On May 7, the Louisiana House defeated HB 1095 by a vote of 28-63. This is the National Popular Vote Plan bill.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
On May 7, the Louisiana House defeated HB 1095 by a vote of 28-63. This is the National Popular Vote Plan bill.
Some sanity at least.
NO uniform definition of Elector-Voter in the NPV scheme from Hell.
I agree. If there were a national popular vote in 2000, they could have had to recount the votes of everyone in all states rather than just Florida. The electoral college limits the effects of voter fraud. I do believe states should adopt elector college systems like Maine and Nebraska have.
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.
Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?”
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less 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 provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (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 has been competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there have been only 55 “battleground” districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 2/3rds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote 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.
oldgulph: “Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.”
Good. Why is so bad that a third party candidate could win some electoral votes?
oldgulph: “We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.”
If each state sets their rules for the election and there is a National Popular Vote, there would be a race to the bottom to create less strict voting laws (such as same-day registration and not needing to see an I.D.). I am not necessary for strict voting laws if done responsibly, but there should not be a system that encourages a race to the bottom approach to loosening voting requirements.
I believe if the National Popular Vote Plan came close to getting enough states to go into action, the country would then pass a constitutional amendment improving the presidential election process. The United States and Switzerland are the only nations in the world in which the national elections are run under election laws created by units of that country. Except for those 2 countries, every country in the world that has elections has one uniform set of laws to administer its national elections.
How many States manage to survive by having the State governor elected by ALL of the Electors in the State ???
The Electoral College is a TIMEBOMB waiting to go off ***again*** – much worse than in 1860-1861 — about 750,000 DEAD Americans (latest estimate) in 1861-1865.
Each E.C. Prez since 1832 has been de facto elected by about 30 percent of the voters in just enough States having a bare majority of the total E.C. votes.
— a plurality of the votes in the States/DC having a such bare majority of the total E.C. votes.
—-
See the Recent France Prez election.
France will continue to survive.
7 – And in Switzerland, lets not forget they elect not a president, but a seven member federal council. It’s quite a fascinating study in political systems – for some reason governments around the world have held the unfounded belief that if you don’t give an awesome amount of power to one person in the executive, utter chaos will happen in case of a national emergency. Switzerland, however, has been doing just fine without one all-powerful executive (or quasi-executive, such as a prime minister) for I believe over 150 years. For ceremonial functions they have a one year rotating head of state from the council to greet foreign dignitaries etc. I know you probably know all this and more Richard, just pointing it out for those who might think the one other exception to the rule justifies continued use of an archaic system.
#2 Susan Mvymvy Oldgulph,
“Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote.”
The fallacy of your logic is that statewide elections are NOT representative of national presidential elections. Someone of limited intellect might reason that if 1/160 of statewide elections are razor thin recount elections, then 1/160 of presidential elections would be the same. But if statewide elections are a model for presidential elections, then the same share of statewide elections that are 30% blowouts, would be 30% presidential blowout.
It is notable that in the most recent Richie-Hellman study, they DO NOT INCLUDE actual election results from the 2884 elections they claimed to have studied?
Why not?
#2 “Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes.”
Hertzberg apparently is unaware of the 1880 presidential election.
Hertzberg is also opposed to federalism and separation of powers. A popularly elected president might well lead to the demise of federalism and separation of powers (eg see President Obama’s criticism of unelected judges).
#2 The possibility of recounts have led States to create uniformity in the administration of their statewide elections, including qualification of electors, common sets of candidates, and other rules for administration of elections.
In most close elections, the number of illegally cast ballots dwarves the number of miscounted ballots. In Texas, an illegally cast vote is not guaranteed secrecy, but in closely contested races, many votes are identified as being illegally cast, but either the voters can not be located, refuse to testify, or can’t recall how they voted. The standard of proof for a contested election is closer to that for a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt), than that for a civil case (preponderance of evidence). Even if 65% of known illegal votes are cast one way, you can’t infer that 65% of unknown illegal votes are cast the same way.
There is simply no way to guarantee that some States won’t permit 1000s of illegal votes to be cast, either by sloppy or dishonest election administration.
In 2011, Bobby Jindal was elected governor of Louisiana by a 38% margin.
When was the last presidential election with that large of a margin?
2, 11, 12 –
Tell us:
– Why a close popular vote under the NPV scheme would precipitate a NATIONWIDE recount.
– How can members of the compact dictate to nonmembers when and whether the nonmembers should recount their popular votes?
– What clause of the NPV compact specifies when and whether MEMBER states should recount their popular votes?
– What is inherently wrong with recounts?
– What is inherently wrong with a candidate winning by a slender margin?
– What is inherently better about an election being decided by a small number of electoral votes than a small popular vote margin?
– If you’re so concerned that the 1880 election would have been decided by a few thousand popular votes under NPV, how did you feel about the 2000 election being decided by a vote of 5-4?
You continually raise the “specter” of recounts in a transparent effort to revive memories of the 2000 election recount, yet that event was a byproduct of the current EC implementation.
Election fraud is a possibility under any system. Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 are only the most recent examples of fraud being committed in the interests of swinging a close state under the current EC implementation (in each case to the Republican candidate). The 1876 election is another example of winner-take-all EC fraud. Hayes, the Republican candidate in 1876, was the beneficiary of fraud in four states in that election.
Jimbo opposes NPV, not because that fraud will be more prevalent under NPV, but rather because it will be more expensive and difficult for his Republican party to engineer.
10 of the last gubernatorial elections in each of the 50 States has been by a margin over 30%. There has never been that wide of a margin in any of the 47 presidential races since 1824.
#14 Barry,
– Why a close popular vote under the NPV scheme would precipitate a NATIONWIDE recount.
It would not. This is a DEFECT of the scheme. A close gubernatorial election would precipitate a STATEWIDE recount.
– How can members of the compact dictate to nonmembers when and whether the nonmembers should recount their popular votes?
They can’t. What if a nonmember has not completed its recount by the date a member is expected to complete its count? Remember, we’re still waiting on District of Columbia to complete its count for 2008.
– What clause of the NPV compact specifies when and whether MEMBER states should recount their popular votes?
There is none. Hopefully, Florida learned from 2000 and the statewide recount would be automatic. But you apparently did not learn anything.
– What is inherently wrong with recounts?
There is nothing inherently wrong with recounts. Without a centralized canvassing authority they are impossible.
– What is inherently wrong with a candidate winning by a slender margin?
Nothing, so long as the voters were voting among the same candidates, using the same rules for indicating their support of a candidate, and there was a way of adjudicating whether that candidate had a slender margin.
What is your guess of how many fraudulent votes were counted in Ohio in 2004?
#4
“With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College.”
Under federal law, all States must produce their final determination of who its presidential appointees were, and document how that determination was made.
In Nebraska and Maine, the certificate of ascertainment has the popular voter for each congressional district, as well as for the State. A certificate of ascertainment for a member of the NPV scheme would include the total popular vote for 50 States and the District of Columbia.
How is the Secretary of State or equivalent official going to determine the popular vote in each State, so they can add them up, so they can can produce their certificate of ascertainment?
16 –
Jimbo! Thank you for, finally, helping me to debunk several of your own arguments against the NPV compact. Now can you convince 2) above as well?
The issues in 2004 was not how many fraudulent votes were counted in Ohio. As you know, the issue of ballots being cast by ineligible voters, or under fraudulent IDs, is a red herring being used by your party. No, the issues of fraud in Ohio were, among many others, how many thousands of valid Democratic registrants were boxed out by the Republican regime in that state before the ballots were cast, how many thousands of likely Democratic voters were prevented from voting by diverting voting machines from high population Democratic precincts to low population Republican precincts, etc.
But c’mon…you know all that Jimbo.
As for DC – what was the popular vote count which was used to determine how their electoral college votes would be cast? Did someone in DC say – “We’re giving the EC votes to Obama, but we’re not telling you why?” Or are you telling us that because their recount is not completed they did not cast any EC votes?
Give us serious examples that are relevant, would you?
What a tool.
#7 Most countries do not have a dominant executive.
Maybe if we had a directly elected president like Russia, he would allow the governors of the States to be popularly elected, such as Putin has proposed.
#18 How many?
Ohio turnout increased by 19.6% between 2000 and 2004.
It increased by 1.7% between 2004 and 2008.
Turnout in Summit, Hamilton, Cuyahoga, Montgomery, and Lucas was flat between 2004 and 2008, after increases of 23%, 12%, 17%, 23%, and 18% respectively between 2000 and 2004.
There were 13 states that were within 5% in 2000. Turnout increased by a larger amount in Ohio than all but Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon, all of which has significant population gains (over 20% between 2000 and 2010, vs 4.6%).
Between 2004 and 2008 Ohio had less of a gain in turnout, than all those states except Oregon and Wisconsin.
Conclusion: Ken Blackwell did more to increase turnout than did Jennifer Brunner.
20 –
It does not logically follow that participation among targeted segments of the electorate in that state was NOT suppressed because overall voter participation increased from election cycle to election cycle. As usual, your arguments make no sense.
For those who are interested in what happened in Ohio in 2004:
http://archive.truthout.org/article/robert-f-kennedy-jr-was-2004-election-stolen
Also, for those who follow these threads on NPV, I suggest you read the following article, co-written by Jim Riley:
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_5188662
In that article, the following statement is made:
“While close Electoral College votes (which have happened on average once a century) isolate the recount to one state (i.e., Florida in 2000), popular-vote elections would require recounts in 170,000 separate districts and hamlets in the U.S.”
Compare and contrast that statement with 16 above.
“Why is so bad that a third party candidate could win some electoral votes?”
Last I looked, Congress had a 9% approval rating by American voters.
Most American voters want to know, that their vote was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it’s wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
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 National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and preserves state control of elections.
With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves state control of elections.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, in 2012 will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “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.”
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, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still have separation of powers, and citizens would continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
One further comment on the illogical content of Jimbo’s arguments against NPV. Proponents of NPV contend that had NPV been in place in 2000, a recount in Florida would have been moot, owing to the fact that the disparity in the popular vote in the millions. Jimbo has responded to that argument on more than one occasion that we can’t assume that the disparity would have been the same had we been operating under NPV. He contends that, for instance, Bush could have run up the popular vote tally in Texas had he needed to. He doesn’t bother to tell us how he might have done that legally, but that’s another matter.
Yet, while he argues that we can’t assume any result IN THE PAST, despite having actual numbers to analyze, he has no problem making the argument that elections IN THE FUTURE, with no factual data of any kind at hand…after all, we’re talking about FUTURE elections, will result in a calamitous national popular vote recount.
One wonders why Republicans Like Jimbo, who sing songs to us of their love of federalism, the Constitution and the rule of law, are expect and demand the same immediacy of results in our presidential election that one expects when ordering a Big Mac at the driveup window.
I’d also be interested in knowing how Obama, or any other president, would somehow be empowered to undo our system of checks and balances, as Jimbo suggests above, merely if their election were to be determined by a count of national popular votes. Does NPV require that Congress and the USSC evacuate Washington, D.C. after the election and go on a duplicate bridge cruise for four years?
I guess I’ll have to reread the NPV compact more carefully.
#17
See Article III of the National Popular Vote bill
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.”
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.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php
Sorry, I forgot to include the rest of the comment/quote I was responding to in #6.
“Why is so bad that a third party candidate could win some electoral votes” that “could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.”
Last I looked, Congress had a 9% approval rating by American voters.
Most American voters want to know, that their vote was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it’s wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
#22 A different Jim Riley, but we generally are of superior accomplishment and intelligence.
