National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: Difference between revisions
Switched to more easily understandable language. |
Averyisland (talk | contribs) "plurality" precisely and exactly defines the situation and makes it explicitly clear that a majority was not won. wikilink is provided for anyone needing further information. |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
*There is debate over whether the Electoral College favors small states or large states. Those who argue that it favors small states point out that such states have more electoral votes relative to their populations. <ref>[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/bbo_11-6.html David Broder, on PBS Online News Hour's Campaign Countdown, Nov 6, 2000]</ref><ref>[http://starbulletin.com/2007/04/29/editorial/editorial02.html Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial]</ref> Others, however, believe that the potential of large states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more actual clout.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/id/1006680 Slate.com: Faithless Elector Watch: Gimme "Equal Protection" Timothy Noah, Dec. 13, 2000]</ref><ref>[http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300080360 Lawrence D. Longley and Neal Peirce, Electoral College Primer 2000, Yale University Press, 1999]</ref><ref>[http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/?view=usa&ci=9780195307511 Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution, Oxford University Press, 2006]</ref> |
*There is debate over whether the Electoral College favors small states or large states. Those who argue that it favors small states point out that such states have more electoral votes relative to their populations. <ref>[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/bbo_11-6.html David Broder, on PBS Online News Hour's Campaign Countdown, Nov 6, 2000]</ref><ref>[http://starbulletin.com/2007/04/29/editorial/editorial02.html Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial]</ref> Others, however, believe that the potential of large states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more actual clout.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/id/1006680 Slate.com: Faithless Elector Watch: Gimme "Equal Protection" Timothy Noah, Dec. 13, 2000]</ref><ref>[http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300080360 Lawrence D. Longley and Neal Peirce, Electoral College Primer 2000, Yale University Press, 1999]</ref><ref>[http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/?view=usa&ci=9780195307511 Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution, Oxford University Press, 2006]</ref> |
||
*The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency while [[United States Electoral College#Losing the Popular Vote|losing the popular vote]], as happened in the elections of [[United States presidential election, 1824|1824]], [[United States presidential election, 1876|1876]], [[United States presidential election, 1888|1888]] and [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000]]. This scenario can affect both major parties. In 2000, Democrat [[Al Gore]] lost the election despite winning |
*The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency while [[United States Electoral College#Losing the Popular Vote|losing the popular vote]], as happened in the elections of [[United States presidential election, 1824|1824]], [[United States presidential election, 1876|1876]], [[United States presidential election, 1888|1888]] and [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000]]. This scenario can affect both major parties. In 2000, Democrat [[Al Gore]] lost the election despite winning a [[plurality]] of the popular vote. Four years later Republican [[George W. Bush]] would have faced the same situation himself if there had been a 60,000 vote shift to [[John Kerry]] in Ohio.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/opinion/14tue1.html New York Times editorial]</ref> |
||
==Details of the compact law== |
==Details of the compact law== |
Revision as of 14:48, 21 May 2008
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement among U.S. states that would effectively end the electoral college system of presidential elections and replace it with a direct nationwide vote of the people. As of May 2008, this interstate compact has been joined by Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii; their 50 electoral votes amount to 19% of the 270 needed for it to take effect.
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, with regular changes in the nation's early decades, although today almost every state awards its electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes statewide.
States joining the compact will continue to award their electoral votes in their current manner until the compact has been joined by states representing a controlling majority of the Electoral College (currently 270 electoral votes). At that point, the member states would give all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. With the national popular vote winner sure to have a decisive majority in the Electoral College, he or she would automatically win the Electoral College and therefore the presidency.
Background
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 direct vote.[2] The idea is popular for various reasons:
- See also: Arguments against the Electoral College
- The Electoral College may encourage campaigns to cater to voters in a few pivotal swing states, while sidelining the rest of the country. A study by FairVote, a voting rights organization, reported 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] This may mean that swing state issues receive more 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 may decrease their incentive to go to the polls and vote. [7][8][9] A report by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate found that 2004 voter turnout in competitive swing states grew by 6.3% from the previous presidential election, compared to an increase of only 3.8% in noncompetitive states. [10] A report by The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) found that turnout among eligible voters under age 30 was 64.4% in the 10 closest battleground states and only 47.6% in the rest of the country -- a 17% gap.[11].
