Jump to content

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Szu (talk | contribs)
309 edits
Shortened opening section slightly. Moved deleted bits to other sections, including multiple mentions of "majority" issue. Smoothed out some writing.
Line 5: Line 5:
''State shapes have been adjusted in the second map so that their sizes represent electoral strength.'']]
''State shapes have been adjusted in the second map so that their sizes represent electoral strength.'']]


The '''National Popular Vote Interstate Compact''' is an agreement among U.S. states that would effectively end the [[United States Electoral College | electoral college]] system of [[United States presidential election | 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 '''National Popular Vote Interstate Compact''' is an agreement among U.S. states that would effectively end the [[United States Electoral College | electoral college]] system of [[United States presidential election | 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_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors|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. Today 48 states and the District of Columbia award all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes statewide (Nebraska and Maine split their electoral votes based on results at the congressional district level).
The compact is based on [[Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors|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 electoral college (currently 270 electoral votes). At that point, the member states would give all their electoral votes to the slate of the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Although, the winner need only come in first and not obtain a majority of the national popular vote. With the winner of the nationwide popular vote sure to have a decisive majority in the Electoral College, he or she would automatically win the Electoral College and therefore the presidency.
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. 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==
==Background==
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 popular vote, though not a majority. 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>
*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 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==
Line 34: Line 34:
* The state's electoral votes shall be awarded to the candidate with the greatest "national popular vote total."
* The state's electoral votes shall be awarded to the candidate with the greatest "national popular vote total."


The law also addresses the extremely unlikely scenario of an exact popular vote [[tie (draw)|tie]] in the national popular vote totals. In this event, each member state would award its electoral votes to the statewide winner, as is currently done in most states.
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 (draw)|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.
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==
==History of the compact==
The idea of abolishing the Electoral College by [[Article Five of the United States Constitution|constitutional amendment]] has existed for some time (see [[Every Vote Counts Amendment]]). The Constitution has been amended 27 times, and Article II Section 1 of the Constitution (relating to the Electoral College) has been amended twice. However, constitutional amendments are very difficult to pass because they require [[supermajority|supermajorities]] in the House and Senate together with the support of three-fourths of the state legislatures.
The idea of abolishing the Electoral College by [[Article Five of the United States Constitution|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 [[supermajority|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 [[Amar Plan|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 [[Compact Clause|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]]'', {{ussc|148|503|1893}}, and several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except when a compact encroaches on federal supremacy.<ref>Every Vote Equal [http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EVE-CH-5.pdf]</ref> Some scholars, however, believe that NPVIC would impact the federal system in such a way that it requires Congressional approval.<ref name="muller">Derek T. Muller, ''The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact'', 6 [http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/elj.2007.6403 Election L.J.] 372 (2007)</ref>
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 [[Amar Plan|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 [[Compact Clause|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]]'', {{ussc|148|503|1893}}, and several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except when a compact encroaches on federal supremacy.<ref>Every Vote Equal [http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EVE-CH-5.pdf]</ref> Some scholars, however, believe that NPVIC would impact the federal system in such a way that it requires Congressional approval.<ref name="muller">Derek T. Muller, ''The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact'', 6 [http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/elj.2007.6403 Election L.J.] 372 (2007)</ref>
Line 47: Line 47:
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]].<ref>[http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/statesactivity.php]</ref> 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]].<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18053715/ AP: Maryland sidesteps electoral college]</ref>
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]].<ref>[http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/statesactivity.php]</ref> 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]].<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18053715/ AP: Maryland sidesteps electoral college]</ref>
====2008====
====2008====
New Jersey became the second state to enter the compact when Governor [[Jon S. Corzine]] signed the bill into law on [[January 13]].<ref name="NPV-NJ">[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/13/politics/main3706884.shtml New Jersey Rejects Electoral College] Associated Press. [[January 13]], [[2008]]. ''CBS News.''</ref> [[Illinois]] became the third state to join when Governor [[Rod Blagojevich]] signed it into law on [[April 7]].<ref>[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1685&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=30508&SessionID=51 Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB1685<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Legislative chambers also passed the bill in [[Vermont]] (both houses, subsequently vetoed),<ref name="BA-VT">[http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/21/national-popular-vote-bill-news/ Ballot Access News report, March 21, 2008]</ref> [[Washington (state)|Washington]],<ref>[http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5628 Bill 5628]</ref><ref name="BA-WA">[http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/12/washington-state-kills-national-popular-vote-bill/ Ballot Access News report]</ref> [[Maine]] (by a single vote;<ref name="BA-ME">[http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/04/02/maine-senate-passes-national-popular-vote-plan/ Ballot Access News report, April 2, 2008]</ref> the bill was subsequently killed in the house),<ref name="Maine">{{cite web |url=http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280024656 |title=Maine LD 1744, 2008}}</ref> 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]].<ref name="ha-senate">{{cite web |url=http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=SB2898 |title=Hawaii SB 2898, 2008}}</ref>
New Jersey became the second state to enter the compact when Governor [[Jon S. Corzine]] signed the bill into law on [[January 13]].<ref name="NPV-NJ">[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/13/politics/main3706884.shtml New Jersey Rejects Electoral College] Associated Press. [[January 13]], [[2008]]. ''CBS News.''</ref> [[Illinois]] became the third state to join when Governor [[Rod Blagojevich]] signed it into law on [[April 7]].<ref>[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1685&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=30508&SessionID=51 Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB1685<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Legislative chambers also passed the bill in [[Vermont]] (both houses, subsequently vetoed),<ref name="BA-VT">[http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/21/national-popular-vote-bill-news/ Ballot Access News report, March 21, 2008]</ref> [[Washington (state)|Washington]],<ref>[http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5628 Bill 5628]</ref><ref name="BA-WA">[http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/12/washington-state-kills-national-popular-vote-bill/ Ballot Access News report]</ref> [[Maine]] (by a single vote;<ref name="BA-ME">[http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/04/02/maine-senate-passes-national-popular-vote-plan/ Ballot Access News report, April 2, 2008]</ref> the bill was subsequently defeated in the house),<ref name="Maine">{{cite web |url=http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280024656 |title=Maine LD 1744, 2008}}</ref> 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]].<ref name="ha-senate">{{cite web |url=http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=SB2898 |title=Hawaii SB 2898, 2008}}</ref>


