Trump: Against the Electoral College; For National Popular Vote

[totototo]

Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

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 ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
"Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

"The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."

Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
"Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."

The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"

The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states' action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:
"the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government."

The Court also noted that the compact did not
"authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence."

 

[totototo]

Under the Constitution and existing federal laws, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the uniform nationwide “safe harbor” date -- 6 days before the uniform nationwide day when the Electoral College meets in mid-December.

 

[totototo]

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

 

[totototo]

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

From 1992- 2016
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
16 states (with 195) voted Democratic every time

Many states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
 38 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2016
 29 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2016
 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

 

[totototo]

Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as 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 do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

 

[totototo]

I think they agree in a larger context, but not when thinking of their
own state's power. Thus, the winner-take-all in the EC endures.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Issues of importance to 38 non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. .
Policies important to the citizens of the 38 non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

 

[Nous]

No matter what method we have, someone will feel slighted. As you yourself pointed out, if we change the Constitution and eliminate the Electoral system, presidential candidates will concentrate their efforts on the four biggest states and ignore everyone else. The large states will be the new battleground states.

No, I didn't say or suggest any such thing. Just the contrary. An election that requires winning the national popular vote will require a national campaign. It will require appealing to all Americans, rather than to little critical pockets of Americans in particular states. As noted above, the 50 largest cities in the US account for only about 15% of the population. See: 9.5 Myths about Big Cities

I don't see that your desired change will guarantee a larger voter turnout.

The fact the majority of Americans live in states where they know beforehand which candidate will receive their state's electoral votes can only lead to lower voter turnout.

As @totototo notes, voter turnout is significantly higher in battleground states. Electing the President by national popular vote makes the entire nation a battleground. At least in close races, voters will not face an election where they know beforehand that their vote will be thrown away on the sure-fit winner or loser of their state's electoral votes.

 

[Nous]

Rephrase the question "Do you support electing the President by national popular vote?" in such a way that most Americans would answer "no".

After Trump was elected who won by Electoral College

? I don't know if that is supposed to be a response to my request. Perhaps you don't know what a question is?

 

[Nous]

That's a pretty ingenuous solution. It doesn't have as much permanence as a constitutional amendment, but it does move us towards a better situation IMHO. If enough states join the pact then you will have a de facto national vote and it will make a constitutional amendment that much easier to pass.

Good point. Agree.

Part of the reasoning behind the electoral college is that it was meant to be a fail safe in case an entirely unfit person was elected to office.

Hamilton (or whoever) did say that in the Federalist Papers. However, a Time article kind of clarifies the issue:

It is the 12th Amendment’s Electoral College system, not the Philadelphia Framers’, that remains in place today. If the general citizenry’s lack of knowledge had been the real reason for the Electoral College, this problem was largely solved by 1800. So why wasn’t the entire Electoral College contraption scrapped at that point?

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.​

 

[columbus]

. The large states will be the new battleground states.

As it should be, since that's where the most people live.
One of the big misconceptions here is brought about by the winner takes all system. The biggest states are not monolithic voting blocs. IIRC, Trump got twice as many votes in San Francisco as Wyoming. And that's just the ones who bothered to vote, knowing that Clinton would win in California. The big populous states are also the most diverse.
Tom

 

[Underhill]

I think it would be good for the most part. When I look at a state like NY, where the state always goes democrat but there is a large republican voting block, it is largely ignored every election.

Clearly the whole purpose for the electoral college (keeping someone unfit from office) has failed miserably.

 

[columbus]

The fact the majority of Americans live in states where they know beforehand which candidate will receive their state's electoral votes can only lead to lower voter turnout.

I think that this is huge.
The USA electorate is notoriously ill informed and apathetic. There's lots of reasons for that, but I think that a big one is the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters. If you already know the outcome in your state, for the biggest election in the country, why bother? Treat it like a sporting event.
Also, if the "best and the brightest", the smart and ambitious people who move from the Dakotas to the big city, automatically get their voting power cut to a quarter of the power of a vote in Wyoming, is that an improvement to the likely quality of the winner of the election?
Tom

 

[totototo]

More people register to vote and do vote when they know their vote matters.

If you're a Republican voter in a blue state or a Democratic voter in a red state, your vote for president doesn't matter to your candidate.

With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 12 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 70-80% of the country that is conceded months in advance by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

A national popular vote could increase down-ballot voter turnout during presidential election years.

Every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

Voters in the minority in non-battleground states, red or blue, are cheated in every presidential election.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in presidential elections in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates.

Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the then 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

In 2016, in battleground states, turnout hit 65%, 5 points higher than in non-battleground states.

 

[Nous]

I think that this is huge.
The USA electorate is notoriously ill informed and apathetic. There's lots of reasons for that, but I think that a big one is the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters. If you already know the outcome in your state, for the biggest election in the country, why bother? Treat it like a sporting event.

I've never lived in a state that was a battleground state during any election. I hate to say it, but I've done the "why bother?" thing more than once.

Also, if the "best and the brightest", the smart and ambitious people who move from the Dakotas to the big city, automatically get their voting power cut to a quarter of the power of a vote in Wyoming, is that an improvement to the likely quality of the winner of the election?

Good point.

 

[Akivah]

No, I didn't say or suggest any such thing. Just the contrary. An election that requires winning the national popular vote will require a national campaign. It will require appealing to all Americans, rather than to little critical pockets of Americans in particular states. As noted above, the 50 largest cities in the US account for only about 15% of the population.

Interesting that you responded by cities, while ignoring my actual statement that referred to states. The more widely an advertising net is thrown, the more expensive it is. No matter how votes are counted, candidates will spend their time and money in the geographic places where they get the biggest effect with the least dollars. Going solely by population, 33% of the US population is in just four states. And over 50% of the population is in just nine states. At least 30 states will be mostly ignored in a straight popular vote. The 20 states with less than 1% will be courted far less than if they had 3 electoral votes.

I don't accept your assumption that voters in those twenty states will turn out more than now, when their support won't matter to a victory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've never lived in a state that was a battleground state during any election. I hate to say it, but I've done the "why bother?" thing more than once.
Good point.

Not me, since even if the presidency is not in question in my state, and it rarely is, there are still Senate and House seats to vote for and local politics of course. Though in the last election for the first time ever I voted third part because I thought both major candidates were awful. It was a luxury that I could afford since there was no doubt who would win the electoral votes from my state.

The bad thing about your proposed bill is that I could no longer take the easy way out if I hated both candidates and if my state was extremely sure which candidate would win. I would have to choose the better of the two. Hmmm, I am having some second thoughts about this. Not sure if I am ready for the responsibility

 

[Nous]

At least 30 states will be mostly ignored in a straight popular vote. The 20 states with less than 1% will be courted far less than if they had 3 electoral votes.

Cite the facts by which you have drawn your conclusions here.

I don't accept your assumption that voters in those twenty states will turn out more than now, when their support won't matter to a victory.

Show that the votes cast by the 16% of the US population who live in the smallest states "will not matter to a victory" for the winner of the national popular vote. That is, cite the fact(s) by which you have deduced that conclusion.

If Trump had had 16% more votes (or half that many--8% more), he would have won the national popular vote.

As noted in the OP, citing figures from National Popular Vote:

Two thirds of presidential and vice-presidential post-convention campaign events were held in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Iowa). Post-convention campaign events occurred in only one of the 13 smallest states (New Hampshire). There were no post-convention events in 22 of the 25 smallest states. There were no advertising dollars spent in 38 states after the conventions, while the total of more than $939 million was spent in 12 battleground states. Fifty-five percent of all post-convention advertising expenditures were disbursed in just 3 states (Ohio, Florida and Virginia). See: 9.2. Myths That Candidates Reach Out to All the States under the Current System​

California alone contains more people than the total of the 20 least populous states (List of U.S. states and territories by population - Wikipedia ), yet under the current state-winner-take-all electoral system, California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Georgia, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Tennessee, etc., etc., were all entirely ignored in the most recent presidential elections, because they're not battleground states. Which is more of a travesty?

And what is the system of electing the President by electors intended to accomplish? What is supposed to be meritorious about it?

 

[tytlyf]

See, most conservatives aren't on board with this. Which is why republicans in congress wouldn't be on board with the NPVIC. Republicans usually cheat to win elections, and the electoral college is one extra avenue for them to exploit.

1 vote should equal 1 vote.

 

[Nous]

See, most conservatives aren't on board with this. Which is why republicans in congress wouldn't be on board with the NPVIC.

As already noted once, Republicans in Congress do not need to be "on board with the NPVIC." Neither the NPVIC's passage by states nor its constitutionality is contingent on Republicans in Congress.

There's nothing dumber than blind, staunch partisanism, is there?

 

[columbus]

Not me, since even if the presidency is not in question in my state, and it rarely is, there are still Senate and House seats to vote for and local politics of course.

Of course this is true.
But when the biggest election in the country is already a forgone conclusion where you live, it's easier for people to be apathetic about the whole standing in line and waiting and such.
Tom