- There is debate over whether the Electoral College favors small states or large states. Those who argue that it favors small states point out that such states have more electoral votes relative to their populations. [12][13] Others, however, believe that the potential of large states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more actual clout.[14][15][16]
- The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency while losing the popular vote, as happened in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. This scenario can affect both major parties. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore lost the election despite winning a plurality of the popular vote. Four years later Republican George W. Bush would have faced the same situation himself if there had been a 60,000 vote shift to John Kerry in Ohio.[17]
Details of the compact law
States join the compact by adopting it as a state law. The compact law[18] requires that:
- The member state shall hold presidential elections by statewide popular vote.
- After the election, the state's chief election official (usually the state Secretary of State) shall certify the number of popular votes cast in the state for each candidate and report those results to the other states by a specific deadline.
- The chief election official shall then determine "national popular vote totals" for each candidate by adding up the vote totals reported by every state and the District of Columbia.
- The state's electoral votes shall be awarded to the candidate with the greatest "national popular vote total."
The compact member states would give their electoral votes to the candidate with the greatest number of popular votes, even if no candidate has an absolute majority. In the extremely unlikely event of an exact tie in the national popular vote totals, each member state would award its electoral votes to the statewide winner, as is currently done in 48 states (Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes based on results at the congressional district level).
The compact specifies that it shall take effect only if it is law in states controlling a majority of electoral votes on July 20 of a presidential election year. States wishing to join or withdraw from the compact after that date would not be able to do so until after the election. The compact would terminate in the event of the abolishment of the Electoral College.
History of the compact
The idea of abolishing the Electoral College by constitutional amendment has existed for some time (see Every Vote Counts Amendment). Though the electoral system has been modified by constitutional amendment in the past, such 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 could theoretically come into force with as few as eleven member states, and may not need Congressional approval. Although Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states that interstate compacts require the consent of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), and several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except when a compact encroaches on federal supremacy.[19] Some scholars, however, believe that NPVIC would impact the federal system in such a way that it requires Congressional approval.[20]
2006
The plan first gained widespread attention in 2006 when it was endorsed and publicized by National Popular Vote, a non-profit group with a bipartisan advisory committee including former US Senators Jake Garn, Birch Bayh, and David Durenberger, and former Representatives John Anderson, John Buchanan, and Tom Campbell. With backing from National Popular Vote, NPVIC legislation was introduced in six state legislatures in the 2006 session. 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
In 2007, NPVIC legislation was introduced in 42 state legislatures. It was passed by legislative chambers in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey and North Carolina, as well as both houses of the Hawaii legislature, where it was prevented from becoming law by a veto from Governor Linda Lingle.[21] The bill was also passed by both houses in Maryland, which became the first state to join the compact when Governor Martin O'Malley signed it into law on April 10.[22]
2008
New Jersey became the second state to enter the compact when Governor Jon S. Corzine signed the bill into law on January 13.[23] Illinois became the third state to join when Governor Rod Blagojevich signed it into law on April 7.[24] Legislative chambers also passed the bill in Vermont (both houses, subsequently vetoed),[25] Washington,[26][27] Maine (by a single vote;[28] the bill was subsequently defeated in the house),[29] and for a second time in Hawaii, where a second veto from the governor was overridden by the legislature, making Hawaii the fourth state to join the compact, on May 1.[30]
The bill has been under consideration in several additional states in 2008, and organizers anticipate all states will debate the bill in 2009.[31] Two measures titled "Presidential Electors. Allocation by National Popular Vote. Interstate Agreement. Statute" were filed as California ballot propositions, but failed get on the ballot [32].
