On February 19, the Washington State House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs passed HB 1598, the National Popular Vote bill. Now it is in the House Rules Committee.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
On February 19, the Washington State House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs passed HB 1598, the National Popular Vote bill. Now it is in the House Rules Committee.
(I guess I’ll add my usual questions/comments on the issue here, too — since they haven’t been answered yet that I’ve seen.)
Are we really that hungry for more Floridas? Or more “majority fraud” (where one party controls enough of the government/structure in a state, or a major metropolitan area, that it can give a major boost to its ticket’s vote totals without fear of reprisal)?
Or, to consider another potential problem . . . what would happen if the national vote were close enough that recounts in one or more states might swing the total decision, but the votes in *those* states *weren’t* close enough to require (or even permit) a recount under their laws? Does it make a difference if the states you want recounted aren’t even participants in this compact? How much control/interest/interference could voters from state A (or states A, B, and C for that matter) have over/in/against the results of state D (or D, E, and F) and voters there?
I may be in a minority here, but I don’t see the Electoral College as worthless. If nothing else, it is a small force for consensus . . . putting a small premium (two votes per state) on winning a lot of different states, rather than running up the score in contests you’re sure to win. (Shades of the BCS!) And it gives individual voters, or small groups of voters, *more* voting power — more of an actual chance for their votes to be decisive. (Or at least so it is mathematically argued by Professor Natapoff — and, if you think about it, how likely is it that your one vote or your small group’s votes will make the difference among 100 million plus?)
When the number of votes cast in an election expands, the odds that the top two vote-getters in that election will fall into a tie, or a near-tie, shrink dramatically. Ties are very common in U.S. elections for elections in tiny jurisdictions, such as villages and small towns with fewer than 100 votes cast. But ever since there have been U.S. presidential elections with at least 12,000,000 popular votes cast nationwide, there has never been a presidential election in which the difference between the Democratic and Republican vote nationwide was closer than 112,702 (that was in 1960).
The United States would have been far better off in 2000 if we had used the national popular vote. Gore’s margin over Bush was 537,179 nationwide. Centuries of recounts have shown that there is very little difference between the original count and the revised count. The USA might have held a nationwide recount in 2000, but the odds that the recount would also have shown a margin for Gore over Bush of between 500,000 and 575,000 votes would have been extremely high.
Richard makes the key point. Let me add that it’s time for the United States to hold elections we can have confidence in. No other nation with direct election of the president decides to make most of its voters irrelevant to avoid a close national election — they all have one-person, one-vote elections. So can we, just as we do for all our governor’s races, US Senate races and the like.
National Popular Vote is an evil plan based on lies and faulty logic.
The fact is:
There has never been a Popular vote held for President and Vice President in the US.
So, in 2000, for example, we have no idea what the vote totals would have been had there been a popular vote.
Suppose Republicans who controlled Wyoming, knowing that every vote would count and not just determine 3 electoral votes decided to “GOTV.” They could easily turn out another 200,000 votes for Bush (living, dead or otherwise) as could every other one party state or region in the US.
You can be sure that there would have been 10, 20, 30 or more MILLION votes in the 2000 election.
How many would be fraudulent?
How many would either candidate have recieved?
In fact, who would the candidates have been?
All of these things would be changed. It is quite unlikely that either Bush or Gore would have been nominated. It is even doubtful that the same two parties would exist.
What we do know is that America would be less free, the Federal Government even bigger and more powerful, and …
… 3rd Parties would never see the light of day.
I don’t see why the presidential nominees of the Dem & Rep Parties would be any different under a national popular vote election general election, compared to using the electoral college. The switch to a national popular general election has no necessary effect on how the parties choose their presidential nominees. No one is suggesting a national presidential primary.
Also comment #4 seems to think the presidential election is the only election of any importance held in the U.S. The stakes are also very high in Congressional elections, gubernatorial elections, state legislative elections, ballot measure elections, and many local elections. If massive vote fraud were a problem, we would already be seeing it in elections for office other than president. There is huge motivation to win control of Congress, and control of state governments, and to win state ballot measures, that is not all that different from motivation to win the presidency.
What “Coming back to the LP” describes in #4 could be an example (hypothetical, but plausible) of the “majority fraud” I was talking about in #1. I can’t see a reason why it wouldn’t happen in a lot of places — or why it would be limited to any particular state, region, or city.
Note that, under a straight popular-vote system, a vote produced either by legitimate turnout-boosting in a deeply partisan-tinted area or by “majority fraud” would count as much as a vote in an under-appreciated, under-campaiged-in area. With the Electoral College, states where turnout was lower (due to less campaigning or dirty tricks) still have their duly allocated weight in the overall system — in effect, the ignored voters could get more power in the Electoral College.
