 2000 with Al Gore, BUT Republicans are voting for it I guess so I'm suspicious.

Does Anyone here know anything about it?

Thanks!

[Scuba]

1. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but the electoral college seems like a bad joke to me....

...look at how mangled things become.

I might support some sort of run-off, multiple election process or perhaps a "if not X, who's your second choice" process if it was well thought out.

[Warpy]

8. Back when travel was difficult and long distance communication

non existent, it made a certain amount of sense: the state lege would send people to DC and those people would elect the president. Popular elections worked only when they were small and local, communities where distances were measured in hours on horseback electing delegates and sending them to the lege on the appointed day.

Now that we have long distance transportation and instantaneous communication, it's an anachronism and should be removed.

Don't expect the Republicans to go for it until they win a popular election and lose the EC, though.

[snot]

2. Good question – K&R'd.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Wicki info here

More at the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement among U.S. states that would effectively replace the current electoral college system of presidential elections with a direct, nationwide vote of the people. As of April 2011, this interstate compact has been joined by Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia; their 77 electoral votes amount to 28.5% of the 270 needed for the compact to take effect.

The compact is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, that gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. States have chosen various methods of allocation over the years, with regular changes in the nation's early decades. Today, 48 states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes statewide.

States joining the compact will continue to award their electoral votes in their current manner until the compact has been joined by enough states to represent a controlling majority of the Electoral College (currently 270 electoral votes.) After that point, all of the electoral votes of the member states would be cast for the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. With the national popular vote winner sure to have a decisive majority in the Electoral College, he or she would automatically win the Electoral College and therefore the presidency.

[barbiegeek]

5. Thanks, but I still can't figure out if I should support this

Why would republican's support it in these states listed, unless it's because they are usually Blue states. But anything Repugs vote for I'm suspicious.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Democrats support it too.

My state, Washington, is very blue as is the legislature and governor. It didn't pass because of Republican support but because of Democratic support.

I'm a Democrat and I think it's a good way to break up the electoral college which is well...undemocratic.

[barbiegeek]

9. Thanks, the email I read said Repugs were supporting it

I feel much better now. Have a good weekend

[mvymvy]

18. Support is strong in every demographi in every state polled

By state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:

Alaska (3)- 78% among (Democrats), 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
Arkansas (6)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 79% (Independents).
California (55)– 76% (D), 61% (R), and 74% (I)
Colorado (9)- 79% (D), 56% (R), and 70% (I).
Connecticut (7)- 80% (D), 67% (R), and 71% others
Delaware (3)- 79% (D), 69% (R), and 76% (I)
District of Columbia (3)- 80% (D), 48% (R), and 74% of (I)
Idaho(4) - 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Florida (29)- 88% (D), 68% (R), and 76% others
Iowa (6)- 82% (D), 63% (R), and 77% others
Kentucky (8)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 70% (I)
Maine (4) - 85% (D), 70% (R), and 73% others
Massachusetts (11)- 86% (D), 54% (R), and 68% others
Michigan (16)- 78% (D), 68% (R), and 73% (I)
Minnesota (10)- 84% (D), 69% (R), and 68% others
Mississippi (6)- 79% (D), 75% (R), and 75% Others
Nebraska (5)- 79% (D), 70% (R), and 75% Others
Nevada (5)- 80% (D), 66% (R), and 68% Others
New Hampshire (4)- 80% (D), 57% (R), and 69% (I)
New Mexico (5)- 84% (D), 64% (R), and 68% (I)
New York (29) - 86% (D), 66% (R), 78% Independence Party members, 50% Conservative Party members, 100% Working Families Party members, and 7% Others
North Carolina (15)- 75% liberal (D), 78% moderate (D), 76% conservative (D), 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), and 80% (I)
Ohio (18)- 81% (D), 65% (R), and 61% Others
Oklahoma (7)- 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Oregon (7)- 82% (D), 70% (R), and 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20)- 87% (D), 68% (R), and 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4)- 86% liberal (D), 85% moderate (D), 60% conservative (D), 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), and 78% (I),
South Dakota (3)- 84% (D), 67% (R), and 75% others
Utah (6)- 82% (D), 66% (R), and 75% others
Vermont (3)- 86% (D); 61% (R), and 74% Others
Virginia (13)- 79% liberal (D), 86% moderate (D), 79% conservative (D), 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), and 54% conservative (R), and 79% Others
Washington (12)- 88% (D), 65% (R), and 73% others
West Virginia (5)- 87% (D), 75% (R), and 73% others
Wisconsin (10)- 81% (D), 63% (R), and 67% (I)
Wyoming (3) – 77% (D), 66% (R), and 72% (I)
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php

[msongs]

4. not until the dems put an end to election fraud in every voting precinct nt

[barbiegeek]

6. Does anyone know how to do the electoral math with popular vote included?

Does this help us?

[hugo_from_TN]

10. Doesn't seem practical to me

As soon as we have a scenario where one candidate wins the popular vote and a different one wins the electoral vote (under the old system), than any state in the compact controlled by the party that would win the electoral vote would have a tremendous incentive to change their law, back out of the compact, and put their party in the White House. I don't see how you could prevent a state from changing their law at will.

[mvymvy]

15. Withdrawal not possible for < 6 months before end of term

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

The bill says: "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."

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

[lazarus]

11. a further question

why are they making it this convoluted "compact" process? Why not just pass a Constitutional Amendment if it's so popular an idea?

[barbiegeek]

12. State passage was how Women got the right the vote 19th admendment

Enough states past legislation granting women the right to vote that they had to make it a constitutional amendment, because they couldn't pass it through congress in 1920. If enough states pass it, then it will replace the electoral college.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Amendments have to be passed by a number of states

while this works if the population of states is enough to be a majority. So an amendment needs the support of smaller states; but, since the electoral college gives unfair weight to small states (because every state gets 2 college votes 'for its senators'), they're unlikely to give up that extra power.

The thing to remember is the American founding fathers weren't interested in having the constitution changed by democracy; they thought it was too important to be left to the whim of the people.

[mvymvy]

17. Small States are enacting National Popular Vote

The small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states.

12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections Despite the fact that these 12 lowest population states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.

These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine -- 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island -- 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont -- 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%;

In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.

[mvymvy]

16. States have Exclusive power to change

The presidential election system we have today is NOT in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would NOT need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

What the current U.S. Constitution says is "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."

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method-- a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

The process for amending the U.S. Constitution does not reflect the will of the people. A federal constitutional amendment favored by states containing 97% of the people of the U.S. could be blocked by states containing 3% of the people.

[Wilms]

13. It's attractive.

But auditing it would be a nightmare. Actually, it won't be audited because few elections are in any effective kind of way.