[EL] Will Republicans embrace the National Vote Planin 2012? / Anticipating win in Electoral College, while losing national popular vote

[John Koza]

Michael McDonald poses the question: " Could we see strategic Republican
state governments sign on to the NPV in the waning days of the general
election if the dynamic I note persists" (namely Obama appearing to beat
Romney in the Electoral College, while losing the national popular vote). 

The National Popular Vote interstate compact "govern[s] the appointment of
presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this
agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a
majority of the electoral votes." (Article III, clause 9).  Thus, the
compact cannot be brought into effect in the " waning days of the general
election."

Moreover, whatever the polling might show during the general election
campaign in September and October, the reality is that it is not possible to
figure out in advance if one candidate or the other is going to win in the
Electoral College, while losing the national popular vote.  The article
below from the New York Daily News 6 days before the 2000 presidential
election talks about Bush's plan to contest Gore's expected win in the
Electoral College.  


Bush Set To Fight An Electoral College Loss

BY MICHAEL KRAMER
 
Wednesday, November 01, 2000
 
They're not only thinking the unthinkable, they're planning for it. 

Quietly, some of George W. Bush's advisers are preparing for the ultimate
"what if" scenario: What happens if Bush wins the popular vote for
President, but loses the White House because Al Gore's won the majority of
electoral votes?

"Then we win," says a Gore aide. "You play by the rules in force at the
time. If the nation were really outraged by the possibility, then the system
would have been changed long ago. The history is clear."

Yes it is, and it's fascinating. Twice before, Presidents have been elected
after losing the popular vote. In 1876, New York Gov. Samuel Tilden won the
popular vote (51% to 48%) but lost the presidency to Rutherford Hayes, who
won by a single electoral vote. Twelve years later, in 1888, Grover
Cleveland won the popular vote by a single percentage point, but lost his
reelection bid to Benjamin Harrison by 65 electoral votes.

The same thing almost happened in 1976 when Jimmy Carter topped Gerald Ford
by about 1.7 million votes. Back then, a switch of about 5,500 votes in Ohio
and 6,500 votes in Mississippi would have given those states to Ford, enough
for an Electoral College victory. But because it didn't happen, the upset
over its having almost happened faded rapidly.

Why do we even have the Electoral College? Simply put, the Founding Fathers
didn't imagine the emergence of national candidates when they wrote the
Constitution, and, in any event, they didn't trust the people to elect the
President directly. 

A lot has changed since then, including the anachronistic view that the
majority should be feared. But the Electoral College remains.
So what if Gore wins such crucial battleground states as Florida, Michigan
and Pennsylvania and thus captures the magic 270 electoral votes while Bush
wins the overall nationwide popular vote?

"The one thing we don't do is roll over," says a Bush aide. "We fight."

How? The core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular uprising,
stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course.
In league with the campaign - which is preparing talking points about the
Electoral College's essential unfairness - a massive talk-radio operation
would be encouraged. "We'd have ads, too," says a Bush aide, "and I think
you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that
supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will
have been thwarted." 

Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the clergy
will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team Bush will enlist as
many Democrats as possible to scream as loud as they can. "You think
'Democrats for Democracy' would be a catchy term for them?" asks a Bush
adviser.

The universe of people who would be targeted by this insurrection is small -
the 538 currently anonymous folks called electors, people chosen by the
campaigns and their state party organizations as a reward for their service
over the years. 
If you bother to read the small print when you're in the booth, you'll
notice that when you vote for President you're really selecting presidential
electors who favor one candidate or the other.

Generally, these electors are not legally bound to support the person
they're supposedly pledged to when they gather in the various state capitals
to cast their ballots on Dec. 18. The rules vary from state to state, but
enough of the electors could theoretically switch to Bush if they wanted to
- if there was sufficient pressure on them to ratify the popular verdict.

And what would happen if the "what if" scenario came out the other way?
"Then we'd be doing the same thing Bush is apparently getting ready for,"
says a Gore campaign official. "They're just further along in their
contingency thinking than we are. But we wouldn't lie down without a fight,
either."




Dr. John R. Koza, Chair 
National Popular Vote
Box 1441
Los Altos Hills, California 94023 USA
Phone: 650-941-0336
Fax: 650-941-9430
Email: john at johnkoza.com
URL: www.johnkoza.com 
URL: www.NationalPopularVote.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael McDonald [mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:04 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] Will Republicans embrace the National Vote Planin 2012? /
Late-signing up

There is an interesting early dynamic emerging in the polling this cycle.
Romney is neck and neck with Obama nationally, but Obama is leading in key
states for the race for the Electoral College. 

Some reasons why this may be true is that the economy is doing better in key
battleground states, while Romney hurt himself with his auto-bailout
position in states like Ohio. The economy is doing the worst in some urban
Democratic strongholds, so Obama may be able to lose support in these areas
while still winning these states by a comfortable margin. And Obama does
very poorly in deep red states. In other words, there does not appear to be
a uniform national  vote swing from the 2008 to 2012 election.

This raises interesting questions: if Obama beats Romney in the Electoral
College but loses in the popular vote, will Republicans change their tune
about the National Vote Plan? Could we see strategic Republican state
governments sign on to the NPV in the waning days of the general election if
the dynamic I note persists?

============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University Non-Resident Senior Fellow,
Brookings Institution

                             Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191             George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399             Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon at gmu.edu               4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu     Fairfax, VA 22030-4444



_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election