Sorry – the 1787 top secret Federal Convention had lots of ANTI-Democracy monarch/oligarch robot party hacks —
Result –
3/5 slave person stuff for H.Reps. apportionment – changed by 14th Amdt, Sec. 2
Slavery – blasted out by 13th Amdt (at the cost of about 750,000 DEAD Americans on both sides in the horrific Civil War).
Appointed gerrymander Senate – changed by 17th Amdt.
Defective E.C. – changed by the 12th Amdt.
——–
Democracy NOW —
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NO veto power in any Prez, Guv, Mayor, etc. — causes power-MADNESS in them.
28 –
Right…
#20 Was Robert Kennedy, Jr. involved in the Nader ballot suppression campaign led by his fellow Democrat lawyers Toby Moffat and Elizabeth Holtzman? In Ohio they were able to keep Nader’s name off the ballot, but not the ballot space.
I know that in some areas that used punch card ballots, precinct-based ballot rotation, and multiple small precincts per polling place, that ballots were comingled.
As you may know, punch card ballots aren’t marked with candidate names, but voters use punching templates. You punch next to “Gore” or “Bush” or “Badnarik” on the ballot. Because of ballot rotation, each precinct has a different punching template. If a voter from Precinct 7A votes with a template for 7B, his vote for Gore could be a vote for Badnarik. Or ballots from different precincts may be mingled.
Areas with 90% support for one candidate will be differentially affected. Areas with more precincts per polling place will be differentially affected. Areas where whoever sets up the voting areas is less careful, or less aware of the potential problem with mixing the templates are ballot are differentially affected.
Kennedy’s article cites an Election Assistance Commission study to support a claim of voting machines suppressing 1% of the vote. But the actual report says that 1% presidential dropoff was the lowest since WWII (over 60 years earlier).
#23 The Constitution does not give exclusive authority over congressional elections to the States.
At one time they had considerably more control of who could vote, but that has gradually been reduced.
If there were a real presidential popular vote amendment, Congress would have the same authority with respect to presidential elections as they do with congressional elections. That States could use disparate methods is what prevents a real national popular vote.
31 –
My goodness you edited out quite a bit of RFK Jr.’s article.
Are you a speed reader? Or are you simply allergic to facts?
And thank you for your last paragraph. Another fine example of “logicus interruptus,” a uniquely Republican characteristic.
#26 In 2008, 8 States and the District of Columbia failed to execute their Certificate of Ascertainment before the 9th of December.
Assuming that the Secretary of State of each of the member States of the NPV scheme had their agents camped out in the capitals of the non-member states, all member States would have missed the 9th of December deadline.
In addition, the Certificate of Ascertainment from the State of Oregon is undated. What kind of governor does not date his signatures on official documents?
The Certificate of Ascertainment from the State of Illinois was signed by a Democrat who was later removed from office, and is now in prison, who sought to benefit through a scheme in which his signature on the Certificate of Ascertainment was a critical element.
The National Archive has a note for the Certificate of Ascertainment from the State of Wisconsin that States:
“These images accurately depict Wisconsin’s 2008 Certificate of Ascertainment as submitted to the Archivist of the United States. Questions about the accuracy or completeness of the certificate should be directed to:”
Apparently any State that would have depended on Wisconsin’s Certificate of Ascertainment to determine the national popular vote total would produce an inaccurate or incomplete result.
The Certificate of Ascertainment for the State of Arizona contains no indication of the presidential slates.
#33 You will agree that Democrat lawyers such as Elizabeth Holtzman and Toby Moffat and 100s of others sought to actively suppress the popular vote for Ralph Nader in 2008. They were particularly successful in Ohio.
Robert Kennedy, Jr. lives in New York. His father was senator from New York. He is a lawyer and he surely knows Holtzman, and probably Moffat. Was Kennedy involved in the Nader vote suppression activity?
#10 If we look at the last 100 senate elections, the median margin is over 22.7%. Only 4 presidential elections of the 47 since 1824, have had a larger margin (1920, 1924, 1936, and 1972).
That is, the average, the norm for recent statewide senatorial elections is considered an extreme election.
The Richie-Hellman study is totally discredited.
How many STOLEN FELONY elections in U.S.A. history ???
Only Heaven and Hell (and the Felons involved) know for sure ???
#34
Article III
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php
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.
# 38
See # 1
How many of the usual suspect State regimes will be having children, felons, mentally ill, foreigners, aliens from outer space, dogs, cats, birds, plants, weeds, etc. voting for a Prez/VP ???
— IF the EVIL NPV scheme from Hell somehow takes effect.
#38 What happens if a a member of the compact fails to comply with the provisions of the compact, and thus every other member of the compact is unable to comply with federal law?
And what about 8 States plus the District of Columbia who in 2008 executed their Certificate of Ascertainment after December 9? (possibly 10 because Oregon’s is undated). Does the SOS just google the other SOS website? Check AP?
35 –
I “agree” that there was a coordinated, targeted and multi-faceted effort by Republicans in Ohio to assure that the Ohio EC votes went Bush’s way. You respond to this contention, as usual, with irrelevant bullshit. But you never deny the contention. Instead you pat Ken Blackwell for “increasing voter turnout.”
I “agree” that under the current EC scheme or, even worse, under a scheme that would take EC vote allocation down to the level of the Congressional district, electoral fraud is strongly likely, particularly with the accuracy of model polling science.
Surely you “agree” you really are a Republican tool?
41 – “modern” polling science
#40
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 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.
In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”
In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”
In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”
The important point is that an interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.
Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
Making election returns secret is not within the realm of political possibility in the real world. This far-fetched possibility assumes that there is a state in the country whose legislature, governor, and voters would permit making election returns secret for any reason.
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in a “Certificate of Ascertainment.”
43 –
What happens in the event of a three way popular vote tie?
I’m presuming that’s Jimbo’s next question.
Where is the gerrymander Congress approval of the NPV scheme from Hell ???
What about the mere EQUAL protection clause — i.e. having votes OUTSIDE of a sovereign State determining election results INSIDE such sovereign State ???
Total
A 70,000,000
Z 70,000,001
State of Freedom
A 70,000,000 — who detect that Z is the Anti-Christ.
Z 1 (repeat 1 — Z votes for itself under a rock via absentee ballot)
Will Z get all the Electoral College votes in the State of Freedom ???
——
Abolish the time bomb Electoral College.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
#45
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.
In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states’ action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:
“the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government.”
The Court also noted that the compact did not
“authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence.”
#43 Susan Mvymvy Oldgulph, you’re being obtuse.
In 2008, it was apparently not practicable for the governors of Alabama, Colorado, Ohio, South Dakota, California, Maryland, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and the mayor of the District of Columbia, to complete their Certificate of Ascertainment before the 6th day before the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 9).
We do not know when Oregon’s was signed. And Wisconsin is missing the vote total for at least one candidate.
It may take a day or two for the certificate of ascertainment to be transmitted to the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist is required to preserve a copy for one year, to send two copies to Congress before they count the electoral votes, and to make them available for public inspection. But that may take a day or so.
So how is the Secretary of State of a member State supposed to be able to get the official result from a non-member State, in order that they may complete their ascertainment before the required date for the result to be considered conclusive?
The scheme says:
“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.”
What if there is no **official** statement by 6 days before the first Monday after the second Tuesday in December?
# 46 The NPV scheme from Hell AIN’T an ordinary inter-state compact scheme.
SCOTUS 5 of 9 just might detect the MORON earlier JUNK opinions and over-rule them.
Since when any mere inter-State compact scheme subvert 14th Amdt, Sec. 1.
One more EVIL mess for SCOTUS to take care of — see Bush v. Gore in 2000 — NO uniform definition of a LEGAL vote in the brain dead Florida regime.
Florida morons smashed flat.
Punch card ballot systems wiped out.
Fed HAVA law passed – with the Florida MORONS in mind.
Demo Rep, please learn to type. I can’t understand anything you say on here.
#48
Since when can any mere inter-State compact scheme subvert 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 ???
Too much ANTI-Democracy stuff to keep up with.
47 –
“#43 Susan Mvymvy Oldgulph, you’re being obtuse.”
Worried about someone stealing your brand, Jimbo?
What a tool.
47 –
It’s incredible that we’ve managed to elect presidents under the existing EC scheme since, as you apparently believe, states have kept the results of their elections a secret.
Obtuseness, they name is Jimbo.
#52 Barry,
Susan claims that all the SOS of a compact member needs to do is run down to the National Archives to get the “official and final results” from each of the other 49 States plus the District of Columbia. But in 2008, these “official and final results” were not completed until after the meeting date for the electors (December 15, 2008).
Do these late results get left out of the notional national popular vote?
“Dates Appearing on Certificates of Ascertainment for 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections”
see Appendix J
http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EVE-Appendices-A-V_3rd-ed_web.pdf
Jurisdiction Date for 2008
Alabama December 10, 2008
Alaska December 8, 2008
Arizona December 1, 2008
Arkansas December 4, 2008
California December 15, 2008
Colorado December 11, 2008
Connecticut November 26, 2008
Delaware November 29, 2008
District of Columbia December 10, 2008
Florida November 24, 2008
Georgia December 9, 2008
Hawaii November 24, 2008
Idaho November 19, 2008
Illinois November 30, 2008
Indiana December 8, 2008
Iowa December 9, 2008
Kansas December 3, 2008
Kentucky December 3, 2008
Louisiana November 17, 2008
Maine November 25, 2008
Maryland December 15, 2008
Massachusetts December 9, 2008
Michigan December 1, 2008
Minnesota December 9, 2008
Mississippi December 3, 2008
Missouri December 5, 2008
Montana December 9, 2008
Nebraska December 15, 2008
Nevada December 8, 2008
New Hampshire December 3, 2008
New Jersey December 4, 2008
New Mexico December 7, 2008
New York December 11, 2008
North Carolina December 8, 2008
North Dakota November 28, 2008
Ohio December 11, 2008
Oklahoma December 15, 2008
Oregon No date
Pennsylvania December 8, 2008
Rhode Island November 24, 2008
South Carolina November 20, 2008
South Dakota November 13, 2008
Tennessee December 8, 2008
Texas November 19, 2008
Utah November 24, 2008
Vermont December 3, 2008
Virginia November 25, 2008
Washington December 4, 2008
West Virginia December 16, 2008
Wisconsin December 6, 2008
Wyoming November 12, 2008
53 –
Clearly your dream has come true…Obama wasn’t elected our president!
And I do agree that you that a three way tie in the popular vote presents some nettlesome problems with the NPV plan.
But let’s get to the important question – who is this “other” Jim Riley who is a professor of political science at Regis Univ. and apparently not only shares your name, but also your exact views on the NPV plan…but yet is not you?
Does he live in your house, too? When he cuts himself shaving, do you bleed, Jimbo?
#54
Jurisdiction Date for 2008
Alabama December 10, 2008
California December 15, 2008
Colorado December 11, 2008
District of Columbia December 10, 2008
Maryland December 15, 2008
New York December 11, 2008
Ohio December 11, 2008
Oklahoma December 15, 2008
West Virginia December 16, 2008
For a State’s determination of its electors to be considered conclusive by Congress, it must be made before the 6th day before the day the electors meet (Monday after 2nd Wednesday in December, which was December 15, 2008).
So if you were the Secretary of State of Panacea you would not have been able to include the vote totals from Alabama, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, or West Virginia, if you wished to make an ascertainment (final and definitive legal determination) by the deadline in federal statute.
BTW, you have the wrong date for Nebraska. The Certificate of Ascertainment was December 8, 2008 (it notes that the electors would meet on December 15). Oregon’s certificate was on time. When they switched to computer-generated version in 2000, they left off the date.
#55 Barry, here’s a little something I wrote and recorded about the days before the November election,
http://digitallibrary.imcpl.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/riley&CISOPTR=1&CISOBOX=1&REC=17
57 –
Heh.
Well, Jimbo, you’re certainly known for posting fiction in this space, but I’m pretty sure it’s never been written in iambic pentameter. Plus, that Jim Riley has been dead for some time and could not have written the article on the NPV scheme for the Denver Post, that you…er, oh, sorry…the “other” Jim Riley did.
I am in favor of nationwide elections for prez. However, I have also noted the NPVIC’s ” date problem ” that Jim refers to. Contrary to him, I’d like to see this problem answered and that the compact succeeds, because it is the only possible way for America to achieve a nationwide and inclusive election.
47 –
Ahhh…the defective Wisonsin cert. of ascertainment.
I see what you mean. They don’t list the number of popular votes received for the candidates put up for election by the Socialist Party USA. Well, does THAT screw the pooch, or what.
But it’s funny…if you listen to your Republican friends, the socialist candidate actually DID win the presidency.
How on earth could this have happened, Jimbo, without all those popular votes for the socialist candidates in Wisconsin, that breeding ground of socialists?
#58
Barry,
I have been confused with the Jim Riley from Indiana – but since that was by someone in a nursing home they may have been suffering from dementia.
You are the first person to confuse me with the Jim Riley from Regis. Whether you have lost your faculties would depend on whether you had any in the first place.
BTW, Texas permits voters who are not on earth to vote. Maybe you should switch your registration.
#60 The Secretary of State of Wisconsin was defeated badly in the recent recall primary (3% and 4th place).
Wisconsinians probably were embarrassed by the 2008 Certificate of Ascertainment, and thought if he can’t even run an election, how could he run a State.
#59 The States should start with something manageable, such as coordinating the nomination process.
They could form a real compact that has an actual administration and coordination of the primaries.
62 – Were Wisconsin voters embarrassed because Wisconsin’s electoral votes weren’t counted as a result of the SOS’s egregious error?
I missed that item in the news.
Sometimes you bring to mind the movie “The Enemy Below.” In that movie the submarine commander jettisons every bit of useless trash his crew can scrape up in an effort to convince the enemy “above” that they’d been sunk. Such are your frivolous and specious arguments against NPV.
Oh…say “hi” to the “other” Jim Riley for us the next time he comes to visit you at the nursing home, wouldja?
Thanks, Jimbo.
59 –
NPV and other improvements to our system of nominating candidates, registering voters, counting votes, managing recalls…and any and all other aspects of the means by which we elect a president…are not mutually exclusive – despite what you might hear from “either” of the the demented, Republican tool doppelgangers named Jim Riley.
I actually would have preferred a much heavier approach: the NPVIC could have been that all participating states would agree to count and report the votes in a standardized way but only in participating states. Thus, the 270 EVs would be decided by votes in participating states only. As soon as the compact reached 270 EVs, these states would decide the outcome of the election. At that instant, all other states would be forced to join the compact (including standardized vote count reports) if they wanted to have a say in the election.
66 –
Sorry – I don’t understand this. Do you mean that the members of the compact would award all of their EC votes to the slate which received the most popular votes in ONLY the states which are members of the compact?
I would not support such a plan, now would, I’m sure, any other states which have joined the NPV compact to date. The objective of the NPV plan is, after all, to ensure that the slate which wins the most popular votes NATIONWIDE wins the election.
I know the construction of the present compact. The advantage with the approach that I suggested is that it the vote counts in the states could have been standardized (through the text of the compact) because all states would have been forced to adopt such a compact as soon as it reached the 270 threshold (at least if they wanted their citizens to decide presidential elections). However, I guess such an approach would have been considered (rightly?) an attack on non-participating states’ rights.
It’s more like creating a huge, decisive chunk of EVs which every state would be allowed to join as long as they adhered to voting and counting and reporting as described in the law