Who’s pushing the National Popular Vote Scheme?

Most conservatives would simply answer “democrats” and leave it at that.

But rather than just dismiss the concept as being a dream of the liberal left, it might be viewed more cautiously if we knew who was behind the scenes, pushing states’ legislatures to approve it, and how successful they’ve been.

For those unfamiliar with the National Popular Vote (NPV) scheme, here’s a CliffsNotes version (from the FairVote.org website):

The purpose of NPV is to guarantee the election of the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It creates an agreement among states to award all of their electoral votes collectively to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote once the participating states together hold a majority (currently 270 of 538) of electoral votes.

Let’s do a brief flashback to why the founders created the Electoral College.

The founders were leery of direct election of the president. One thing that they were concerned about was what James Madison called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who, in common interest, could violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole if that faction grew to encompass more than 50 percent of the population.

And Alexander Hamilton wrote that “the Constitution is designed to ensure ‘that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.’” Unfortunately, the founders failed us on that last one. Barack Obama is the poster boy for NOT having “in eminent degree the requisite qualifications.”

Thus, they created the Electoral College specifically to avoid direct a popular vote. They substituted what they thought was a more prudent method of electing a president. They expected that each state would select electors who would then meet 41 days after the election and the electors would cast ballots for the president and vice president.

So why are some now pushing for a direct popular vote?

In 2001, after George Bush won the presidency, though not the popular vote, law professors (and brothers) Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar proposed that a group of states, through legislation, form a compact wherein they agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of the balance of votes in their own state. These state laws would only be triggered once the compact included enough states to control a majority of the electoral college (270 votes), thus guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner would also win the Electoral College.

That’s apparently where the most recent version of the National Popular Vote movement got its start.

On its surface, a president elected by a majority of votes nationally sounds simple and logical – what’s not to like? But there are pitfalls. For example and the reason that democrats are in favor of it, is that it tilts the playing field towards the most populist cities which, for the most part, vote democrat. Like Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. In fact, the Amar brothers noted that as few as eleven states could elect a president.

Essentially, the NPV removes the state’s role in a presidential election.

2050 Map Megaregions 2008

Under the NPV, the most populous areas will determine the winner of the popular vote, and therefore, the election.

For example, let’s look at the states/jurisdictions that have already signed up: Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, Vermont, California, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia. And in April, 2014, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the National Popular Vote (NPV) bill, adding New York to the total.

Note that the states are all heavily blue states. With passage of the New York bill, the interstate compact now has 61 percent (165 votes) of the electoral votes needed to go into effect.

Although it’s not a settled legal fact, proponents maintain that it doesn’t require any action by Congress. Here’s what they say: NPV is predicated on their interpretation of two powers reserved for the states in the U.S. Constitution: 1) states may decide how to apportion their electoral votes, and 2) they may enter into binding interstate contracts.

It remains to be seen whether this attempt to overturn the current Electoral College practices through the exploitation of a possible legal loophole will pass muster should it go before the Supreme Court.

Some say that the interstate compact is, in fact, an end-run around the constitutional amendment process since Article 1, Section 10 states that: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.”

Unfortunately, it may take an election decided via the interstate compact before the Supreme Court will hear the case.

Once the accumulation of states representing 270 electoral votes (of the 538 total in the Electoral College) have signed the interstate compact (NPV), it becomes binding on them and they must award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, thereby neutering the non-NPV state’s role in electing a president. Proponents say that it is not necessary to submit the compact to Congress for approval, while opponents disagree.

A state that has signed the compact may withdraw, but not within the six months leading up to an election. Any withdrawal within that six-month period won’t be in effect until the following election.

Conservatives have good reason to be suspicious of any proposal that is heavily supported by liberals.

The NPV is run by individuals with a history of support for the democrat party and is fully partnered with a George Soros-funded election group, FairVote. FairVote is a project of the Soros-funded Center for Voting and Democracy that advocates for a national popular vote for president. It is funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute.

The Center for Voting and Democracy was started with a grant from the Joyce Foundation, a nonprofit on whose board president Obama was serving at the time of the grant.

And, as the cherry on top, the editorial boards of the New York Times and Los Angeles Times have also come out in support of the NPV compact.

I’ll say it again: conservatives have good reason to be suspicious of any proposal that is heavily supported by liberals, George Soros, and Obama.

Disadvantages of the Electoral College

Critics say that the system is undemocratic because the number of electoral votes is not directly proportional to the population of the state. This gives smaller states a disproportionate influence in presidential elections. For example, Hawaii has a population of only 1.36 million but has 4 electoral votes while Oregon has a population 3 times that size (3.8 million) but only 7 electoral votes.