Year-by-year status maps
Key | NPVIC legislation in 2006 | NPVIC legislation in 2007 | NPVIC legislation in 2008 |
File:NPVMapKey.png | File:NPV2007.png | ||
Participating states | 0 | 1 (MD) | 4 (MD, NJ, IL, HI) |
Electoral votes | 0 (of 270 needed) | 10 (of 270 needed) | 50 (of 270 needed) |
List of states adopting a corresponding law
No. | State | Electoral votes | Date of adoption | Total electoral votes (percentage of 270 needed) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Maryland | 10 | April 102007 | 10 (3.7 %) |
2 | New Jersey | 15 | January 132008 | 25 (9.3 %) |
3 | Illinois | 21 | April 72008 | 46 (17.0 %) |
4 | Hawaii | 4 | May 12008 | 50 (18.5 %) |
Debate
The project has been supported by editorials in several newspapers, including the New York Times,[33] the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times[34], Boston Globe[35] and the Minneapolis Star Tribune[36] 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.[37] An article by Pierre S. du Pont, IV, a former governor of Delaware, in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal[38] 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 issues are detailed below:
Small states and rural areas
Supporters of the compact argue that most small states are ignored under the current system because they are not swing states. They contend that a national popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign in small, medium and large towns across the country, just as they currently do within competitive swing states. Critics of the compact counter that smaller states have fewer voters, which would lead candidates to ignore them and focus instead on states with large populations. They also argue that the large numbers of popular votes in urban areas would draw candidates away from rural issues and needs.[39][40]
Close elections and voter fraud
Opponents of the compact have suggested that a direct national election would raise concerns about election fraud. Pete du Pont states that in 2000, "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..." However, National Popular Vote has argued that a direct election would reduce the incentive for fraud. They contend that the large nationwide pool of 122 million votes would make a close outcome much less likely than it is under the current system, in which an extremely small number of votes in any one of the numerous statewide tallies may determine the national winner.[41][42]
Nature of elections
Although supporters of the compact point out that direct election is already the method by which Americans elect their members of Congress, state leaders and local officials, opponents such as du Pont have argued that a direct popular vote in presidential contests could lead to a change in the current two party system. They contend that the difficulty of winning electoral votes under the current system may discourage third party and single-issue candidates from running, and therefore switching to a popular vote may lead more third party and single-issue candidates to enter the race.[43][44]
Electoral votes awarded to national winner, not state winner
Two governors who have vetoed NPVIC legislation, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Linda Lingle of Hawaii, have stated that they object to the compact because it would mean that their states' electoral votes may be awarded to a candidate who did not win statewide. Supporters of the compact have countered that under the popular vote system, the awarding of electoral votes would be effectively irrelevant; that giving the state's electoral votes to the national winner would be a mere symbolic formality with no political meaning, because the popular vote would have already decided the outcome.[45][46][47]
Constitutionality
Some law scholars have raised doubts about the constitutionality of the compact, arguing that it could be struck down by the courts for various legal reasons, or that it would not be constitutional without the consent of Congress. Other constitutional law experts such as Maryland state senator Jamie Raskin, who co-sponsored the first NPVIC bill to be signed into law, see no legal conflict and count themselves among the compact's most ardent supporters.[20][48][49][50] In fact, both of the compact's original authors, Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar, are experts in constitutional law.
