I believe if the National Popular Vote Plan bill passed in virtually enough states to go into effect, the nation would then just pass a Constitutional amendment changing the method for electing a President. And I believe the amendment would probably cause a corresponding change in which the United States would have a federal definition of "voter" and a federal agency for administration of federal elections.
We are still the only nation that has put a human being on the moon. Surely we can figure out a method to count votes for federal elections in a manner that is competent and neutral. Mexico does it, why can't we? I met some Mexican election observers once, and they told us that the most shocking thing about U.S. elections is that there is no federal election administration agency. They were very proud of theirs, which has
representatives from all the active political parties and which, I believe, did a good job in the recent presidential election which was quite close. As had been said before, the United States may be the only nation in the world with free elections but no national election administration agency. The ballots nationwide for president ought to be uniform just as the requirements on who can vote in a presidential election ought to be uniform, instead of the hodge-podge of ex-felon voting rights, the hodge-podge of how people register to vote, the hodge-podge of whether provisional ballots cast outside the home precinct are valid, etc., etc., etc.
--- On Tue, 1/18/11, Sean Parnell <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org> wrote:
From: Sean Parnell <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org>
Subject: Re: [EL] would Americans be
happier if the USA broke up?
To: "'Derek Muller'" <derek.muller@gmail.com>, "'Rob Richie'" <rr@fairvote.org>
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2011, 6:20 AM
The point has been made that under NPV, it is less likely that there will be a disputed election than under the Constitutionally outlined electoral college system. But this is only half the equation – the other thing that must be factored in is the magnitude of the crisis that would ensue under a disputed election under NPV compared to the under the electoral college. Thus, even if NPV reduces the probability of a disputed election, that is not the same as reducing the risk. Risk is probability AND
magnitude of loss/damage. We’ve seen the damage of 2000, and whatever one may think of the outcome, it was dealt with in a single state, and with a relative handful of court rulings, in a little over a month. Under a disputed NPV election scenario, we would literally have 50 Florida’s, regardless of whether all 50 states had signed the NPV compact. Except I think it would be more than 50 times worse than Florida 2000 because of the enhanced possibility of political gamesmanship, such as states deciding whether or not to engage in recounts based on whether they think it will help their preferred candidate or not. Add in the uncertainty over whether legislatures have the
authority to irrevocably set aside their Article II powers for a six-month period (I tend to doubt it), along with the challenges of recounts operating under 50 different standards (or even more fun, 3000+ different standards, since most ballot counting and re-counting action occurs at the county level), and other opportunities for recount chaos, and I think the risk of NPV far outweighs our current system. Sean ParnellPresidentCenter for Competitive Politicshttp://www.campaignfreedom.orghttp://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp124 S. West Street, #201Alexandria, VA 22310(703) 894-6800 phone(703) 894-6813 direct(703) 894-6811 fax From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Derek Muller
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 9:40 AM
To: Rob Richie
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] would Americans be happier if the USA broke up? If I could push back slightly on Mr. Richie's points 2 and 3, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts (or anyone else interested in chiming in).
First, you note, "The current Electoral College system creates such artificial crises far more often than would be likely in a national popular vote plan for president, where the odds of a disputed election legitimately requiring a recount are far lower than a disputed state election that swings the election in our current
system."
Is that accurate? If we were to look at the election of 1880 (decided by 1898 popular votes among over 9.2 million cast), 1884 (decided by 25,685 popular votes among over 10 million cast), and 1960 (decided by 112,754 popular votes among almost 69 million cast), to name a few of the closest (i.e., decided by a margin of 0.3% or less), it doesn't strike me that we would have avoided a "crisis" if we'd used a popular vote method instead of the electoral college.
Now, I concede that if we shift to a strictly national popular vote, we might alter the incentives of voters, third party candidates might fare differently, etc. But, I wondered if there were some strong data, other than anecdotes over 2000 and the like, that we could avoid a "crisis" any better with the popular vote than the electoral college.
Second, you note that in the run-up to the 2008 election, "more than 98% of campaign spending and candidate time was spent in 15 states representing barely a third of American." This strikes me as a very different kind of argument than an argument for "one person, one vote," or some argument for "fairness" for each voter's vote being weighed equally in a national popular vote.
Do Americans have some substantive right to equal access to presidential candidates, to expect them to eat fatty fried foods at their county fairs, to anticipate that they will appear at local construction sites donning hard hats, to look forward to a "town hall" in a local diner with some local paper debating whether the campaign left an adequate tip for a down-on-her-luck waitress?
Okay, that's a bit glib. (And perhaps the reverse argument is also at play: perhaps there's some "right" to be free of such wall-to-wall media coverage.) But arguments about how political campaigns spend their
finances and resources strike me as problematic. We don't know how political campaigns are going to spend their finite (though seemingly infinite) resources in a compressed time frame should we shift to a popular vote. Will they go to places with traditionally high voter turnout, expecting to get a few more to show up; or will they go to places with traditionally low voter turnout, hoping to motivate them? Will they go to "safe" districts or States to drum up still more support from the base; or will they go to "hostile" districts or States, trying to encourage the minority party affiliates to show up? Will they go to urban media markets, where all the people are; or will they go to rural media markets, where the price is right?
In short, the flat observation that political parties have spent their resources in X manner doesn't, in my view, advance the ball very far in convincing us that we ought to shift the method of election of the
President.
Best,
DerekDerek T. MullerVisiting Assistant Professor of LawPenn State Dickinson School of LawLewis Katz BuildingUniversity Park, PA 16802814-867-3411 On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Rob Richie <rr@fairvote.org <http://mc/compose?to=rr@fairvote.org>> wrote:As a founding member of the Maryland cell of the National Popular Vote Liberation Front (which we affectionately call NaPoVLiFt, although I'm not supposed to tell you that), let me offer an
alternative point of view to some of Curtis' understated observations about current efforts to have one-person, one-vote elections for president Let's go in reverse order: 1) This "stealth" effort for the National Popular Vote plan for president was launched with a February 2006 news conference at the National Press Club and an appearance that week by former U.S. Senator Birch Bayh on C-SPAN's Washington Journal. This "putsch" (which the dictionary reports is "a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force") since then has evolved one-on-one discussions with state legislators in every state in the country, and innumerable committee hearings and floor debates, some of which
have literally done on for eight hours. Every state has had bills introduced, more than a quarter of state legislators have sponsored the legislation or voted for it, and nearly a third of our nation's 100 state legislative chambers (counting D.C.) have passed it. One of the most recent legislative chamber wins was in New York's state senate where more than 75% of both Democrats and Republican members voted for it. And yet advocates still have a ways to go. With each new state win, the debate increases -- not quite a "stealth" effort as I might define it. 2. The 2000 recount dispute in Florida was hardly a "walk in the park." And yet it ended up with the Supreme Court, entirely unresolved down at the state level -- as indeed would be the case in a disputed election in any
moderately sized state, given the short timeline for states awarding their electoral votes The current Electoral College system creates such artificial crises far more often than would be likely in a national popular vote plan for president, where the odds of a disputed election legitimately requiring a recount are far lower than a disputed state election that swings the election in our current system. 3. In the 2008 election, in the final two months of the campaign in the wake of the GOP convention, more than 98% of campaign spending and candidate time was spent in 15 states representing barely a third of Americans -- hardly respectful of the different interests and views of the remaining states and their people. Residents of states like Ohio were victims of an endless barrage
of advertisements, almost wall-to-wall in ad time in some markets. Grassroots activity mattered in such states, to be sure, but it was utterly useless in most of the nation, including nearly every small state. That's in contrast to popular vote election where every act to mobilize voters counts equally in helping to decide the election. Popular vote elections aren't a mystery, of course. We use them for every election for U.S. Senate, U.S. House and every state office. Although I might like to improve aspects of them, to be sure, you won't catch me supporting changing them to non-popular vote systems -- and trying to do so at a state level might help demonstrate the weakness of arguments against change at a national level.
Rob Richie, FairVote On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Curtis Gans <gans@american.edu <http://mc/compose?to=gans@american.edu>> wrote:The liberal opposition to National Popular Vote and direct elections has nothing to do with lack of acceptance that we are one nation. It has everything to do with avoiding fully empowering the political consultants, a national media campaign with no incentives for grassroots activity, disincentives for coalition building, undermining the positive aspects of the principle of
federalism -- of understanding that while we are one nation, there are local, state a regional differences and concerns that need to be addressed in campaigns and public policy; and the possibility of needed a recount of all the votes cast in the nation making the 2000 Florida recount seem a day in the park. With regard to NPV -- procedurally, it is foisting a radical restructuring of how we elect president by a stealth campaign and the equivalent of a putsch.
Curtis Gans, Director
Center for the Study of the American Electorate
Center for Democracy and Election Management
American University
3201 New Mexico Avenue NW
Suite 395
Washington, DC 20016-8026
Phones: (202) 885-6295 (o); (703) 304-1283 (c), (540) 822-5292 (h)
Fax: (202) 885-6294
e-mail: gans@american.edu <http://mc/compose?to=gans@american.edu>; curtis.gans@gmail.com <http://mc/compose?to=curtis.gans@gmail.com>
Website: http://www.American.edu/ia/cdem/csae
From: Richard Winger <richardwinger@yahoo.com <http://mc/compose?to=richardwinger@yahoo.com>>
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu <http://mc/compose?to=election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Date: 01/15/2011 02:03 PM
Subject: [EL] would Americans be happier if the USA broke up?
Sent by: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
I sometimes wonder if residents of the U.S. wouldn't be happier if the United States ceased to be one nation, and each state became its own independent country. So much of our political issues are really regional, somewhat in disguise. The cultural conflicts are extreme and seem related to regionalism.
Of course this is not a new or original idea.
There has been so little discourse on this list for so long, I thought I would throw it out and see what happens.
The fierce difference opinion about the electoral college seems to reflect that a very large share of Americans really don't accept that we are one nation. It seems obvious to me that when the U.S. has a presidential election and the voters believe they are choosing the president, the person with the most votes ought to be the winner. The root of the opposition to that idea, I think, is actually based on resistance to the idea that we are one nation.
There also seems little support for the notion that the election laws governing congressional elections ought to be uniform. As it stands now, congressional elections are a hodge-podge of various state election law systems. _______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu <http://mc/compose?to=election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu <http://mc/compose?to=election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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@fairvote.org <http://mc/compose?to=rr@fairvote.org>
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see http://fair <http://fairvote.org/donate>