[EL] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Derek Muller
derek.muller at gmail.com
Sun Oct 28 21:03:52 PDT 2012
Regarding the first point, "With NPV, there would never be an Electoral
College vote tie," why wouldn't the House pursue the less-intrusive means
and just expand its size to 436?
An odd-numbered House wasn't a problem prior to the 23d Amendment. And
there are times in America's history where the House did have an even
number of members. It could increase the majority vote in the House from
218 to 219; it would mean a theoretical tie; but, given the size of the
House, it is often under its maximum capacity anyway, as members die or
resign with some regularity and leave the House with a de facto tie; and
rarely to all members of the House vote, anyway. The 436th seat is due to
North Carolina this apportionment, but perhaps a Rawlsian method might risk
the next two presidential elections and expand the House in the next
apportionment.
Of course, this wouldn't cure the possibility that a third-party candidate
captured electoral votes and thwarted an electoral majority, but if 269-269
is the concern, this strikes me as the far easier solution than tossing the
Electoral College.
Derek
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org> wrote:
> The National Popular Vote plan indeed does have a history of triggering
> long discussions here. I would suggest those who missed them consider
> looking back in the listserv archive as well as a variety of online
> resources about issues of debate. Every Vote Equal, for example, is
> available as a free download at http:/www.everyvoteequal.com -- it has a
> lengthy discussion in Chapter 10 of concerns that have been raised, with
> John Koza's posts earlier today grounded in that excellent resource.
>
> Getting back to the original question from Lillie Coney about whether NPV
> would be exacerbating problems, I would strongly argue the opposite. This
> year's election in fact to me underscores what I would see as the both the
> bankruptcy of the current system and its greater vulnerability to creating
> an artificial crisis than what we will see if and when the National Popular
> Vote plan is enacted in time for the 2016 election.
>
> Here's what we know about the current Electoral College rules compared to
> the National Popular Vote plan:
>
> 1. With NPV, there would never be an Electoral College vote tie, with all
> its resulting weirdness and potential for instability. There are any number
> of stories out there about whether a tie would lead to a Romney-Biden White
> House. Imagine the additional vitriol associated with that scenario if
> Obama has won the popular vote, but the House sticks with Romney. You'd see
> intense pressure on just one Romney elector to defect to avoid this
> scenario.
>
> The same irrational procedure for how Congress selecting the president and
> vice-president kicks in if a third party candidate gets enough electoral
> votes to deprive any candidate of getting a majority. That almost happened
> in 1968, when George Wallace won several southern states, as Nixon would
> have lost his electoral vote majority (and perhaps the presidency) if
> Humphrey had won California rather than lose it by 4%. This year Americans
> Elect had visions of its candidate being strong enough to win some states
> and potentially deny an electoral vote majority without negotiation with
> its electors.
>
> 2. With NPV, there never would be a winner who loses in the popular vote.
> Here's a relevant excerpt from a very interesting story on that potential
> scenario in yesterday's Washington Post that talks about how that leads to
> a weakened presidency:
>
> <<Veterans of the Bush White House understand that problem well. ....“A
> close election is a polarizing event, and a discrepancy between the popular
> outcome and the electoral vote only adds to the polarization,” said Karen
> Hughes, who served as a counselor to Bush. “It rubs a raw nerve even
> rawer.” >>
>
> 3. We would never have this year's utterly bizarre reality of well over
> 90% of campaign resources and attention devoted to less than 20% of states
> and ALL of it devoted to states representing less than a third of
> Americans. Ohio has had more ads and campaign visits than the smallest 29
> states, underscoring how anyone who says the current system helps small
> states just isn't paying attention.
>
> 4. There would be less likelihood of a disputed outcome that could not be
> resolved by the meeting of the electors. The current system magnifies the
> impact of very small margins in swing states, creating all kind of
> opportunities for voter fraud and polarizing fingerpointing both before and
> after elections. As one example, numbers guru Nate Silver of
> FiveThirtyEight.com argues that there is a 50% chance that the candidate
> who wins Ohio will win the presidency We know that Ohio could come down to
> a very small margin -- one that if extremely close, will not be resolved in
> a way that the losers will accept by the time the electors will meet.
>
> The odds of the national popular vote margin being within a recount range
> is much less. Our study of statewide recounts from 2000 to 2009 has
> relevant findings about just how little vote percentages change in recounts
> -- enough to potentially affect the presidency if the White House hinges on
> one swing state like Ohio, perhaps, but extremely unlikely in the event of
> a national popular vote: http://www.fairvote.org/recounts
>
> - Rob Richie, FairVote
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Gaddie, Ronald K. <rkgaddie at ou.edu>wrote:
>
>> For what it is worth, there are many people who joined this list more
>> recently than 18 months ago. And, there is a certain dismissive quality to
>> saying 'oh, we did that already,' when the goal of the list is to inform
>> and educate.
>>
>> We have engaged massive, ongoing threads about aspects of section 2,
>> section 5, early voting, voter identification, and aspects of campaign
>> finance that are repetitive to previous experience and discussions.
>>
>> Perhaps there is room to allow this discussion to go forward?
>>
>>
>> Ronald Keith Gaddie, Ph.D.
>> Professor of Political Science
>> Editor, Social Science Quarterly
>> The University of Oklahoma
>> 455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
>> Norman, OK 73019-2001
>> Phone 405-325-4989
>> Fax 405-325-0718
>> E-mail: rkgaddie at ou.edu
>> http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1
>> http://socialsciencequarterly.org
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of
>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com [sean at impactpolicymanagement.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:01 PM
>> To: Scarberry, Mark; law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu;
>> law-election at uci.edu
>> Subject: Re: [EL] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
>>
>> I generally share Mark's thoughts on this, and indeed there seems little
>> reason to re-hash the past arguments on both sides. One thing that should
>> be pointed out however is that pretty much everyone on this list has in
>> recent years been stunned/surprised/ dismayed by how SCOTUS has ruled on
>> some aspect of election law (not to mention other areas of law) that they
>> were sure would go the other way. Thus I don't think either side can/should
>> place too much confidence in how SCOTUS might ultimately rule on the myriad
>> issues related to NPV. In my book that counts as reason enough to not
>> venture down that path (I have little interest in seeing the mega-sequel to
>> Bush v. Gore), but others may have a greater zest for adventure in this
>> area.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Sean Parnell
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>
>> Sender: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 08:51:08
>> To: law-election at uci.edu<law-election at uci.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [EL] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
>>
>> We had a long discussion of the NPVIC on this list a year or so ago. It's
>> probably available in the archives. Dan Lowenstein and I pointed out that
>> Art. II requires that the "state" appoint the electors, and that a choice
>> by the national popular vote is in no sense an appointment by the "state."
>> The analysis in McPherson v. Blacker (1892) depends in very substantial
>> part on this exact point -- it was essentially the question presented --
>> and McPherson is binding on courts other than the Supreme Court. A
>> constitutional scholar for whom I have great respect suggested strongly to
>> me that this analysis is mistaken, and at some point I will take the time
>> to review it again carefully, but at this point I think it is correct.
>>
>> On the Congressional approval point, my colleague Derek Muller has done
>> excellent work.
>>
>> It seems to me that if anything is a compact requiring congressional
>> approval, the NPVIC would be. But then it is not appropriate for states and
>> congress acting together to change the way the President is chosen for the
>> entire nation, given that such joint action for nationwide purposes is
>> provided for by Article V.
>>
>> The NPVIC also undercuts the Great Compromise which was necessary to
>> creation of the Constitution, by in effect changing the balance of power in
>> choice of the President so that it does not reflect the two electoral votes
>> that each state is to have as a result of simply being a state.
>>
>> We hashed this all out at great length before on this list, as I noted. I
>> don't have time now to rehash it; if anyone is interested in my views,
>> check the archive.
>>
>> Best,
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Tara Ross
>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 8:30 AM
>> To: Gaddie, Ronald K.; Lillie Coney; law-election at uci.edu
>> Subject: Re: [EL] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
>>
>> You forgot Article V:
>>
>> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
>> shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of
>> the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a
>> Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid
>> to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by
>> the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions
>> in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may
>> be proposed by the Congress . . .
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of
>> Gaddie, Ronald K.
>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 5:53 AM
>> To: Lillie Coney; 'law-election at UCI.edu'(law-election at uci.edu)
>> Subject: Re: [EL] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
>>
>> "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
>> direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
>> Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
>> Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit
>> under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." Article II, Sec.
>> 1, clause 2.
>>
>> Then Article I, sec. 10, in the Compact Clause, that "No State shall,
>> without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact
>> with another State"
>>
>> I leave it to the Constitutional scholars to hash this one out, but as to
>> method, it seems that playing poker and a vigorous round of
>> rock-papers-scissors are on the table as selection methods if states should
>> so chuse. The phrases 'rational' and 'popular' appear in no particular
>> proximity to these clauses.
>>
>> Best,
>> ~kg
>>
>>
>> Ronald Keith Gaddie, Ph.D.
>> Professor of Political Science
>> Editor, Social Science Quarterly
>> The University of Oklahoma
>> 455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
>> Norman, OK 73019-2001
>> Phone 405-325-4989
>> Fax 405-325-0718
>> E-mail: rkgaddie at ou.edu
>> http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1
>> http://socialsciencequarterly.org
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Lillie
>> Coney [coney at lillieconey.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 9:34 PM
>> To: 'law-election at UCI.edu' (law-election at uci.edu)
>> Subject: [EL] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
>>
>> This idea gained popular debate status after the very close outcome of
>> the 2000 Election. It is worth thinking about the real implications if it
>> were in place for a future election.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
>>
>> I have my doubts about it when this was proposed and after watching this
>> election year--it would further complicate what will be a hard fought
>> election to the very last vote.
>>
>> Would it be Constitutional without an Amendment?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>
> Rob Richie
> Executive Director
>
> FairVote
> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
> Takoma Park, MD 20912
> www.fairvote.org <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
> (301) 270-4616
>
> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
> http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a
> gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number is
> 10132.) Thank you!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121028/093e9631/attachment.html>
View list directory