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[51] | — | — | not voted on |
Alaska | 3 | 2007–08 | SB 138 | — | introduced[52] | — | pending |
Arizona | 10 | 2007 | HB 2297, SB 1451 | died in committee[53] | died in committee[54] | — | not voted on |
2008 | SB 1370 | — | introduced[55] | — | pending | ||
Arkansas | 6 | 2007 | HB 1703 | passed[56] | died in committee[56] | — | not voted on |
California | 55 | 2005–06 | AB 2948 | passed[57] | passed[57] | vetoed[57] | failed[57] |
2007–08 | SB 37 | bill postponed[58] | passed[59] | — | pending | ||
Colorado | 9 | 2006 | SB 06-223 | died in committee[60] | passed[60] | — | not voted on |
2007 | SB 07-046 | died in committee[61] | passed[61] | — | not voted on | ||
Connecticut | 7 | 2007 | HB 6000, SB 42 | died in committee[62] | introduced[63] | — | not voted on |
District of Columbia | 3 | — | none (congressional legislation) | — | — | — | no bill introduced |
Delaware | 3 | — | none[64] | — | — | — | no bill introduced |
Florida | 27 | 2007 | SB 2568 | — | died in committee[65] | — | not voted on |
Georgia | 15 | 2007–08 | HB 630 | introduced[66] | — | — | pending |
Hawaii | 4 | 2007 | HB 234[67], SB 1956 | passed[68] | passed[68] | vetoed[68] | failed[69] |
did not override veto[69] | overrode veto[68] | ||||||
2008 | HB 3013, SB 2898 | passed[70] | passed[30] | vetoed[30] | passed | ||
overrode veto[30] | overrode veto[30] | ||||||
Idaho | 4 | — | none till 2009[71] | — | — | — | no bill introduced |
Illinois | 21 | 2005–06 | HB 5777, SB 2724 | introduced[72] | introduced[73] | — | not voted on |
2007–08 | HB 858 [74], HB 1685, SB 78 | passed[75] | passed[75] | signed[75] | passed[75] | ||
Indiana | 11 | 2007 | HB 1807 | introduced[76] | — | — | not voted on |
Iowa | 7 | 2007–08 | SF 2008 | — | introduced[77] | — | not voted on |
Kansas | 6 | 2007–08 | SB 150 | — | introduced[78] | — | pending |
Kentucky | 8 | 2007 | HB 550 | died in committee[79] | — | — | not voted on |
Louisiana | 9 | 2006 | HB 927 | introduced[80] | — | — | not voted on |
Maine | 4 | 2007–08 | LD 1744 | indef. postponed[29] | passed[28] | — | failed[29] |
Maryland | 10 | 2007 | HB 148, SB 634 | passed[81] | passed[81] | signed[81] | passed[81] |
Massachusetts | 12 | 2007–08 | HB 710, SB 452 | passed committee[82] | passed committee[83] | — | pending |
Michigan | 17 | — | none | — | — | — | no bill introduced |
Minnesota | 10 | — | none[84] | — | — | — | no bill introduced |
Mississippi | 6 | 2007 | SB 2284 | — | died in committee[85] | — | failed |
Missouri | 11 | 2006 | HB 2090 | introduced[86] | — | — | not voted on |
2007 | HB 289 | introduced[87] | — | — | not voted on | ||
Montana | 3 | 2007 | SB 290 | — | failed[88] | — | failed[88] |
Nebraska | 5 | — | none[89] | — | — | no bill introduced | |
Nevada | 5 | 2007 | AB 384 | introduced[citation needed] | — | — | not voted on |
New Hampshire | 4 | 2007–08 | HB 1454 | inexpedient to legislate (committee)[90] | — | — | pending |
New Jersey | 15 | 2006–07 | A 4225, S 2695 | passed[91] | passed[91] | signed[91] | passed[91] |
New Mexico | 5 | 2007 | SB 666 | — | introduced[92] | — | not voted on |
New York | 31 | 2005-06 | A11563 | introduced[citation needed] | — | — | not voted on |
2007–08 | A03883, S7582 | introduced[93] | introduced[94] | — | pending | ||
North Carolina | 15 | 2007–08 | H1645, S954 | introduced[95] | passed[96] | — | pending |
North Dakota | 3 | 2007 | HB 1336 | failed[97] | — | — | failed[97] |
Ohio | 20 | 2008 | HB 524 | introduced[98] | — | — | pending |
Oklahoma | 7 | 2007–08 | HB 1466 | introduced[99] | — | — | pending |
Oregon | 7 | 2007 | HB 3325 | died in committee[100] | — | — | not voted on |
Pennsylvania | 21 | 2007–08 | HB 1028 | introduced[101] | — | — | pending |