Another criticism is that the electoral vote system does not penalize a state for low voter turnout or for disenfranchising its citizens (such as preventing convicted felons from voting). The state gets the same number of votes regardless of whether voter turnout is 40% or 60%.

In a popular vote, states with higher turnout will directly increase their influence in the outcome of the presidential race and states with lax voter requirements stand to produce more voters and increase their influence.

Yet another criticism is that it discourages voters in states where one party holds a substantial majority, i.e. Republicans in blue states like California or Democrats in red states like Texas. Since electoral votes are awarded on a winner-take-all basis, even a significant minority of contrarian votes will not make any impact on the outcome of the election. On the other hand, if a popular vote were to be used then every single vote has an impact.

Advantages of the Electoral Vote over a Popular Vote

Supporters of using the electoral vote argue that it protects the rights of smaller states and is a cornerstone of American federalism. States can design their own mechanism – without federal involvement – for choosing their electors.

Another advantage is that the impact of any state-level problems, such as fraud, is localized. No political party can commit large-scale fraud in any one state to dramatically influence an election.

Pros and Cons

Here are a few links for those who may want to investigate further the pros and cons of deciding a presidential election via the NPV:

For the pro-NPV viewpoint, here is the FAQ section from their website.

Why the NPV Interstate Compact won’t work – Michigan Law Review.

The Wikipedia write-up on the NPV also has some pros and cons.

Some opponents of the NPV have based their position at least in part on a perceived partisan advantage of the compact, arguing that the compact would be an “urban power grab” and benefit Democrats.

However, others feel that Republicans “need” the compact, citing what they believe to be the center-right nature of the American electorate.

In the last four presidential elections, only the 2000 election was an exception where Gore had the most popular votes, but lost the electoral votes to Bush. If the NPV had been in effect at that time, Gore would have won the presidency. In 2004, 2008, and 2012, the candidate winning the electoral vote also won the popular vote and the NPV wouldn’t have changed the outcome.

~~~

Frankly, I’m a little torn on this issue. If I thought our voting population was made up of thoughtful, informed citizens, I could accept a popular vote – it is simple and clean and I’m a big proponent of the KISS method.

But, when millions of voters know nothing about a candidate except the color of his skin, I feel shortchanged that my carefully researched and considered vote is cancelled out by a vote bought by the promise of a free cell phone – it just ain’t fair.

And if I also consider who is FOR the NPV compact, I simply have to be against it. Many of the proponents are (in my opinion) untrustworthy and dishonest and I don’t want to do anything that furthers their agenda.

What are your thoughts?



Categories: Political

13 replies

  1. Dear Pesky Truth:

    You are against NPV because most voters are uninformed, but that is true under the current system. Hardly a reason to be against NPV. Also, we should not be surprised when the current system of the electoral college matches the popular vote. Naturally, NPV need not be concerned about these situations. It is exactly because the candidate who lost the popular vote can still win the election that NPV is needed. Many establishment republicans are against NPV because the “southern strategy” cannot work under NPV. The republicans would be required to move to the center as an entire party and not only the occasional candidate to try to win the majority popular vote. If you are a conservative, you would support NPV because, in the long run, it is necessary to save the republican party from its extremism. Thank you.

    Like

    • Thanks Alan, for your comment. As you might expect, I disagree with you on several points. You make note of the Republican Party’s “extremism” at the end – wow? If there is any extremism evident in today’s political climate, it is that of the “progressives.” Extremism as compared to what? Obama has/is bringing the country to its collective knees. Over $17 TRILLION dollars in national debt, half of the country is on some form of entitlement, jobs have dried up and there isn’t a fix in sight? And you want to place these (and many others) at the feet of the Republican Party for its “extremism”? If the NPV vote becomes law, the largest metro areas of the country will elect the POTUS, that is a given. And who makes up the bulk of the urban areas of our U.S.? Democrats. That, in a nutshell, is why I’m against the NPV – and why the founders were against popular vote as well.

      Like

      • I guess we will agree to disagree. I don’t think big cities will dominate if the national popular vote happens. John Kerry won the five biggest cities in Ohio, but still lost the state. While it is true that many big cities tend to vote democratic, many suburbs and surrounding areas tend to vote republican. The 50 largest cities account for about 15% of the population, or about 85% of the population live in cities and towns with populations less than about 375,000 (Arlington, TX). With respect to half the country on entitlement, when Bush (and Reagan did the same thing) changed the tax law to take more than 5 million people off the tax rolls was that a good thing or a bad thing? I discuss the “47%” issue a little bit on my blog, The Examined Life, in my post “Thinking – It’s A Great Idea” (the post analyzes certain commercial and political statements). Again, thanks for taking time to write your original piece (I cited to it in another post of mine) and for taking time to respond. Have a great week.

        Like

      • Right Alan. Thanks for your comments and for an honest debate. I too have looked at the number of votes (not just population) that are resident in the big cities and I am very sensitive to that situation. For example, I live in Plano, TX which is the 5th most conservative city (over 100,000 pop.) in the country, but here in Texas, we are still in danger of Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio overwhelming our otherwise conservative state. If everyone voted, I wouldn’t be so concerned, but what the dems GOTV activities in the cities I worry that the NPV will give an edge to what I call the “inert” class of voter who neither knows nor cares about the qualifications or political direction of a candidate – as long as he/she is pushed by the party activists.

        I’ve been busy over the weekend and haven’t yet made it to your blog, but I promise that I will visit today or tomorrow. It’s always good conversing with someone else who actually “thinks.”

        Like

      • I hope you enjoy my blog and the various posts (close to 50 by now). I try to be respectful although there are times that my frustration may show. My posts discuss political, philosophical, and religious topics and I do my best to set forth a rational basis for my (liberal?) positions. My most recent posts discuss legalization of drugs and Scalia’s decision in the *Heller* 2nd Amendment case. You may find interesting my two-part critique of current conservatism (and where I think it has gone wrong from classic conservatism).

        I think you would have liked my late brother-in-law who recently passed. One of my posts is a tribute to him.

        Regards, Alan​

        Alan S. Acker Carlile Patchen & Murphy 366 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215 Cell: 614-581-3845

        The Examined Life, at alansacker.blogspot.com

        Like

      • Actually Alan, I just found your blog. After scanning a couple of your posts, there is a lot there that we can debate! It’s obvious that you are speaking from the heart and honestly believe what you say. I’ve much on my plate today, but will try to spend some time there to digest your writings. The Benghazi is one of the topics that we can debate. I like what you’ve written and I believe that you’re truly examining things that matter today. I will be back and will comment on your blog as soon as I can.
        With respect,
        Emile (Garnet92)

        Like

  2. “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.

    Like

  3. With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation’s votes!

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

    Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

    National Popular Vote is not direct popular vote.

    When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

    With National Popular Vote states, without federal involvement, preserve state control of elections. The enacting states change the way their electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

    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. National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

    The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
    The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

    During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later 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, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 24 of the 27 smallest states are ignored. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That’s more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans.

    Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

    Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

    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).

    Like

  4. The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing 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 or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. 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.

    The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

    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 system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

    Like

  5. In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

    The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressman John Buchanan (R–Alabama), and former Senators David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).

    Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)

    Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee,

    The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson,

    Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State

    Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:”A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.”

    Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote” include:

    Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

    James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

    Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

    Dean Murray was a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

    Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

    Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls

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

    Alaska (3) — 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters
    Arkansas (6) — 71% (R), 79% (Independents).
    California (55) – 61% (R), 74% (I)
    Colorado (9) — 56% (R), 70% (I).
    Connecticut (7) — 67% (R)
    Delaware (3) — 69% (R), 76% (I)
    DC (3) — 48% (R), 74% of (I)
    Florida (29) — 68% (R)
    Idaho(4) – 75% (R)
    Iowa (6) — 63% (R)
    Kentucky (8) — 71% (R), 70% (I)
    Maine (4) – 70% (R)
    Massachusetts (11) — 54% (R)
    Michigan (16) — 68% (R), 73% (I)
    Minnesota (10) — 69% (R)
    Montana (3)- 67% (R)
    Mississippi (6) — 75% (R)
    Nebraska (5) — 70% (R)
    Nevada (5) — 66% (R)
    New Hampshire (4) — 57% (R), 69% (I)
    New Mexico (5) — 64% (R), 68% (I)
    New York (29) – 66% (R), 78% Independence, 50% Conservative
    North Carolina (15) — 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), 80% (I)
    Ohio (18) — 65% (R)
    Oklahoma (7) — 75% (R)
    Oregon (7) — 70% (R), 72% (I)
    Pennsylvania (20) — 68% (R), 76% (I)
    Rhode Island (4) — 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), 78% (I),
    South Carolina (8) — 64% (R)
    South Dakota (3) — 67% (R)
    Tennessee (11) — 73% (R)
    Utah (6) — 66% (R)
    Vermont (3) — 61% (R)
    Virginia (13) — 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 54% conservative (R)
    Washington (12) — 65% (R)
    West Virginia (5) — 75% (R)
    Wisconsin (10) — 63% (R), 67% (I)
    Wyoming (3) –66% (R), 72% (I)

    On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28–18 margin.
    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

    NationalPopularVote

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Leftists Eating Their Own Over “National Popular Vote” – Novus Vero
  2. Leftists Eating Their Own Over “National Popular Vote” - Telzilla
  3. Leftists Eating Their Own Over “National Popular Vote

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: