Readers of this blog will remember that the National Popular Vote campaign is striving to effectively eliminate the Electoral College by asking states to allocate their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of state popular votes. Now, it looks like NPV’s long road to changing the Electoral College might encounter a sudden detour.
Some Pennsylvania Republicans have proposed an alternative: a congressional-district system. One elector would be given to the winner of each district; the two remaining Pennsylvania electors would go to the winner of the state’s popular vote. Republicans would likely gain 11 or 12 electors in 2012. Needless to say, many Democrats are protesting the effort (see: here, here, and here).
Ultimately, Pennsylvania must decide for itself what to do. But there are several pros and cons to consider.
First, a congressional-district plan has the advantage of being in line with the Constitution, which NPV is not. Pennsylvania can allocate electors in any manner that serves its own state interests and may determine that a district system does just that. Such a choice does not impact the decisions of other states. By contrast, NPV asks Pennsylvania to collude with a minority of state legislatures to select a presidential election system for the rest of the country.
Under a congressional-district plan, candidates would be discouraged from focusing only on densely populated areas within the state, as diversity within Pennsylvania would be reflected in electoral vote totals. This is in keeping with the coalition-building incentives generally created by the Electoral College.
Unfortunately, a congressional-district plan could also provide increased motivation for gerrymandering. In close elections, this politicized process can affect election outcomes, though the impact in most cases would be minimal. National implementation of the congressional-district system would not have changed the outcome of any election in recent history, although it would have come close in 1976.
Looking beyond Pennsylvania, national adoption of the district system could change the focus of presidential campaigns in negative ways. Instead of “swing states,” we’d have “swing districts.” This could unfortunately encourage the federal government to become even more entangled in purely local matters.
Pennsylvania legislators should not implement a congressional district system based purely on partisan considerations. Perhaps they believe that NPV advocates have their own partisan reasons. The does not make such motivations any less unwise. Every state can make its own assessments on these matters and should make its own decision. But Pennsylvania legislators will serve their constituents — and their country — best if they remember to honestly assess what would serve their state, rather than their political party.
— Tara Ross is the author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.
My guess is that this latest Leftist effort to destroy our REPUBLIC will fail when some GOPer wins the popular vote and Massachusetts and California have to go all in for them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, They will change the rules.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's precisely the problem. How could they be compelled to vote for the Republican based on a state statute, as opposed to the U.S. Constitution? They simply wouldn't do it. And what would stop the Democratic governor and legislature from calling a special session to change the law right after the election anyway? Massachusetts didn't seem to have much trouble changing its senatorial vacancy law back and forth to benefit Democrats.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat the NPV makes the state cast its votes for someone the majority of state legislators don't want is no problem. This happens at every election in the present form. States such as WV have democratic legislatures but usually vote for the republican candidate. Pennsylvania is maybe an opposite example. The state legislatures do not try to overturn the results in these states.
Just because something is allowed by the constitution does not make it good. The constitution allows the legislatures to pick electors based on anything. They could choose the electors from the people who pay the most tax in a state, or the most beautiful spouses to state legislators. This is constitutional, but really bad.
People who favor the present Pennsylvania idea are enemies of the open society.
Is America becoming a Weimar Republic?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne great merit of the idea, if national in scope, is erecting still more "fire-breaks" for vote fraud. The massive frauds that have occurred in Philly and Chicago, for example, would net only two extra EC votes, rather than dozens.
Cordially...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe PA plan has merit. Several of the concerns listed already happen.
Increased temptation to Gerrymander? I'm not sure we could have a system more prone to Gerrymandering than the one we have today. We already have Congressional districts 100' wide and 40 miles long. This does not seem like it would make things substantially worse.
Swing districts? We already have those. Read just about any wonky post by Michael Barone. I grew up in PA, and there are certain districts in the state which get proportionally greater attention...Bucks County, Montgomery County...suburbs west of Philly for example. This happens all across the country.
If this system spreads out the electors across the full state (including we called the "T" in PA consisting of the Susquehanna Valley and Northern Tier), then I think this franchises a lot of people in flyover country.