Richard’s point in #2 actually makes the same point as Professor Natapoff: individual voters and small groups have more chance to realize voting power by deciding the winners in their individual states and have those states swing the balance in the EC than by tipping the balance in the whole nation.
I appreciate the discussion so far, though. Anyone want to address my points about
* the consensus-building effect of the “Senatorial
votes” in the EC; and
* the *BIG* problem that would come up if and when
the national winner could even arguably depend
on recounts in states that weren’t part of the
NPV compact?
Re: Richard at #5 — how many times have we all noted how amazingly successful legislative incumbents are at winning re-election? . . . of course, for those elections the fix is also put in every decade. (Or more often, now.)
The best way to reduce the advantages of electoral fraud it to award electoral votes on the basis of Congressional Districts.
One vote for each district.
Two votes statewide.
This is the Maine/Nebraska system.
In addition, we should increase the size of the House of Representatives, and accordingly the number of electoral votes and districts.
The House should be increased to at least 600 members and I would certainly entertain larger numbers 800, 1000, 1200.
Each member should be paid only the average salary for a worker in the US. (US median salary) And House members should have their budgets for office staff and expenses slashed to allow for only 1 or 2 max. full time workers.
“I don’t see why the presidential nominees of the Dem & Rep Parties would be any different under a national popular vote election general election, compared to using the electoral college. The switch to a national popular general election has no necessary effect on how the parties choose their presidential nominees. No one is suggesting a national presidential primary.”
It changes who they would choose because:
THEY WANT TO WIN.
As a result, it would also change how they choose.
Popular, bombastic, cult-leader types would become much more electable, and for evil, power hungry pols, winning is everything.
Richard, do you really believe in the idealistic, dreamland stuff you spout on here about NPV?
“… they all have one-person, one-vote elections. So can we, just as we do for all our governor’s races, US Senate races and the like…”
“They” are mostly banana republics and failed s o c i a l i s t governments.
As for US Senate, it might be better if we had Senators elected by State Legislatures again.
The worthwhile discussion for this post and the preceding post (both about the electoral college) actually reveal that many Americans deeply distrust other Americans living in other sections of the nation. The United States is not really a very united nation. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, just pointing it out. It’s as though many U.S. citizens are more afraid of other U.S. citizens in other parts of the country, than they are of people living in other countries.
If you are a good person who desires good outcomes for people in general, then chances are that virtually everyone else, inside, is just like you. So let’s not be so afraid of each other.
coming back: You keep making the same point over and over and over agian on thread after thread, but saying nonsense 357 times doesn’t make it less nonsensical. It is beside the point that the US has never had a national popular vote election. The proposal is to do so in the future.
Now for the 2000 election. Your point seems to be that under a national popular vote, we can’t be sure that Gore would have won, because the campaign would have been different. Yes, and so what? Perhaps Gore would have won, perhaps Bush would have won or perhaps someone else would have won. Regardless, whoever won would have been the choice of the majority of voters.
As far as your attitude towards the rest of the world I wish you luck in a global economy with your contemptuous arrogance.
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.
Neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Existing federal law (the “safe harbor†provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state’s “final determination†of its presidential election returns is “conclusive†(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).
The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive†each other state’s “final determination†of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Under the current system, there are 51 separate vote pools in every presidential election. Thus, our nation’s 55 presidential elections have really been 2,084 separate elections. This is the reason why there have been five seriously disputed counts in the nation’s 55 presidential elections. The 51 separate pools regularly create artificial crises in elections in which the vote is not at all close on a nationwide basis, but close in particular states.
A recount is not an unimaginable horror or logistical impossibility. A recount is a recognized contingency that is occasionally required (about once in 332 elections). All states routinely make arrangements for a recount in advance of every election. The personnel and resources necessary to conduct a recount are indigenous to each state. A state’s ability to conduct a recount inside its own borders is unrelated to whether or not a recount may be occurring in another state.
If anyone is genuinely concerned about the possibility of recounts, then a single national pool of votes is the way to drastically reduce the likelihood of recounts and eliminate the artificial crises produced by the current system.
The potential for political fraud and mischief is not uniquely associated with either the current system or a national popular vote. In fact, the current system magnifies the incentive for fraud and mischief in closely divided battleground states because all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state.
Under the current system, the national outcome can be affected by mischief in one of the closely divided battleground states (e.g., by overzealously or selectively purging voter rolls or by placing insufficient or defective voting equipment into the other party’s precincts). The accidental use of the butterfly ballot by a Democratic election official in one county in Florida cost Gore an estimated 6,000 votes ― far more than the 537 popular votes that Gore needed to carry Florida and win the White House. However, even an accident involving 6,000 votes would have been a mere footnote if a nationwide count were used (where Gore’s margin was 537,179). In the 7,645 statewide elections during the 26-year period from 1980 to 2006, the average change in the 23 recounts was a mere 274 votes.
