How did the electoral college die?

The National Popular Vote initiative killed it:

Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

Ok, it hasn't killed it yet, but it's just a matter of time; they're already up to 50 out of the required 270 electoral votes.

The practical effect this will have on the world is next to nil, I imagine, and I wouldn't be surprised if NPV ended up hurting third parties (since the tiny minority of people who understand how the electoral college works and are freed by geography to vote for the candidate they actually prefer would find themselves faced with the same lesser-evil calculus as the rest of the population).  Still, it's an impressive and even mildly inspiring example of how a small group of people can fix an egregiously broken system, and I'd like to see it succeed on principle if nothing else.

UPDATE: In researching the status of NPV here I found that the California legislature passed it in 2006, but the bill was vetoed by the Governator.  A second version of the bill is apparently still sitting in his inbox.

You can see what's going on with your own state here.

Comments

[SteveB]

I haven't seen much advocacy for this on the part of online libs or the Democratic Party, which is interesting, given that the electoral college facilitated the theft of the Presidency in 2000.

But maybe they were planning on stealing it back some time in the future?

[susan]

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

[susan]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.

In Gallup polls since 1944, 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 (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

[TheVirginiaHistorian]

The npv asks that voters give up their identity for Rouseau's General Will. You can't know how you voted as an individual until the majority from other states tells you how you voted.

Direct popular election of the President has been a serious proposal since James Wilson in the Constitutional Convention. But since then, most objections to the Electoral College is from the outrage at virtual disenfranchisement of political or geographic minorities from the unit rule.

The District Plan, one elector from each congressional district, and a two-elector bonus for the state majority, was used by twelve states before 19th Century political machines went to the unit rule, winner take all, to erase the state minorities in hope of presidential patronage. Free people will divide at times apart from the expectations of county registrars.

With the District Plan, a state can choose to divide (Nebraska 4-1) or be unified (Maine 4-0) each election, according to the people in that state, without referrals to voter counts elsewhere. Every state with a district plan is a battlefield state; Obama campaigned in the urban district and won a Democratic elector for the first time in 44 years.

The state-made District Plan allows voters to express their individuality and states to express their diversity by real people. it can be done in time for the 2012 election, regardless of the fate of npv.

[John Caruso]

The npv asks that voters give up their identity for Rouseau's General Will. You can't know how you voted as an individual until the majority from other states tells you how you voted.

No, the current system of electoral allocation is what subjugates each individual vote to the general will, as up to half of each state's voters will have their votes entirely erased. And having one elector per Congressional district just shifts the problem one level downward—and subjects presidential elections to the same gerrymandering that's turned so many Congressional elections into a farce.

NPV fixes that entirely by awarding the presidency to the person who received the most popular votes—period. Barring a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to get in place, I don't see any better way to make that happen. And there's nothing stopping NPV from being done in time for 2012 either.

If you're disagreeing that the President should be elected by popular vote, that's a different discussion—but I haven't heard any reasonable argument that would imply that those who support popular election of the President should oppose NPV.

Steve: I think there's just not much awareness that this is out there, which is why I thought it would be worth posting about it (since I only heard about it during the last election cycle myself).

[TheVirginiaHistorian]

The popular vote aggregated across states is not the people. States are different in registration, machine distribution, voting, counting, fraud and appeals. If the federal courts are not to pick the president each time, there must be uniform federal election standards and administration. Npv proposals never provide for the cost and delays of either likely outcome.

Virginia does not distribute its voting machines equitably across the state in proportion to voter turnout. Pennsylvania has three times the number of voting machines per voter as Virginia. The total vote reported out of Illinois is never a surprise to the Cook County registrar.

Everyone dead voting will count immediately for the national total. Obama won his first state senate seat there without opposition by disqualifying his opponents. When challenged, none of the others had sufficient valid signatures on their petitions to qualify to run.

No one has to sue Illinois because it weighs only what it's population deserves. The state polices itself, although sometimes it takes two years after a presidential election to throw out Cook County votes in federal court.

John Caruso makes a cogent critique condemning the state-made unit rule which we both find a disservice to the American people. The District Plan eliminates the inequities of the state-made unit rule, and advances a reformed presidential election.

[John Caruso]

All: As you may have guessed, TheVirginiaHistorian and susan just search for any site that mentions "national popular vote" and then go comment diving to spew their boilerplate talking points.

I give TheVirginiaHistorian higher grades for inserting my name into one of his responses so that it almost appeared to be addressing my points (as opposed to susan's entirely cut-and-pasted comments). However, I can't go farther than that in my praise, since TheVirginiaHistorian has made clear that he does not feel that 1) the president should be elected by the popular vote or that 2) every person's presidential vote should count exactly as much as every other person's presidential vote. To anyone reading this thread now or in the future, let me repeat that last point: TheVirginiaHistorian does NOT believe that all votes should count equally.