The bill has been under consideration in several additional states in 2008, and organizers anticipate all states will debate the bill in 2009.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/popular-vote-plan-nears-crucial-period-2007-12-19.html TheHill.com - Popular-vote plan nears crucial period<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Two measures titled "Presidential Electors. Allocation by National Popular Vote. Interstate Agreement. Statute" were filed as [[California ballot proposition|California ballot propositions]], but failed get on the ballot <ref>[http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm Initiative Update]</ref>. <!-- accessed on December 19th, latest update December 14th, 2007-->
The bill has been under consideration in several additional states in 2008, and organizers anticipate all states will debate the bill in 2009.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/popular-vote-plan-nears-crucial-period-2007-12-19.html TheHill.com - Popular-vote plan nears crucial period<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Two measures titled "Presidential Electors. Allocation by National Popular Vote. Interstate Agreement. Statute" were filed as [[California ballot proposition|California ballot propositions]], but failed get on the ballot <ref>[http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm Initiative Update]</ref>. <!-- accessed on December 19th, latest update December 14th, 2007-->

Revision as of 02:59, 20 May 2008

Status of NPVIC legislation in current legislative session:

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

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. 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 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

See also: Arguments for and against the Electoral College

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 introduced[106] introduced[107] — pending
Texas 34 2007 HB 3566, SB 520 introduced[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

  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. ^ "Committee for the Study of the American Electorate" (PDF).
  11. ^ "CIRCLE fact sheet" (PDF).
  12. ^ David Broder, on PBS Online News Hour's Campaign Countdown, Nov 6, 2000
  13. ^ Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial
  14. ^ Slate.com: Faithless Elector Watch: Gimme "Equal Protection" Timothy Noah, Dec. 13, 2000
  15. ^ Lawrence D. Longley and Neal Peirce, Electoral College Primer 2000, Yale University Press, 1999
  16. ^ Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution, Oxford University Press, 2006
  17. ^ New York Times editorial
  18. ^ National Popular Vote - Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
  19. ^ Every Vote Equal [1]
  20. ^ a b Derek T. Muller, The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, 6 Election L.J. 372 (2007)
  21. ^ [2]
  22. ^ AP: Maryland sidesteps electoral college
  23. ^ New Jersey Rejects Electoral College Associated Press. January 13, 2008. CBS News.
  24. ^ Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB1685
  25. ^ Ballot Access News report, March 21, 2008
  26. ^ Bill 5628
  27. ^ a b Ballot Access News report
  28. ^ a b Ballot Access News report, April 2, 2008
  29. ^ a b c "Maine LD 1744, 2008".
  30. ^ a b c d e "Hawaii SB 2898, 2008".
  31. ^ TheHill.com - Popular-vote plan nears crucial period
  32. ^ Initiative Update
  33. ^ New York Times editorial
  34. ^ Los Angeles Times editorial
  35. ^ Boston Globe editorial
  36. ^ Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial
  37. ^ Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial
  38. ^ Wall Street Journal article
  39. ^ Wall Street Journal article
  40. ^ NPV Memo
  41. ^ Wall Street Journal article
  42. ^ NPV Memo
  43. ^ Wall Street Journal article
  44. ^ New Yorker column
  45. ^ SB-37, quoted on page 8
  46. ^ Honolulu Star-Bulletin
  47. ^ Hawaii Reporter piece
  48. ^ David Gringer, Columbia Law Review
  49. ^ Peter Shane, Moritz School of Law, OSU
  50. ^ American University constitutional law professor & Maryland state senator Jamie Raskin
  51. ^ "Alabama HB 192 text".
  52. ^ "Alaska SB 138 status".
  53. ^ "Arizona HB 2297 status".
  54. ^ "Arizona SB 1451 status".
  55. ^ "Arizona SB 1370 status".
  56. ^ a b "Arkansas 86th General Assembly".
  57. ^ a b c d "Official California Legislative Information accessed Jan 28, 2007, 10:17PM".
  58. ^ "Ballot Access News » California National Popular Vote Bill Postponed Until 2008".
  59. ^ "California SB 37 Senate Bill - History".
  60. ^ a b "Summarized History for Bill Number SB06-223".
  61. ^ a b "Summarized History for Bill Number SB07-046".
  62. ^ "Proposed H.B. No. 6000, Session Year 2007".
  63. ^ "Substitute Senate Bill No. 42".
  64. ^ "Delaware Legislature website, search results for "interstate"".
  65. ^ "Florida SB 2568".
  66. ^ "Georgia HB 630".
  67. ^ "Hawaii HB 234, 2007".
  68. ^ a b c d "Hawaii SB 1956, 2007".
  69. ^ a b "Ballot Access News » National Popular Vote Bill Cannot Be Enacted This Year in Hawaii".
  70. ^ "Hawaii HB 3013, 2008".
  71. ^ "Idaho State Legislature - 2008 Session Information - 2008 Session Dates".
  72. ^ "Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB5777, 2006".
  73. ^ "Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB2724, 2006".
  74. ^ "Illinois HB 858, 2008".
  75. ^ a b c d "Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB1685, 2008".
  76. ^ "House Bill 1807, Indiana, 2008".
  77. ^ "Bill History for SF 2008, Iowa, 2007-08".
  78. ^ "Kansas Legislature Bill Tracking".
  79. ^ "Kansas HB 550, 2007".
  80. ^ "Louisiana HB 927, 2006".
  81. ^ a b c d "Maryland HB148, 2007".
  82. ^ "Massachusetts H 678, 2007-08".
  83. ^ "Massachusetts S 445, 2007-08".
  84. ^ "Minnesota State Legislature".
  85. ^ "Mississippi SB2284, 2007".
  86. ^ "Missouri HB 2090, 2006".
  87. ^ "Missouri HB 289, 2007".
  88. ^ a b "Montana HB290, 2007".
  89. ^ Nebraska Legislature - HOME
  90. ^ "NH General court - Bill status (HB1454)".
  91. ^ a b c d "New Jersey Legislature (Bill A4225 from Session 2006-07)".
  92. ^ "New Mexico SB 666, 2007".
  93. ^ "New York bill A3883, 2007".
  94. ^ "New York bill S7582, 2008".
  95. ^ "North Carolina House Bill 1645, 2007-08".
  96. ^ "North Carolina Senate Bill 954, 2007-08".
  97. ^ a b "North Dakota HB1336, 2007".
  98. ^ "Ohio HB 524, 2008".
  99. ^ "Oklahoma Legislature, current status of bills".
  100. ^ "Oregon State Legislature (House Bill 3325)".
  101. ^ "Pennsylvania House Bill 1028, 2007-08".
  102. ^ "Rhode Island Senate Bills 1-299, 2007" (PDF).
  103. ^ "Rhode Island Senate Bills 2008".
  104. ^ 2007-2008 Bill 4201: Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote - www.scstatehouse.net - LPITS
  105. ^ Roll Call Vote
  106. ^ Bill Information for HB0841
  107. ^ Bill Information for SB0811
  108. ^ Texas House of Representatives
  109. ^ The Texas State Senate News
  110. ^ Bill 517
  111. ^ a b c d "The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System (S.270)".
  112. ^ LIS > Bill Tracking > HB2742 > 2007 session
  113. ^ LIS > Bill Tracking > SB864 > 2007 session
  114. ^ SB 5628
  115. ^ Bill Status - Complete Bill History
  116. ^ Bill Status - Complete Bill History
  117. ^ Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » West Virginia Senate Committee Defeats National Popular Vote Plan
  118. ^ "Wisconsin AB 313, 2007-08".
  119. ^ Wyoming 2007 legislative status report

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact&oldid=213621819"