Arkansas House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
February 25th, 2009On February 25, the Arkansas House passed HB 1339, the bill to provide for the National Popular Vote Plan pact for electing the president. The vote was 56-43. Richard Carroll, the Green Party representative, voted “Yes”. Now the bill goes to the Senate.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:56 am
80% OF ARKANSAS VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL
A survey of 800 Arkansas voters conducted on December 15-16, 2008 showed 80% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 88% among Democrats, 71% among Republicans, and 79% among independents.
By age, support was 89% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 80% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 88% among women and 71% among men.
By race, support was 81% among whites (representing 80% of respondents), 80% among African-Americans (representing 16% of respondents), and 68% among Others (representing 4% of respondents).
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
February 26th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Sad, Sad, Sad. We were once a great nation who protected our Constitution. Now we do anything to destroy it.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
So, Richard G., what do you think of constitutional amendments? The Constitution was made to be changed. I mean, slavery was legal in the original Constitution, so changing the Constitution is not necessarily a bad thing.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Great news, way to go Arkansas!
February 26th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
So if a state passes a “National Popular Vote” bill, and the state itself votes for the national loser, would an elector be a “faithless elector” if he votes for the actual winner in his state?
February 27th, 2009 at 8:39 am
This is not a Constitutional amendment now is it. Its a way of going around the amendment process to get what they want.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:13 am
The Electoral College is a linchpin in the federal system. It obligates candidates for President and VP to present themselves for approval to a large number of states and the voters within those states and secure a winning percentage within enough states to obtain a majority of the electoral votes of those states.
This gives the states the power to approve or disapprove a candidate. The P and VP candidates cannot overlook the states in campaigning.
Under the NPV plan, a candidate could campaign only in the largest cities and get the largest number of electoral votes without regard to the interests of every other constituency in America.
The 5 largest metropolitan areas in the US contain over 20% of the nation’s population. These 5 cities alone would become the kingmakers. The top 20 metropolitan areas contain over 40%. This bill is an end run around the Federal Compact that makes America into a nation.
Finally, an overlooked fact is that under the National Popular Vote f a s c i s t – s o c i a l i s t takeover plan,
IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR A CANDIDATE TO BE ELECTED EVEN THOUGH THAT CANDIDATE ACTUALLY DID NOT WIN THE MOST VOTES IN ANY STATE.
Under NPV, a candidate who carries the 40 bigest cities, but does not win the largest number of votes in any state, could still be elected President, even though prior to the application of the NPV reallocation of votes that candidate would be entitled to ZERO Electoral Votes.
That’s right folks.
Under NPV, a candidate who has actually earned ZERO electoral votes could be elected President, after the computation determines that all the Electoral Votes earned by some other candidate should be flipped to the NPV candidate.
A candidate who has carried the overwhelming majority of states and Electoral Votes could have enough states Electoral Votes flipped to the NPV to give the Presidency to someone who won NO states and just carried the biggest cities.
DO THE MATH!
There are thousands of possible scenarios under which this could happen.
Say NO to this evil, illogical, ill-considered numb-headed plan!
February 27th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Domination of the hinterlands by metropolis America. What a tragedy of ignorance (by some) and partisanship (by others).
February 27th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I love hearing NVP debate. I think the thing I like the most is hearing all the anti-NVP arguments as to why the will of the majority of voters in America should be disregarded. That god there are still people who realize that to protect the republic we must subvert democracy.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
The Founding Fathers, James Madison, perhaps most notedly, warned against the idea of direct democracy, that it would lead to mob rule, then ultimately, tyranny.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground†states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground†states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule 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.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.
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. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 23 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
February 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives “exclusive” and “plenary” control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation’s first election in 1789. However, nowadays, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.
In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state’s electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.
In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state .
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified 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.”
February 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a “republican” form of government or is a “democracy.”
A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a “republican” form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
If a “republican” form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a “democratic” method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.
So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be “mob rule” in presidential elections, but whether the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. In 2004, candidates spent over two thirds of their visits and two-thirds of their money in just 6 states and 99% of their money in just 16 states, while ignoring the rest of the country.
The current system does NOT provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive†in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
As of 2008, the National Popular Vote bill has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
Most of the medium-small states (with five or six electoral votes) are similarly non-competitive in presidential elections (and therefore similarly disadvantaged). In fact, of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with three, four, five, or six electoral votes), only New Hampshire (with four electoral votes), New Mexico (five electoral votes), and Nevada (five electoral votes) have been battleground states in recent elections.
Because so few of the 22 small and medium-small states are closely divided battleground states in presidential elections, the current system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states. The New York Times reported early in 2008 (May 11, 2008) that both major political parties were already in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008 (involving only 166 of the 538 electoral votes). In other words, three-quarters of the states were to be ignored under the current system in the 2008 election. Michigan (17 electoral votes), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and Florida (27) contain over half of the electoral votes that will matter in 2008 (85 of the 166 electoral votes). There are only three battleground states among the 22 small and medium-small states (i.e., New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada). These three states contain only 14 of the 166 electoral votes. Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red†states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue†states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Under a national popular vote, every vote is equally important politically. There is nothing special about a vote cast in a big city. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties know that they must seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the state in order to win the state. A vote cast in a big city is no more valuable than a vote cast in a small town or rural area.
Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. 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 and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate won 100% of the votes in the nation’s top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Ohhh, I like that. Susan here, must of got her nighties all tangled when she got some dissent. She pulls out all her pre-written data and wants to cram it all down our throats. Brainwashing people and quelling dissent is no way to have a discussion.
Don’t like the Constitutional process do you. So you’ll bypass it at all cost. Irregardless of the irreparable harm that will be done. SAD!
February 27th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
When Susan says “identical form” she means the bill would be identical. She does not mean that voters would choose from among the same candidates. She is either indifferent to, or ignorant that, for example that in 1824. Andrew Jackson got 97.5% of the vote in Tennessee, or that John Quincy Adams only had an elector candidate in one electoral district, in a race that was an equivalent to a party primary. All that matters to her is the number of “popular votes”.
Now she will likely respond that there is no 1st or 14th Amendment right to having your vote count the same in the national “popular vote” as a vote from some other State.
But imagine a State used different ballots in different counties. Westchester County might be able to vote for local resident Hillary Clinton; while New York County (Manhattan) might be able to vote for Barack Obama who attended college there. There would be instant law suits claiming that the voters of the two counties were being treated differently and unequal, even though each was able to cast one vote and have it counted in the Statewide “popular vote” total.
So if the underlying principle is that each vote count equally, then shouldn’t their be an effort to make sure that the members of the compact have the same candidates on the ballot?
And if you are going to have the same candidates on the ballot, shouldn’t they also be chosen in a direct national primary? If the electoral college is an anachronism, what is the current system for qualifying candidates for the ballot in the first place?
And why should the candidate who gets the “most votes” be elected? If a candidate merely gets the “most electoral votes”, but not a majority, the House of Representatives chooses the winner.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
#13, Susan is being disingenuous with regard to the election of 1789. In the three large states most closely associated with the Founding Fathers, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the voters did choose their presidential electors (or at least nominated persons from whom the legislature made the final choice). And she appears to have misplaced the popular vote from Delaware.
Comparison of the number of votes cast in the congressional races and presidential races in that election indicate that the voter qualification was the same. That there was not universal suffrage does not mean that the presidential electors were not chosen by the People, any more than the Representatives were not chosen by the People (as required by the Constitution). And I suspect that the same qualifications were used when electing delegates to the ratifying the Constitution.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
10 of the 16 Amendments to the Constitution that were proposed after the 1st Congress have modified our system of presidential elections:
12th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 26th.
If such a fundamental change is to be made, it should be done by Constitutional amendment.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:07 am
NPV is an attempt by the F a s c i s t – S o c i a l i s t s and especially the Democratic Party to make America into a government controlled banana republic.
They have no concern about LIBERTY. They just want to take total control.
Under the new NPV plan it is possible for a candidate to be elected with a tiny fraction of the national vote. There is, in fact, no fraction too low to be elected. 40%, 30%, 20%, 10% … whoever gets the most votes wins.
This is perfectly fine for representative districts where there are numerous other such districts for balance and when the National Executive is elected in a system requiring some kind of majority.
But with the NPV, all such rationality is lost. The US becomes a lawless banana republic.
********************************************
IN FACT:
Under NPV, a candidate who has actually earned ZERO electoral votes could be elected President, after the NPV computation determines that all the Electoral Votes earned by some other candidate should be flipped to the NPV candidate.
A candidate who has carried the overwhelming majority of states and Electoral Votes could have enough states Electoral Votes flipped to the NPV to give the Presidency to someone who won NO states and just carried the biggest cities.