Rhode Island | 4 | 2007 | S 0201 | — | died in committee[102] | — | not voted on |
2008 | S 2112 | — | passed committee[103] | — | pending | ||
South Carolina | 8 | 2007–08 | H 4201 | introduced[104] | — | — | pending |
South Dakota | 3 | 2007 | HB 1295 | introduced[105] | — | — | not voted on |
Tennessee | 11 | 2007–08 | HB 841, SB 811 | withdrawn[106] | introduced[107] | — | failed |
Texas | 34 | 2007 | HB 3566, SB 520 | withdrawn[108] | introduced[109] | — | not voted on |
Utah | 5 | 2007 | HB 346 | introduced[110] | — | — | not voted on |
Vermont | 3 | 2007–08 | H 373, S 270 | passed[111] | passed[111] | vetoed[111] | vetoed[111] |
Virginia | 13 | 2006–07 | HB 2742, SB 864 | introduced[112] | introduced[113] | — | not voted on |
Washington | 11 | 2007–08 | HB 1750, SB 5628 | died in committee[27] | passed[114] | — | failed |
West Virginia | 5 | 2007 | HB 3247, SB 482 | introduced[115] | introduced[116] | — | not voted on |
2008 | SB 52 | — | failed[117] | — | failed | ||
Wisconsin | 10 | 2007–08 | AB 313 | died in committee[118] | — | — | not voted on |
Wyoming | 3 | 2007 | HB 190 | introduced[119] | — | — | not voted on |
Notes
- ^ Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation-Harvard University Survey of Political Independents, conducted May-June 2007
- ^ Gallup: Americans Have Historically Favored Changing Way Presidents are Elected
- ^ "Who Picks the President?"
- ^ "New York Times editorial, March 14, 2006".
- ^ "Denver Post editorial, April 9, 2007".
- ^ "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".
- ^ New York Times editorial, March 14, 2006
- ^ Chicago Sun-Times editorial, March 1, 2006
- ^ Hill and McKee, above
- ^ "Committee for the Study of the American Electorate" (PDF).
- ^ "CIRCLE fact sheet" (PDF).
- ^ David Broder, on PBS Online News Hour's Campaign Countdown, Nov 6, 2000
- ^ Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial
- ^ Slate.com: Faithless Elector Watch: Gimme "Equal Protection" Timothy Noah, Dec. 13, 2000
- ^ Lawrence D. Longley and Neal Peirce, Electoral College Primer 2000, Yale University Press, 1999
- ^ Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution, Oxford University Press, 2006
- ^ New York Times editorial
- ^ National Popular Vote - Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
- ^ Every Vote Equal [1]
- ^ a b Derek T. Muller, The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, 6 Election L.J. 372 (2007)
- ^ [2]
- ^ AP: Maryland sidesteps electoral college
- ^ New Jersey Rejects Electoral College Associated Press. January 13, 2008. CBS News.
- ^ Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB1685
- ^ Ballot Access News report, March 21, 2008
- ^ Bill 5628
- ^ a b Ballot Access News report
- ^ a b Ballot Access News report, April 2, 2008
- ^ a b c "Maine LD 1744, 2008".
- ^ a b c d e "Hawaii SB 2898, 2008".
- ^ TheHill.com - Popular-vote plan nears crucial period
- ^ Initiative Update
- ^ New York Times editorial
- ^ Los Angeles Times editorial
- ^ Boston Globe editorial
- ^ Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial
- ^ Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial
- ^ Wall Street Journal article
- ^ Wall Street Journal article
- ^ NPV Memo
- ^ Wall Street Journal article
- ^ NPV Memo
- ^ Wall Street Journal article
- ^ New Yorker column
- ^ SB-37, quoted on page 8
- ^ Honolulu Star-Bulletin
- ^ Hawaii Reporter piece
- ^ David Gringer, Columbia Law Review
- ^ Peter Shane, Moritz School of Law, OSU
- ^ American University constitutional law professor & Maryland state senator Jamie Raskin
- ^ "Alabama HB 192 text".
- ^ "Alaska SB 138 status".
- ^ "Arizona HB 2297 status".
- ^ "Arizona SB 1451 status".
- ^ "Arizona SB 1370 status".
- ^ a b "Arkansas 86th General Assembly".
- ^ a b c d "Official California Legislative Information accessed Jan 28, 2007, 10:17PM".
- ^ "Ballot Access News » California National Popular Vote Bill Postponed Until 2008".
- ^ "California SB 37 Senate Bill - History".
- ^ a b "Summarized History for Bill Number SB06-223".
- ^ a b "Summarized History for Bill Number SB07-046".
- ^ "Proposed H.B. No. 6000, Session Year 2007".
- ^ "Substitute Senate Bill No. 42".
- ^ "Delaware Legislature website, search results for "interstate"".
- ^ "Florida SB 2568".
- ^ "Georgia HB 630".
- ^ "Hawaii HB 234, 2007".
- ^ a b c d "Hawaii SB 1956, 2007".
- ^ a b "Ballot Access News » National Popular Vote Bill Cannot Be Enacted This Year in Hawaii".
- ^ "Hawaii HB 3013, 2008".
- ^ "Idaho State Legislature - 2008 Session Information - 2008 Session Dates".
- ^ "Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB5777, 2006".
- ^ "Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB2724, 2006".
- ^ "Illinois HB 858, 2008".
- ^ a b c d "Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB1685, 2008".
- ^ "House Bill 1807, Indiana, 2008".
- ^ "Bill History for SF 2008, Iowa, 2007-08".
- ^ "Kansas Legislature Bill Tracking".
- ^ "Kansas HB 550, 2007".
- ^ "Louisiana HB 927, 2006".
- ^ a b c d "Maryland HB148, 2007".
- ^ "Massachusetts H 678, 2007-08".
- ^ "Massachusetts S 445, 2007-08".
- ^ "Minnesota State Legislature".
- ^ "Mississippi SB2284, 2007".
- ^ "Missouri HB 2090, 2006".
- ^ "Missouri HB 289, 2007".
- ^ a b "Montana HB290, 2007".
- ^ Nebraska Legislature - HOME
- ^ "NH General court - Bill status (HB1454)".
- ^ a b c d "New Jersey Legislature (Bill A4225 from Session 2006-07)".
- ^ "New Mexico SB 666, 2007".
- ^ "New York bill A3883, 2007".
- ^ "New York bill S7582, 2008".
- ^ "North Carolina House Bill 1645, 2007-08".
- ^ "North Carolina Senate Bill 954, 2007-08".
- ^ a b "North Dakota HB1336, 2007".
- ^ "Ohio HB 524, 2008".
- ^ "Oklahoma Legislature, current status of bills".
- ^ "Oregon State Legislature (House Bill 3325)".
- ^ "Pennsylvania House Bill 1028, 2007-08".
- ^ "Rhode Island Senate Bills 1-299, 2007" (PDF).
- ^ "Rhode Island Senate Bills 2008".
- ^ 2007-2008 "South Carolina Bill 4201, 2007-08".
{{cite web}}
: Check|url=
value (help) - ^ "South Dakota Bill History Report, 2007" (PDF).
- ^ "Tennessee HB0841, 2007-08".
- ^ "Bill Information for SB0811".
- ^ "Texas HB 3566, 2007".
- ^ "Texas SB 250, 2007".
- ^ Bill 517
- ^ a b c d "The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System (S.270)".
- ^ LIS > Bill Tracking > HB2742 > 2007 session
- ^ LIS > Bill Tracking > SB864 > 2007 session
- ^ SB 5628
- ^ Bill Status - Complete Bill History
- ^ Bill Status - Complete Bill History
- ^ Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » West Virginia Senate Committee Defeats National Popular Vote Plan
- ^ "Wisconsin AB 313, 2007-08".
- ^ Wyoming 2007 legislative status report
See also
- National Popular Vote Inc.
- Amar Plan
- United States Electoral College
- FairVote
- Every Vote Counts Amendment
- Electoral reform in the United States
External links
- National Popular Vote
- Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote - text of the interstate compact
- Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote - read or download book for free
- FairVote
- Common Cause
- Electoral College legislation at the National Conference of State Legislatures (not up-to-date)