I have to tell you though, TVH, your shtick is unconvincing; it's too obvious that you're blowing smoke to disguise the fact that you're opposed to popular election of the president. In the future, I think you should start every posting by saying "I am entirely opposed to popular election of the president, and here's why," rather than dancing around the issue. And by the way, if 1) you respond and 2) that response includes any significant amount of cut-and-pasted arguments you've posted elsewhere, I may delete any or all of the boilerplate. I encourage debate here, but I don't pay 8 bucks a month to provide a free billboard for comment divers.

[TheVirginiaHistorian]

You mistake me. Go to www.presidentialelectionamendment.com for a serious, well thought out proposal for direct election of president that does not suffer from the npv disadvantages. Much of what I write is directly as a consequence of trying to meet Susan's argument. Yes, she is that good. Sorry about being too long winded.

[John Caruso]

TVH: I wrote that "NPV fixes that entirely by awarding the presidency to the person who received the most popular votes—period. Barring a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to get in place, I don't see any better way to make that happen." You responded first by ignoring that, and now by mentioning a proposal to amend the Constitution—which not only doesn't answer my objection but directly contradicts it.

Obviously NPV doesn't fix every problem with our electoral system, but it does fix the main problem. And while I'd certainly agree that those other issues need to be addressed, it makes no sense to oppose NPV just because it's not a cure-all. If you're genuinely concerned about achieving perfection or nothing at all, it also doesn't make sense to propose a system of allocating electors based on gerrymandered Congressional districts—and the glaring contradiction there makes your arguments appear disingenuous.

[TheVirginiaHistorian]

Okay, so I'm more conservative than you are. To me, it makes no sense to oppose the protections of the Electoral College from fraud before mpv solves the Cook County problem, which is not isolated, which you did not address.

And I have already conceded to mvymvy elsewhere that gerrymandered Congressional Districts are a real problem, which I would like to discuss further with you. It is the obverse of the Cook County problem.

Also, when mvymvy shows up, there will have a great deal of cut and paste, but if he is good enough to share it, we will have an excellent narrative description of the Constitutional Convention process. And the historical narrative on growth of democracy is dynamite too. I just can't follow to the npv.

[SteveB]

All: As you may have guessed, TheVirginiaHistorian and susan just search for any site that mentions "national popular vote" and then go comment diving to spew their boilerplate talking points.

Work with me here, I'm seeing a half-hour dramedy, working title: "Susan and the Virginia Historian." They're roomates, see, and they can't agree on anything - wonkish political hilarity ensues as they debate everything from, say, National Popular Vote to, um... National Popular Vote. It's the Odd Couple meets The West Wing, and I think we can even get Kelsey Grammer to play the Historian! Well, have your people call mine. Ciao!

[TheVirginiaHistorian]

Okay, let me try to explain. Regardless of proposals by good people with serious intent, both npv and district plan may fail in the face of endemic political corruption by voter fraud or district gerrymandering.

We are in fact fundamentally (conservative), radically (liberal) agreed that the courts should never again choose the president. You know, like it says in Federalist #68. Mock all you like. That was wrong.

[TheVirginiaHistorian]

John Caruso: I think I will be a better blogger now.

Federalist #68: the election of the President SHOULD be
1. by the people: not legislatures, not courts.
2. the people in coalitions: not narrow interest, not narrow geography.
3. immediate: not disrupted, not corrupted.
All three at the same time is not easy, and we are not there yet.

That's what I should write at the beginning of every post.

[John Caruso]

TVH: C'mon, you've got to admit it was pretty funny.

Look, I do appreciate that you've climbed down from cut-and-paste to actual conversation. However (and I intend no offense with this), you've yet to make a single cogent point that indicates why I or anyone else who believes in...:

1) Popular election of the president
2) Equal weight for every vote cast for president

...should not support NPV. Every point you've brought up applies equally to the system as it is now, as it would be under a district plan, as it would be under NPV, or as it would be no matter what changes we make. For example, no amount of laws about voting procedures are going to prevent court challenges at all levels—and that's a good thing (despite 2000), because we need to be able to challenge corrupt practices in court. And laws already exist to prevent corrupt politicians from manipulating voter rolls, but they're no more going to put a stop to that kind of activity than laws against murder prevent it from happening.

Also, you talk about "voter fraud" as if it's equivalent to gerrymandering or other shenanigans, but actual voter fraud is all but nonexistent. The biggest problem isn't people trying to vote fraudulently—it's politicians (and in this case, overwhelmingly Republicans) trying to prevent them from voting at all.

So basically you're advancing a group or goals that are anywhere from difficult to impossible to achieve, and then saying they should be a prerequisite to getting rid of the electoral college, which we can achieve surprisingly easily with NPV. That makes no sense to me—which, in connection with your repeated non sequitur that you're a conservative, makes me suspect that your real objection is less about process and more about expected results. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, however, or it shouldn't be; it's an equality vs. privilege issue, and you're on the wrong side of it.

[John Caruso]

By the way, I reject the argumentum ad verecundiam that says we should abide by what Hamilton or any of his contemporaries said, whether in Federalist #68 or anywhere else. I want the electoral college and its distortion of direct democracy in presidential elections abolished—period. As I said, the practical effect of doing so will likely be close to nil, but it's nonetheless the right thing to do.

[TheVirginiaHistorian]

Okay. yours was funny, but Steve B was funnier.

I actually am trying to think this thing through, using Google Search to find conversation partners. The item new here is the formulation of the Cook County problem and tying it to the more generally (okay, CSPAN) knowledge of Obama's political career.

I've seen your challenge to the District Plan based on gerrymandering before from New England (your connections?), so the response I had worked out by my entry at the WSJ Numbers Guy, as I remember, not cut and pasted:

To define the boundaries of a US Congressional District, state legislatures should use US Census tracts in a computer program to aggregate nearly equal numbers around watersheds. This would tie the concerns of the resulting political community to the land where they live together, instead of shredding populations by race and ideology. Also, think green.

[TheVirginiaHistorian]

The “original intent” boys have sort of poisoned the well, and what DeToqueville called America’s priesthood (lawyers) use the Federalist Papers for court opinions that can be without reference to the people they are affecting. Both are mistaken.

But there is still insight to be gained, mostly in developing complexity of thought. For instance, people are almost temperamentally divided into those who strive for liberty with safety, versus those who strive for safety with liberty, and this can become the basis for party organization.

It is this distinction in the Declaration of Independence, “best effect their safety and happiness”, happiness being the pursuit of, in personal liberty. A stab at being inclusive, you see.

It is only in this sense I mean liberal and conservative, but you are correct, that is not how the terms are generally used, so I will drop them in discussion here.

[TheVirginiaHistorian]

I concede point one, that npv is an honest try at the ideal of popular election of the president. Since November, if you will forgive me, I insist on giving honorable mention of James Wilson of Pennsylvania in the Constitutional Convention trying to introduce direct popular election, literally to the last day of session.

It keeps coming up because the blogosphere is filled with folks wandering off into the intellectual desert with charges of socialism and the death of our democratic republic. Just not so with npv, even partially adopted. My point is that it’s got other problems: on to point two.

[John Caruso]

Thanks, but only SteveB was funny (and very much so). I have yet to go for yuks here.

NPV may have problems, but if so it's not at all apparent from your arguments. I take it what you're saying is that voting procedures might differ in different states and therefore voters in Wisconsin might be disadvantaged vs. voters in California—but that's irrelevant, for several reasons. First, their votes are almost entirely unequal now, thanks to aggregation at the elector level, and NPV would at least reduce that inequality to the lowest possible level. Second, the district plan you're espousing retains that same type of elector-based inequality. And finally, it's going to be the case under any voting system that different states and counties are going to have different equipment, procedures, and so on—so why put that forward as an argument only against NPV? Why is it not also a fatal flaw of your favored plan of using Congressional districts?

It's that glaring contradiction that makes your argument appear disingenuous. You've yet to make a single point that indicates why NPV, and NPV alone, should be opposed. In fact, you've yet to point out anything I could even see as a potential flaw in NPV (and I say this not as a partisan, but as someone who's completely open to being convinced that NPV is the wrong way to achieve a desirable goal).

If you're genuinely conservative in the way you say, you should want to leave things entirely alone until perfection in voting procedures is achieved and so a popular vote system like NPV can be put in place safely, rather than pushing for an alternative that suffers from the very same problems you're calling out with NPV (and the same problems as the existing system to boot).

[TheVirginiaHistorian]

The “aggregation at the elector level” means (I suppose) the state-made unit rule, winner take all, which is not a flaw of the Electoral College, but that of the states, and a flaw which the District Plan solves without the npv. Npv, on the other hand, does not address the problem of different states treating registration, voting, counting and fraud differently.

California and Wisconsin votes are not “almost entirely” unequal, because the Electoral College is based on equally weighted population. Given current population estimates, Minnesota is 14% of California; in the electoral college based on 2000 Census, its 18%.

The advantage of making voting weight match up to populations is that voting in political communities is not based on county registrar performance or virtue. The fundamental assumption of the npv is that all votes are equal, but nothing is proposed to triple Virginia’s voting machines so that it equals Pennsylvania’s.

Nothing in npv is proposed to overturn Virginia’s supreme court to require equal numbers of voting machines for equal numbers of voters across the state. Votes are not equal, and npv does nothing to make them so.

[TheVirginiaHistorian]

I most resent (besides court appointment of president) the virtual disenfranchisement of voters in a state minority, whether political or geographic. One of the most egregious is California, dropping almost 5 million votes in the last election. It is true that npv addresses this nationally, uniformly, in a way that the district plan does not for Alaska or DC.

But there are only eight single member returns, 28 of the 538 electors. They split 9-15 with a 1% impact on national totals. I like a proportional voting here, 20% floor, top three elector split for diversity.

[John Caruso]

Votes are not equal, and npv does nothing to make them so.

And neither will the district elections you support. But at least with NPV we won't have electors negating the votes of millions of voters, like me.

I'll bow out now. Thanks for the comments.