[EL] National Popular Vote Passes Crucial Milestone

[Tara Ross]

Maybe I should clarify my statement.  Yes, in a sense, electors are
always chosen based on what is happening outside state borders. You
could say that the War in Iraq caused many people to vote against
Republicans, for instance. But states' electors have always been chosen
based on the electoral/policy/candidate preferences of the voters within
that state. In other words, I can think of no example where a state
decided how to allocate its electors based on what policy was important
to or which candidate was preferred by the voters in another state.

 

 

 

From: Richard Winger [mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 12:23 PM
To: Michael McDonald; law-election at uci.edu; Tara Ross
Subject: Re: [EL] National Popular Vote Passes Crucial Milestone

 

There have been many instances in the past in which states decided who
should become that state's presidential electors, based on events that
happened outside that state's borders.  

South Carolina's legislature chose that state's presidential elections,
in all presidential elections before the Civil war.  In 1832, the
legislature was so displeased with Andrew Jackson's fierce stance
against nullification by any state, the legislature chose presidential
electors who promised to vote against both Jackson and Henry Clay.
South Carolina's legislature acted similarly in 1836, deliberately
choosing presidential electors who promised to vote against Martin Van
Buren and to also vote against the various Whig Party presidential
nominees (the Whig Party had 3 presidential nominees in 1836).

--- On Fri, 6/10/11, Tara Ross <tara at taraross.com> wrote:


From: Tara Ross <tara at taraross.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] National Popular Vote Passes Crucial Milestone
To: "Michael McDonald" <mmcdon at gmu.edu>, law-election at uci.edu
Date: Friday, June 10, 2011, 9:59 AM

Well, at least one significant departure is NPV's insistence on acting
only in concert with other states.  So I go back to one of my earlier
points: If a state like Massachusetts TRULY believes that it's in
Massachusetts's best interest to give its electors to the winner of the
national popular vote, then it should do so immediately. It does not
need to wait for other states to jump on board and make similar
decisions. Its insistence on acting only with other states is
problematic and makes the interstate compact look like an end run around
the constitutional amendment process.

Another significant departure is that this would be the first time that
a state awards electors based on some consideration other than what is
happening within its own borders.




 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110610/ecbb08bc/attachment.html>