NPV is a disaster waiting to end LIBERTY in America:
. it means the final end of the federal system
. it terminates the federal compact that binds the states together
. it makes the US a banana republic
. as the States break up, it could lead to civil war
. it ensures massive electoral corruption and fraud will occur in places untouched until today
. it is being pursued by political hacks attempting to gain some electoral advantage and evil F a s c i s t – S o c i a l i s t s lusting for power.
***********************************************
Under the current Electoral College system, it is virtually impossible for anyone to be elected without having a super plurality of support. To garner the required MAJORITY of Electoral Votes means that a candidate must have demonstrated national support and support in states containing a majority of the electoral votes.
Even better would be the adoption of the Maine/Nebraska system nationwide.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:12 am
We need to wake up and crush the NPV takeover.
Instead we need to adopt the Maine/Nebraska system:
Under the Maine/Nebraska system, not only are two electoral votes awarded for winning each state, but one vote is awarded within each Congressional District.
This greatly expands the number of competitive areas in the Naional Election.
IN ADDITION to focusing on every competitive statewide election, candidates will have to focus on competitive Congressional Districts.
So, in addition to the normal 1/3 of the States, more than 1/3 of the Congressional Districts will be in play.
(This fact is not discernable from the mere observation of past races, since in past races this system was not in use. To determine this we must use a prospective, pro-forma type comparison.)
Thus, under the Maine/Nebraska system more than half of all US areas will be in play. Even better results will come from expanding the size of the House of Representatives and the number of Electoral Districts.
At the same time, switching to the Maine/Nebraska electoral college system makes the perfect electoral system:
1) Every voter is treated equally in selecting one vote per congressional district, which represent approximately the same number of voters.
2) Every State is treated equally in selecting two votes per state. This preserves the federal compact and helps prevent civil war.
3) The advantages of electoral fraud are reduced to the the lowest possible level, and therfore we will have the least corrupted electoral system.
4) The Maine/Nebraska Electoral College system guarantees that the candidates elected will have demonstrated the greatest possible support nationwide, representing the greatest number of voters, districts and states.
5) By ensuring that the candidates elected have the greatest possible nationwide support, the Maine/Nebraska Electoral College system ensures stability, peaceful transitions, national harmony and internal peace. It prevents the US from becoming a banana republic due to its electoral system.
**********************************************
for the PEACE, PROSPERITY and LIBERTY of America,
we must preserve the Electoral College system and:
ADOPT
…. the Maine/Nebraska Electoral College system of chosing the President and Vice President of the United States. We must expand the House of Representatives to 600, 800, even 1,200 members.
and we must
REJECT
…. the dangerous and evil NPV plan before it leads to fraud, corruption, and the fractionalization of America. Eventually under NPV we will see the election of a candidate who represents fewer than 25% of the actual votes cast, and who has won ZERO or close to zero electoral votes prior to the NPV calculation. Which would result in civil war.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The “Nebraska/Maine” system is even worse than the current system. It would make the presidential elections even less competitive than they already are. I live in Nebraska and I oppose that terrible idea. Both Maine and Nebraska should revoke their current EC method and switch to the NPV.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Sometimes I feel like a lone voice crying out in the wilderness…. Let me try again.
Do we want Florida 2000 played out on a nationwide scale? NPV essentially GUARANTEES that will happen someday. In 4 years? In 100 years? Don’t know, but someday the nationwide vote total will be so close that there won’t be enough lawyers and judges to handle all the election court cases in every county in every state in the nation. Give me a NPV varient that will avoid this nightmare scenario, and I’ll be glad to re-consider. Until then, no way no how.
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:33 am
Rich M Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Sometimes I feel like a lone voice crying out in the wilderness…. Let me try again.
Do we want Florida 2000 played out on a nationwide scale? NPV essentially GUARANTEES that will happen someday. In 4 years? In 100 years? Don’t know, but someday the nationwide vote total will be so close that there won’t be enough lawyers and judges to handle all the election court cases in every county in every state in the nation. Give me a NPV varient that will avoid this nightmare scenario, and I’ll be glad to re-consider. Until then, no way no how.
Thank you.
You are not a lone voice in the wilderness.
This is one more reason why NPV and direct election of Pres and VP is a bad idea.
The Maine/Nebraska system of Electoral College vote allocation is the best.
This year, even Nebraska had one out of three competitive electoral districts.
When adoped in other states, the number of competitive districts would multiply rapidly as the parties and candidates would act in a way to make districts that do not now appear competitve into highly competitive races. This is quite easy to do on such a small scale, but it cannot be determined from historical data.