Senator Birch Bayh (D–Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, “one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes.”
Dividing a state’s electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person’s vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the winner-take-all rule (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including North Carolina and California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
77% OF WASHINGTON VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL
A survey of 800 Washington state voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 77% among independents, 85% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.
By age, support was 80% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 84% among women and 69% among men.
By race, support was 78% among whites (representing 87% of respondents), 57% among African-Americans (representing 4% of respondents), 60% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 78% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).
see NationalPopularVote.com
#2 Is there any reason you used a threshold of 12,000,000 rather than 11,390,000?
#2 The USA would have been better off in 2000, if Florida had simply held a runoff election to determine its presidential electors.
#2 Imagine you wanted to determine who would have won the 1960 NBA Championship if the 3-point rule had been in effect. So you get the old tapes, and you carefully project the 3-point arc on the court, and review the games, and add an extra point if a FG was scored. ESPN Classic funds the effort and even provides an updated game commentary.
But they might note the number of times that a shooter “carelessly” had his foot on the arc, or just across and was only awarded 2 points. Or perhaps the defenders would not come out as tightly for a long shot that would get an extra point. Or at the end of one game, the team that was trailing by one point (because of 2 3-point FG by the other team) ran out the clock.
You simply can’t determine what would happened had the game been played under different rules, and had those rules been known in advance.
The same goes for prior elections. In a national election perhaps Nader voters wouldn’t have been squeezed. Or maybe he would have been on the ballot in North Carolina and Georgia. Even if the networks had “called” Florida before voting had finished in panhandle, voters might have continued to show up there, and perhaps elsewhere. And in the end, we would be subjected to bazillions of late arriving and counted ballots in places like California and Washington.
#5 There is no reason for the Republicans to dig up another 200,000 votes in Wyoming under the current system.
The current proposal has NO
(1) Provision to ensure that voters would have the same candidates on their ballot;
(2) Provision to ensure that nominees are popularly chosen by the voters, as they are in almost every partisan election;
(3) Provision to ensure that presidential elections are conducted under even marginally uniform conditions, nor even uniform voter qualifications;
(4) Provision to ensure that votes from all states are counted;
(5) Provision for a common canvass and recount procedure;
(6) Provision for a majority election.
Washington should use a Top 2 primary to determine the two candidates who appear on the general election ballot for the president.
This would be fully consistent with the NPV proposal, and would be within Washingtons exclusive and plenary powers as Susan repeatedly repeats.
I have three big problems with this idea.
So much of the support for this idea comes from the 2000 election. “If we only had National Popular Vote we could’ve avoided 8 years of Bush.” If we did have NPV I’m sure we would’ve had a different turnout. People in strongly Republican states and strongly Democratic states would’ve been more concerned about voting. Maybe Bush would’ve lost or maybe he would’ve won under this system, but changing it now doesn’t change the past.
Proponents also start on the basis that NPV is the best way to elect the president and discredit any alternatives based on this non-fact if nothing else. I don’t like the way electoral votes are awarded on a winner-take-all basis so I think that should change. This is a national winner-take-all apportionment of electoral votes and it will completely destroy any chance of a 3rd party ever being president.
Also, if only a majority of the states (not unanimous) adopted this idea then what if one of them changes their voting system? If a state wanted to use IRV in elections how would that be added into the NPV? Only count first choice? Eliminate all but two candidates and add up their votes? If a much more unusual system like Range Voting or Schulze Method were used it would be impossible to determine who the “popular vote” winner would be.
#25 You are exactly correct.
Either Susan and the other NPV supporters are being deliberately obtuse, or they genuinely lack logical and analytical skills.
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 campaing only in the largest cities and get the largest number of elctoral 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 just 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!
Coming back: What do you do for fun?
For fun, I teach people who are smart enough to learn.
Yawn.
#25 In the Federalist, #68, Alexander Hamilton wrote with regard to the method of electing the President, including the Electoral College,
“I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”
12 years later in 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in the electoral vote, resulting in the presidency being determined by the House of Representatives. This controversy resulted in passage of the 12th Amendment, and Vice President Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton.
Susan seems to think that the NPV plan if not perfect, is at least excellent. Will we discover the fatal flaws in 2020?
Re: Susan at #14 —
The National Popular Vote compact is patterned
directly after existing federal law and requires
each state to treat as “conclusive” each other
state’s “final determination” of its vote for
President. No state has any power to examine
or judge the presidential election returns of
any other state under the National Popular Vote
compact.
That wouldn’t *eliminate* the problem I mentioned in #1; it would at most shift it, and possibly just ignore it. To the extent that it’s true (and that groups or citizens couldn’t establish standing to challenge official results in their own states or other states), it would mean NPV cannot in fact guarantee even the plurality winner it hopes to guarantee.
Alexander Hamilton was correct.
The Electoral College is an excellent system. No other comes close. The rest of the major countries should get rid of their corrupt disasterous, direct elections and parliamentary systems and follow our example.
To make the system as “perfect” as possible, we need only to adopt the Maine/Nebraska system (which Susan does not understand and constantly mischaracterizes) and expand the size of the lower house, the US House of Representatives to at least 600 members (800-1200 would be even better).
Under the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than a plurality of the popular votes in order to receive all of the state’s electoral votes.
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.
The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention. A smaller fraction of the county’s population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 30%). Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
RE: Post #23 #4
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php
National Popular Vote
“Article III–Manner of Appointing Presidential Electors in Member States
Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a “national popular vote total†for each presidential slate.
The chief election official of each member state shall designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the “national popular vote winner.â€
The presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment in that official’s own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote winner.
At least six days before the day fixed by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, each member state shall make a final determination of the number of popular votes cast in the state for each presidential slate and shall communicate an official statement of such determination within 24 hours to the chief election official of each other member state.
The chief election official of each member state shall treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate made by the day established by federal law for making a state’s final determination conclusive as to the counting of electoral votes by Congress.
In event of a tie for the national popular vote winner, the presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment of the elector slate nominated in association with the presidential slate receiving the largest number of popular votes within that official’s own state.
If, for any reason, the number of presidential electors nominated in a member state in association with the national popular vote winner is less than or greater than that state’s number of electoral votes, the presidential candidate on the presidential slate that has been designated as the national popular vote winner shall have the power to nominate the presidential electors for that state and that state’s presidential elector certifying official shall certify the appointment of such nominees. The chief election official of each member state shall immediately release to the public all vote counts or statements of votes as they are determined or obtained.
This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes. “
The U.S. Constitution does not require that the election laws of all 50 states are identical in virtually every respect. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only restricts a given state in the manner it treats persons “within its jurisdiction.†The Equal Protection Clause imposes no obligation on a given state concerning a “person†in another state who is not “within its [the first state’s] jurisdiction.†State election laws are not identical now nor is there anything in the National Popular Vote compact that would force them to become identical. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution permits states to conduct elections in varied ways.
#37 The issue is not whether it is legal, but whether it is a good idea. It might well be legal for presidential electors to be appointed on the basis of cow pasture bingo, but it might not be a good idea. Do you disagree?
Let’s start from a presumption that you believe that the President should be elected directly by the voters. It would be moronic for you to favor the NVP Plan, but be totally indifferent to whether or not the President were elected directly by the voters.
Does it really sound like a good idea to directly elect the president but not have all voters be able to choose from among the same candidates.
#34 Voters may not be aware that there is no requirement for majority election of presidential electors. They may confuse the requirement of majority election in the electoral college, or believe that a majority requirement in a state election would throw the races to the House of Representatives and Senate under terms of the US Constitution.
They may also may not be aware that when Congress set the uniform election date in 1845, that they specifically provided for time to conduct a runoff election. And let’s be honest, the current system of at-large plurality election of presidential election was not adopted with the interests of the voters in mind.
In 2004, the voters in Colorado considered a constitutional amendment that would have apportioned that State’s presidential electors on the basis of the popular vote. In that case, it would apply even if a majority of voters favored a particular candidate. It can hardly be said that the voters of Colorado had no interest in plurality election of presidential electors.
When you give your glib presentation, many persons may not recognize that “most” is not “majority”. Just as when you use “identical” to describe the bills passed by the legislature, they may think that the conditions of the electors are “identical”.
Do you think that voters in Georgia are cognizant that the majority election requirement applies to every race but presidential electors?
The city of Houston requires majority election of its mayor. It is repeatedly commented on that Texas Governor Perry was not elected by a majority in 2006 in a 4-way race.
There was a renewed call for majority election in Minnesota following the close 2008 senatorial election, which still has not been resolved 4 months after.
#36 What if a non-member state does not complete its ascertainment until 3 days before the meeting date for electors?
#35 Does the current practice of appointing all electors on an at-large basis using a single slate violate the Voting Rights Act?
Have the 4 states that have passed the NPV plan, applied for pre-clearance under Section 5 of the VRA?
#34 HF 742, a bill in Minnesota’s 86th session provides for a majority for presidential elections.
Sorry, I haven’t had to check through the 100,000 or so bills introduced by 7,300 or so legislators, introduced each session over the past several decades to find out if that is unique or not.