And THAT is exactly what the Left wants to avoid. Whether it is military votes, flyover country, etc. the Left wants to disenfranchise and marginalize as many Republican voters as it can. That is the intent of NPV - to let Democrat strongholds like LA, NYC, etc. determine who becomes President.
The funny part, as another commenter has pointed out, is that once they lose the popular vote, and CA becomes a "Red State", the Left will freak out at the unintended consequences of their march to the sea.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRepublican legislators seem quite “confused” about the merits of the congressional district method. In Nebraska, Republican legislators are now saying they must change from the congressional district method to go back to state winner-take-all, while in Pennsylvania, Republican legislators are just as strongly arguing that they must change from the winner-take-all method to the congressional district method.
Dividing Pennsylvania’s electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system and not reflect the diversity of Pennsylvania.
The district approach would provide less incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in all Pennsylvania districts and would not focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state as a whole. Candidates would have no reason to campaign in districts where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind.
Due to gerrymandering, in 2008, only 4 Pennsylvania congressional districts were competitive.
In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine’s 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska’s reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) two-thirds of the state were irrelevant.
When votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously solicit those voters. When votes don’t matter, they ignore those areas.
Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Seven-eighths of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
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.
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.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePoliticians are constantly jockeying to give their party the greatest advantage.
Imagine that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe already have a country where whole states (e.g. WY) rarely get a visit from the candidates because they are not in play. I'm not sure I understand your objection to district allocations, but maybe I'm not completely understanding the concept. What you described takes place today under PA's winner take all approach...the same places that get attention today would get attention under a district allocation, but the "in the bag" districtions might also have to be competed for if the district encompassing Montgomery County (west of Philly) counts just as much as the district encompassing Bradford and Sullivan counties (very rural). Winning the popular vote in one or two key districts would not matter any more. Politicians would not be able to campaign only in Philly and Pittsburgh knowing that the popular vote there would "win" the whole state.
The NE model sounds a lot like the electoral college system we have today. The folks in those NE counties may not feel the love from politicians, but at least their votes count just as much as the votes from more populated/Democrat areas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't see the problem with this. PA has every right to do it. It's not like it hasn't been done before, ME and NE has done this for decades.
Besides, it's a well deserved black eye to Democrats pushing the ridiculous unconstitutional NPV.
Regardless, I don't see this becoming a nationwide effort. Despite a vocal minority, most people are reluctant to change the electoral system. The Electoral College works exactly as the founders intended, and it's immune against gerrymandering (you can't gerrymander states).
Just look at what happened in the UK recently with the referendum on their similar FPTP (first-past-the-post) system. An overwhelming majority chose to keep it as it is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan you describe, by quoting the plain text of the Constitution, why you believe NPV is unconstitutional?
By contrast, it's quite clear why restrictions on political speech and gun rights are unconstitutional -- because IT SAYS SO RIGHT THERE. As Conservatives, that should be our standard. Not just hand-waving .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStates are not permitted to enter into compacts with each other, without the permission of congress.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCongressional 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 method, 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.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSupporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored now.Presidential campaigns spend 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they aren’t hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and can win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state. 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored. That’s over 85 million voters. Once the primaries are over, presidential candidates don’t visit or spend resources in 2/3rds of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored. More than 85 million voters have been just spectators to the general election. States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.
Under a national popular vote, with every vote equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNPV will cause candidates to care only about the needs of big cities.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse...and that is PRECISELY what the founders were trying to avoid. Conversely, this is precisely what the Left wants, since Big Cities are their plantations.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
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 obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run, can be found by examining the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in Ohio and Florida already knows–namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states. It is certainly true that the biggest cities in those states typically vote Democratic. However, the suburbs, exurbs, small towns, and rural parts of the states often voted Republican. If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
Under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
The main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Fed's already have incentive to interfer in swing districts, in order to elect the candidate. The additional incentive to affect the presidential race, is small by comparison.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho actually believes that the NPV laws won't be overturned by the state courts of blue states such as California and New York when the law would otherwise force them to vote against their own in-state popular vote? We can have no confidence that a movement that strives to circumvent the Constitution will suddenly stand firm on the Rule of Law when an election goes against them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe bill says: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."
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.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse