Jump to content

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cms479 (talk | contribs) at 16:14, 14 January 2008 (→2008). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Current status of NPVIC legislation:

Passed into law:
  (2)

Pending in current session:
  passed in both houses (2)
  passed in one house (2)
  introduced (15)

Did not pass in current session:
  passed in both houses (1)
  passed in one house (0)
  introduced (0)

Not introduced in current session:
  (29 + DC)

State shapes have been adjusted in the second map so that their sizes represent electoral strength.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a proposed agreement between states in the U.S. dealing with their allocation of electoral votes in the United States Electoral College. This interstate compact, if enacted by enough states, would effectively shift the method of election of the President of the United States to a national popular vote system.

The compact is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state the right to decide how to allocate its own electoral votes. States have chosen various methods of allocation over the years, although today almost every state awards its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes statewide.

By terms of the compact, states agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, not the winner in their own state. The compact would only go into effect once it was joined by states representing a controlling majority of the electoral college (currently 270 votes). With a majority of electoral votes pledged to the winner of the national popular vote, he or she would automatically win the electoral college and therefore the presidency.

Reasons for change

Surveys suggest that most Americans support the idea of a popular vote for president. A 2007 poll found that 72% favored replacing the Electoral College with a direct election, including 78% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans, and 73% of independent voters. [1] Polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a popular vote,[2] for the following reasons:

  • Critics claim that the Electoral College encourages campaigns to cater to voters in a few pivotal swing states, while sidelining the rest of the country. A report by FairVote, a voting rights organization, claimed that the 2004 candidates devoted three quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states, while the other 45 states got very little attention. The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV advertising.[3] Many observers believe that as a result swing state issues receive a great deal of attention while issues important to other states are largely ignored.[4][5][6]
  • The Electoral College may also hurt voter turnout. Most voters living outside the swing states know well in advance who is likely to win their state, which some have argued may decrease their incentive to go to the polls and vote. [7][8][9]
  • There is debate over whether the Electoral College favors small states or large states. Many argue that it favors small states, pointing out that such states have more electoral votes relative to their populations. [10][11] Some scholars, however, believe that the potential of large states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more actual clout.[12][13][14]
  • The Electoral College's most visible drawback may be the fact that it sometimes enables the loser of the popular vote to win the presidency, as happened in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. This scenario can hurt both major parties. In 2000, Al Gore lost the election despite winning the popular vote. Four years later George W. Bush would have suffered the same fate himself, if John Kerry had received 60,000 more votes in Ohio.[15]

Text of the proposed legislation

If signed into law within a state or the District of Columbia, the state becomes a member of the agreement. Members are required to ensure elections for President and Vice President occur within the that member state. Before the formal voting of presidential electors within the member state, the chief election official within each member state is required to certify a "National Popular Vote Total" for each presidential slate, and the member state shall certify the appointment of the national winning slate's nominated electors. Member states are required to communicate to the chief election official within the other member states at least six days prior of formal electoral voting within the member state.

The legislation addresses the event of an extremely unlikely, yet conceivably possible scenario where a slate fails to gain a plurality in the National Popular Vote Total. In this event, the member state would appoint the nominated electors of the slate that received the most votes within the state, returning to the "winner-take-all" system for that presidential election. The legislation also addresses that if a national winning slate has nominated less than or greater electors than the member state's total electoral votes, the slate's presidential candidate has the power to nominate the electors, and the member state's elector certifying official must certify the appointment of the candidate's nominees.

The last date within the year of a presidential election that a state could ratify the treaty to affect the presidential and vice presidential election of that year is July 20th, and the rules of the agreement will not go into effect until member states total a majority of the United States electoral college. July 20th is also the last date a member state can withdraw its membership from the agreement. In the event of joining or withdrawing from the agreement, the member state's chief executive (the state governor or the mayor of the District of Columbia) must notify all other member states when the change in membership occurred.

Lastly, the agreement would terminate in the event of the abolishment of the Electoral College in the scenario where the United States Constitution is amended. If any provision of the agreement is held invalid, remaining provisions shall not be affected.

History of the compact

The idea of abolishing the Electoral College by constitutional amendment has existed for some time (see Every Vote Counts Amendment). However, constitutional amendments are very difficult to pass because they require supermajorities in the House and Senate together with the support of three-fourths of the state legislatures.

The idea of an interstate compact based on Article II as an easier way to bring about a popular vote was first proposed in 2001 by brothers and law professors Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar. Unlike a constitutional amendment, the compact needs no Congressional approval and could theoretically come into force with as few as eleven member states. The plan drew much wider national attention in 2006 when it was endorsed and publicized by the non-profit group National Popular Vote. National Popular Vote's advisory committee consists in part of former US Senators and Representatives from both major parties, including former Senators Jake Garn, Birch Bayh, and David Durenberger, and former Representatives John Anderson, John Buchanan, and Tom Campbell.

2006

In 2006, NPVIC legislation was introduced in six state legislatures. It passed in the Colorado Senate, as well as both houses of the California legislature before being vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The book Every Vote Equal was published by Yale University Press.

2007

The following year, NPVIC legislation was introduced in 42 state legislatures. Maryland became the first state to actually join the compact when Governor Martin O'Malley signed it into law on April 10. [16]

2008

Two virtually identical measures titled "Presidential Electors. Allocation by National Popular Vote. Interstate Agreement. Statute." are attempting to qualify as California ballot propositions [17]. Organizers also hope to pass the bill in Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and West Virginia in 2008.[18] Also, the Illinois House of Representatives passed HB 1685, sending the bill to Governor Blagojevich's desk for his signature. Lastly, New Jersey governor Jon S. Corzine signed the bill into law.[19]

Year by year status maps

NPVIC legislation in 2006 NPVIC legislation in 2007 NPVIC legislation in 2008
Passed into law:
  

Pending currently:

  passed in both houses
  passed in one house
  introduced

Did not pass:

  passed in both houses
  passed in one house
  introduced

Not introduced:

  
 File:NPV2007.png
Participating states 0 1 (MD) 2 (MD, NJ)
Electoral votes 0 (of 270 needed) 10 (of 270 needed) 25 (of 270 needed)

Support and criticism

The project has been endorsed by several newspapers, including the New York Times,[20] the Chicago Sun-Times,[21] the Los Angeles Times[22][23] and the Minneapolis Star Tribune[24][25] arguing that the existing system discourages voter turnout and leaves emphasis on only a few states and a few issues, while a popular election would equalize voting power. Others have argued against it, including the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.[26] An article by Pete du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal[27] has called the project an urban power grab that would shift politics entirely to urban issues in high population states and allow lower caliber candidates to run.

Some of the major criticisms are detailed below:

Small states and rural areas

Criticism:

Direct election of presidents would lead to geographically narrower campaigns, for election efforts would be largely urban. ... Rural states like Maine, with its 740,000 votes in 2004, wouldn't matter much compared with New York's 7.4 million or California's 12.4 million votes. Rural states' issues wouldn't matter much either; big-city populations and urban issues would become the focus of presidential campaigns. America would be holding urban elections, and that would change the character of campaigns and presidents. --- Pete du Pont[28]

Response:

Twelve of the 13 smallest states are almost totally ignored in presidential elections because they are politically non-competitive. ... Although it is sometimes conjectured that a national popular election would focus only on big cities, it is clear that this would not be the case. Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run can be found by examining the way presidential candidates currently campaign inside battleground states. Inside Ohio or Florida, the big cities do not receive all the attention, and they certainly do not control the outcome. Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. --- NPV Memo[29]

Close elections and voter fraud

Criticism:

In any direct national election there would be significant election-fraud concerns. In the 2000 Bush-Gore race, Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country's 175,000 precincts. "Finding" three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing... --- Pete du Pont[30]

Response:

Nationwide election of the President would reduce the possibility of close elections and recounts. The current system regularly manufactures artificial crises even when the nationwide popular vote is not particularly close. ... With a single massive pool of 122,000,000 votes, there is less opportunity for a close outcome or recount (and less incentive for fraud) than with 51 separate smaller pools, where a few hundred popular votes can decide the Presidency. --- NPV Memo[31]

Nature of elections

Criticism:

Direct election would lead to a multicandidate, multiparty system instead of the two-party system we have. Many candidates would run on narrow issues: anti-immigration, pro-gun, environment, national security, antiwar, socialist ... For such candidates to run under the present system is very difficult, for they have to win state by state electoral votes. But if all you need is national fame and fortune to win popular votes, many candidates would run and presidential campaigns would become unfocused, confused... --- Pete du Pont[32]

Response:

[Direct election is how] the people of all fifty states plus the District of Columbia ... elect their governors, mayors, senators, and congressmen. --- Hendrik Hertzberg[33]

Electoral votes awarded to national winner, not state winner

Criticism:

I cannot support ... giving all our electoral votes to the candidate that a majority of Californians did not support. --- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger[34]

Hawaii's electoral votes would be awarded in a manner that may not reflect the will of the majority of the voters in Hawaii. --- Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle[35]

Response:

[This argument] appears to miss the main point of the popular vote bill. That is, the bill aims to render the electoral college system irrelevant. Casting the electoral college votes to the popular winner would be a symbolic gesture only, a nod to an antiquated system. The popular vote would determine the winner, the electoral college votes would follow... --- Todd Shelly[36]

State by state status

EV = Number of electoral votes

State EV Year Bill(s) Lower house Upper house Governor Status
Alabama 9 2007 HB 192 introduced[37] — — not voted on
Alaska 3 2007–08 SB 138 — introduced[38] — pending
Arizona 10 2007 HB 2297, SB 1451 introduced[39] introduced[40] — not voted on
Arkansas 6 2007 HB 1703 passed[41] introduced[42] — not voted on
California 55 2006 AB 2948 passed[43] passed[43] vetoed[43] failed[43]
2007–08 SB 37 — (decision in 2008)[44] passed[41] — pending
Colorado 9 2006 SB 06-223 — passed — not voted on
2007 SB 07-046 failed[45] passed[41] — failed
Connecticut 7 2007 HB 6000, SB 42 introduced[41] introduced[46] — not voted on
Delaware 3 — none[47] — — — no bill introduced
District of Columbia 3 — none
(congressional legislation) 		— — — no bill introduced
Florida 27 2007 SB 2568 — introduced[48] — not voted on
Georgia 15 2007–08 HB 630 introduced[49] — — pending
Hawaii 4 2007–08 HB 234, SB 1956 passed[41] passed[41] vetoed[50] failed[51]
did not override veto[51] overrode veto[50]
Idaho 4 — none[52] — — — no bill introduced
Illinois 21 2006 HB 5777, SB 2724 introduced[53] introduced[54] — not voted on
2007–08[55] HB 858, HB 1685,

SB 78

passed[41] passed[41] pending[41] pending
Indiana 11 2007 HB 1807 introduced[56] — — not voted on
Iowa 7 2007–08 HSB 147, SSB 1103 introduced[57] introduced[58] — pending
Kansas 6 2007–08 SB 150 — introduced[59] — pending
Kentucky 8 2007 HB 550 introduced[60] — — not voted on
Louisiana 9 2006 HB 927 introduced[61] — — not voted on
Maine 4 2007–08 LD 1744 introduced[41] — — pending
Maryland 10 2007 HB 148, SB 634 passed[41] passed[41] signed[41] passed[41]
Massachusetts 12 2007–08 HB 710, SB 452 passed committee[41] passed committee[62][41] — pending
Michigan 17 — none — — — no bill introduced
Minnesota 10 — none[63] — — — no bill introduced
Mississippi 6 2007 SB 2284 — introduced[64] — not voted on
Missouri 11 2006 HB 2090 introduced[65] — — not voted on
2007 HB 289 introduced[41] — — not voted on
Montana 3 2007 SB 290 — failed[66] — failed[66]
Nebraska 5 — none[67] — — no bill introduced
Nevada 5 2007 AB 384 introduced[68] — — not voted on
New Hampshire 4 — none[69] — — — no bill introduced
New Jersey 15 2006–07 A 4225, S 2695 passed[41][70] passed[71] signed[19] passed[19]
New Mexico 5 2007 SB 666 — introduced[72] — not voted on
New York 31 2006 A11563 introduced[73] — — not voted on
2007–08 A03883 introduced[41] — — pending
North Carolina 15 2007–08 H1645, S954 introduced[74] passed[41] — pending
North Dakota 3 2007 HB 1336 failed[66] — — failed[66]
Ohio 20 — bill in drafting[75] — — — no bill introduced
Oklahoma 7 2007–08 HB 1466 introduced[76] — — pending
Oregon 7 2007 HB 3325 introduced[77] — — not voted on
Pennsylvania 21 2007–08 HB 1028 introduced[41] — — pending
Rhode Island 4 2007–08 S 0201 — introduced[41] — pending
South Carolina 8 2007–08 H 4201 introduced[78] — — pending
South Dakota 3 2007 HB 1295 introduced[79] — — not voted on
Tennessee 11 2007–08 HB 841, SB 811 introduced[80] introduced[81] — pending
Texas 34 2007 HB 3566, SB 520 introduced[82] introduced[83] — not voted on
Utah 5 2007 HB 346 introduced[84] — — not voted on
Vermont 3 2007–08 H 373 introduced[41] — — pending
Virginia 13 2006–07 HB 2742, SB 864 introduced[85] introduced[86] — not voted on
Washington 11 2007–08 HB 1750, SB 5628 introduced[87] introduced[88] — pending
West Virginia 5 2007 HB 3247, SB 482 introduced[89] introduced[90] — not voted on
Wisconsin 10 2007–08 AB 313 introduced[41] — — pending
Wyoming 3 2007 HB 190 introduced[91] — — not voted on

Notes

  1. ^ Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation-Harvard University Survey of Political Independents, conducted May-June 2007
  2. ^ Gallup: Americans Have Historically Favored Changing Way Presidents are Elected
  3. ^ "Who Picks the President?"
  4. ^ New York Times editorial, March 14, 2006
  5. ^ Denver Post editorial, April 9, 2007
  6. ^ Abstract at: American Politics Research, 2005, 33: 700-725, David Hill and Seth C. McKee, The Electoral College, Mobilization, and Turnout in the 2000 Presidential Election
  7. ^ New York Times editorial, March 14, 2006
  8. ^ Chicago Sun-Times editorial, March 1, 2006
  9. ^ Hill and McKee, above
  10. ^ David Broder, on PBS Online News Hour's Campaign Countdown, Nov 6, 2000
  11. ^ Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial
  12. ^ Slate.com: Faithless Elector Watch: Gimme "Equal Protection" Timothy Noah, Dec. 13, 2000
  13. ^ http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300080360 Lawrence D. Longley and Neal Peirce, Electoral College Primer 2000, Yale University Press, 1999
  14. ^ http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/?view=usa&ci=9780195307511 Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution, Oxford University Press, 2006
  15. ^ New York Times editorial
  16. ^ AP: Maryland sidesteps electoral college
  17. ^ Initiative Update
  18. ^ http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/popular-vote-plan-nears-crucial-period-2007-12-19.html
  19. ^ a b c http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080114/ap_on_re_us/popular_vote
  20. ^ New York Times endorsement
  21. ^ Chicago Sun-Times endorsement
  22. ^ Los Angeles Times endorsement
  23. ^ [1]Jamin Raskin, Deformed Reform, Slate.com, references the LA Times endorsement
  24. ^ Minneapolis Star Tribune endorsement
  25. ^ [2]Jamin Raskin, Deformed Reform, Slate.com, references the Star-Tribune endorsement
  26. ^ Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial
  27. ^ Wall Street Journal article
  28. ^ Wall Street Journal article
  29. ^ NPV Memo
  30. ^ Wall Street Journal article
  31. ^ NPV Memo
  32. ^ Wall Street Journal article
  33. ^ New Yorker column
  34. ^ SB-37, quoted on page 8
  35. ^ Honolulu Star-Bulletin
  36. ^ Hawaii Reporter piece
  37. ^ http://alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/SESSBillsStatusResults.asp?BillNumber=hb192
  38. ^ http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill.asp?session=25&bill=sb+138&submit=Display+Bill+Root
  39. ^ http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/48leg/1r/bills/hb2297o.asp
  40. ^ http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/48leg/1r/bills/sb1451o.asp
  41. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x National Popular Vote
  42. ^ http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/data/Senate_Journal/2007/DAY114.pdf
  43. ^ a b c d Official California Legislative Information accessed Jan 28, 2007, 10:17PM
  44. ^ http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/08/31/california-national-popular-vote-bill-postponed-until-2008/
  45. ^ http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5403583,00.html
  46. ^ http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/FC/2007SB-00042-R000484-FC.htm
  47. ^ http://www.statescape.com/resources/sessions/sessionsnew.asp
  48. ^ http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Mode=Bills&SubMenu=1&Year=2007&billnum=2568
  49. ^ http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/sum/hb630.htm
  50. ^ a b http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/03/hawaii-legislature-will-decide-on-national-popular-vote-plan-in-july/
  51. ^ a b http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/07/06/national-popular-vote-bill-cannot-be-enacted-this-year-in-hawaii/
  52. ^ http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2007/sessiondates.htm
  53. ^ http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=5777&GAID=8&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=25606&SessionID=50&GA=94
  54. ^ http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2724&GAID=8&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=23676&SessionID=50&GA=94
  55. ^ http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/11/30/illinois-legislature-adjourns-for-the-year-without-passing-national-popular-vote-bill/#comments
  56. ^ http://www.in.gov/legislative/pdf/2007_SESSION_SHT.pdf
  57. ^ http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=BillInfo&Service=DspHistory&key=0147H&GA=82
  58. ^ http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=BillInfo&Service=DspHistory&key=1103S&GA=82
  59. ^ http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-billtrack/searchBills.do;jsessionid=2D2E1463CB9726F2EA422E52330DFE6A
  60. ^ http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/07RS/fp_inho.htm
  61. ^ http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/History.asp?sessionid=06RS&billid=HB927
  62. ^ http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/10/09/national-popular-vote-bill-advances-in-massachusetts/
  63. ^ http://www.leg.state.mn.us/
  64. ^ http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2007/HTML/history/SB/SB2284.htm
  65. ^ http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/action/aHB2090.htm
  66. ^ a b c d Wetzel, Dale (2007-02-08). "Popular vote plan dies in N.D., Mont". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved 2007-02-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=, |2=, |3=, |4=, |5=, |6=, and |7= (help)
  67. ^ http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/web/public/home
  68. ^ https://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/subscriber/
  69. ^ http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/SessionDeadlines2007?OpenPage
  70. ^ http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/12/13/new-jersey-assembly-passes-national-popular-vote-plan/
  71. ^ http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/S3000/2695_S1.PDF
  72. ^ http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/_session.asp?chamber=S&type=++&number=666&Submit=Search&year=07
  73. ^ http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A11563
  74. ^ http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=h1645
  75. ^ http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=OH
  76. ^ http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2007-08bills/HB/scr41_hflr.rtf
  77. ^ http://www.leg.state.or.us/
  78. ^ http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/4201.htm
  79. ^ http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2007/rollcall1220.htm
  80. ^ http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/asp/WebBillInfo/BillCompanionInfo.aspx?BillNumber=hb0841
  81. ^ http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/asp/WebBillInfo/BillCompanionInfo.aspx?BillNumber=sb0811
  82. ^ http://www.house.state.tx.us/media/welcome.php
  83. ^ http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/new.htm
  84. ^ http://www.le.state.ut.us/asp/votes/comvotes.asp?sessionid=2007GS&voteid=517&sequence=13212
  85. ^ http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=071&typ=bil&val=hb2742
  86. ^ http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=071&typ=bil&val=sb864
  87. ^ http://www.leg.wa.gov/legislature/calendar/
  88. ^ http://www.leg.wa.gov/legislature/calendar/
  89. ^ http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/Bills_history.cfm?input=3247&year=2007&sessiontype=RS&btype=bill
  90. ^ http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/Bills_history.cfm?input=482&year=2007&sessiontype=RS&btype=bill
  91. ^ http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2007/status/STATUS.pdf

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact&oldid=184272836"