The US National Popular Vote is a little bit closer

[lpetrich]

On May 24, 2023, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed into law a big bill that contains the state's joining the National Popular Vote iniitiative for the election of the President. That makes his state join fifteen others and the District of Columbia in doing so.

If enough states and territories ratify it, with at least 270 electoral votes among them, then the NPV will go into effect, and the participants will award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote for the Presidency. With MN joining, the initiative has 205 EV's and has 65 EV's to go.

So far, the states that have ratified the NPV are reliably Democratic states and some swing states, and I think that the remaining NPV possibilities are all swing states -- Republicans disdain the NPV.

Its ratification will mean the end of EC misfires, cases where the popular vote and the electoral vote differ. There have been five cases of this over the US's history, in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016, two of them in the last few decades.

Why an agreement between states? Because amending the US Constitution is very difficult. Passing an amendment requires a vote of at least 2/3 of both houses of Congress, or else a Constitutional Convention, and ratifying it requires a vote of at least 3/4 of the states.

 

[Rhea]

I think an analysis of the remaining states looks challenging, IIRC. I am glad for the progress, but we have to keep working hard while we wait.

 

[lpetrich]

The US Founders were farsighted enough to recognize that it may be necessary to amend their Constitution, and they also recognized that doing so must not be too easy to do. But they ended up with one of the most difficult-to-amend constitutions in the world, also much more difficult than the constitutions of most of the states.

Only 27 amendments have been ratified over the US's history. Ten of them were ratified soon after the ratification of the original US Constitution; those ones are the Bill of RIghts. Here are the remaining 17:

11: 1794-1795 -- 12: 1803-1804 -- 13: 1865-1865 -- 14: 1866-1868 -- 15: 1869-1870 -- 16: 1909-1913 -- 17: 1912-1913 -- 18: 1817-1919 -- 19: 1919-1920 -- 20: 1932-1933 -- 21: 1933-1933 -- 22: 1947-1951 -- 23: 1960-1961 -- 24: 1962-1964 -- 25: 1965-1967 -- 26: 1971-1971 -- 27: 1789-1992

All Amendments to the United States Constitution

The US has had several bursts of progress and reform since its founding, and those in the Civil War Era, the Progressive Era, and the Sixties Era have codified some of their reforms into the Constitution. Curiously, none of those in the Jackson Era or the New Deal Era had done so.

 Cyclical theory (United States history)

 

[thebeave]

Color me suspicious. The elections in 2000 and 2016 were won by Republicans via the EC vote, and this change is being pushed by Democrats. Would the Democrats be pushing the NPV, or even just be in favor of it, if it was the Democrats who won in 2000 and 2016 via the EC? I'm guessing the answer is no, which makes me think the purpose of it has less to do with any principal of election fairness and more about wanting "my side to win". Its like the Democrats lost twice at the game of chess, and instead of improving their strategy for future games, they want to change the rules of chess instead.

 

[lpetrich]

 United States Electoral College

First, the name. "College" is used in the earlier sense of "assembly". Thus, in present-day language, it is the Electoral Assembly.

It was devised by the Founders toward the end of their Constitution-composing deliberations, because they could not agree on how to elect the President. Election by Congress? Election by state governors?

A national popular vote they rejected, because they were concerned that most candidates would be regional favorites. So they decided on the Electoral College as a close approximation of that. People would vote for electors, and the electors in turn for the President.

How it was supposed to work one can glean from Federalist Paper #68: The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68 by Alexander Hamilton

The electors are likely to have a broad knowledge of who might be a good President, and their voting separately ought to make the electors less vulnerable to demagoguery and to foreign meddling.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Color me suspicious. The elections in 2000 and 2016 were won by Republicans via the EC vote, and this change is being pushed by Democrats. Would the Democrats be pushing the NPV, or even just be in favor of it, if it was the Democrats who won in 2000 and 2016 via the EC? I'm guessing the answer is no, which makes me think the purpose of it has less to do with any principal of election fairness and more about wanting "my side to win". Its like the Democrats lost twice at the game of chess, and instead of improving their strategy for future games, they want to change the rules of chess instead.

We're not supposed to talk about that part.

 

[thebeave]

Color me suspicious. The elections in 2000 and 2016 were won by Republicans via the EC vote, and this change is being pushed by Democrats. Would the Democrats be pushing the NPV, or even just be in favor of it, if it was the Democrats who won in 2000 and 2016 via the EC? I'm guessing the answer is no, which makes me think the purpose of it has less to do with any principal of election fairness and more about wanting "my side to win". Its like the Democrats lost twice at the game of chess, and instead of improving their strategy for future games, they want to change the rules of chess instead.

We're not supposed to talk about that part.

I know. I'm not expecting any kind of reasonable response, but I do expect the usual barage of personal insults about how I'm an alt-right, conservative, QOP Trump sucking right winger for just bringing it up. It wouldn't seem like the forum I know without it.

 

[TomC]

Color me suspicious. The elections in 2000 and 2016 were won by Republicans via the EC vote, and this change is being pushed by Democrats. Would the Democrats be pushing the NPV, or even just be in favor of it, if it was the Democrats who won in 2000 and 2016 via the EC? I'm guessing the answer is no, which makes me think the purpose of it has less to do with any principal of election fairness and more about wanting "my side to win". Its like the Democrats lost twice at the game of chess, and instead of improving their strategy for future games, they want to change the rules of chess instead.

We're not supposed to talk about that part.

You can talk about it. It makes you look stupidly partisan. Not everyone shares your partisanship.

The reason that Republicans as a group oppose free and fair elections is because they don't reflect American values and have such low integrity. If everyone's vote for president counted equally, the GOP/TeaParty would be left in the dust.

Maybe then the American people could get on dealing with the huge problems we have.


The chess game analogy is ridiculous. The "rules" aren't the same for both sides as things are. What National Popular Vote is attempting to accomplish is leveling the playing field.
Tom

 

[lpetrich]

But that was not to be. With the rise of political parties, the Electoral College soon became a rubber-stamp body.

The Founders themselves tried to design a no-party system; they tended to think that political parties would lead to lots of fights between rival factions. I don't like to speak of the Founders as unified, because they were split on some big issues, but they did seem to agree on disliking political parties, at least those who expressed opinions on them.

Yet they divided themselves into parties in First President George Washington's first term, and GW himself, in his Farewell Address, deplored splitting up into hostile factions.

At first, some states chose electors by popular vote, and the others by state legislatures, but by the early 19th cy., they all became chosen by popular vote, even if indirectly, by whichever party got the most votes.

Each state has a number of electors equal to the total size of its Congressional delegation, how many Representatives and Senators it has. In most states, they are assigned to the party that got the most votes, but in Maine and Nebraska, only two are assigned by statewide vote, and the rest by the vote in each House district.

Originally, the Vice President was the Presidential candidate who got the second most votes, but that caused trouble. Imagine Donald Trump as Joe Biden's Vice President. In 1804, that was changed to the present system by the Twelfth Amendment: electors voting for the President and the Vice President in separate votes.

If no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes into the House:  Contingent election Each state's House delegation gets one vote in it, with a candidate winning by majority.

There have been three contingent elections so far, for the 1800, 1824, and 1836 Presidential elections.

In the 1800 election, the House voted 36 times, with all but the last vote deadlocked. In the last one, some Reps dropped out of the voting, allowing Thomas Jefferson to beat Aaron Burr and be elected President.

In the 1824 election, candidate and House Speaker Henry Clay sided with candidate John Quincy Adams, who won. Candidate Andrew Jackson denounced this as a  Corrupt bargain and won the next time around.

The 1836 one was for a Vice President, from Virginia's electors not wanting to vote for Martin van Buren's running mate Richard Mentor Johnson. That election went to the House and RMJ easily won there.

 

[lpetrich]

The US Electoral College has sometimes misfired, producing a mismatch between the popular and electoral votes.  List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote

1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016

In 1824, Andrew Jackson got the most votes, both in the popular vote and in the EC, but not enough for a majority. The election went to the House.

In 1876, Democrat Samuel Tilden beat Republican Rutherford Hayes in the popular vote, but some electoral votes were disputed, and neither candidate won an electoral-vote majority until that issue was resolved, in the Compromise of 1877.

In 1888 was another misfire, but the next one happened 112 years later, in 2000, and then 16 years later, in 2016.

Why have the misfires become much more common recently?

It is because of the odd political polarization that the US now has, something that the US did not have earlier in its history. Low-density areas tend to be Republican and high-density areas Democratic, and that gives the R's a structural advantage over the D's. This is why the misfires of 2000 and 2016 have been of D's winning the popular vote and R's winning the electoral vote.

 

[lpetrich]

National Popular Vote in Wikipedia:  National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Minnesota | National Popular Vote -- "On May 24, 2023, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed the the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact into law -- making Minnesota the 17th jurisdiction to do so."

House advances new Minnesota flag, presidential popular vote as part of broader bill - April 18, 2023 at 7:02 PM

Members of the House on Tuesday approved those changes and others in a Democratic-Farmer-Labor backed $1.5 billion state government and elections package. The 182-page bill boosts spending for the state government agencies, the Legislature and government IT by $400 million in the next two-year budget. It also changes Minnesota's threshold for “major” political parties — a move that will make it harder for third parties to get on the ballot.

Past that, the bill also boosts funding for the public election subsidy, something backers say will encourage more candidates to take state campaign cash and reduce the influence of special interests.

The bill itself: HF 1830 4th Engrossment - 93rd Legislature (2023 - 2024)

-

Nevada | National Popular Vote

On May 18, 2023, the Nevada Senate the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a constitutional amendment (status of AJR6). The Nevada Assembly previously passed AJR6 on April 17. The amendment must now be passed a second time by both houses of the 2025-2026 Nevada legislature. After that, the amendment would be submitted to the voters for their approval in November 2026.

The bill itself: AJR6 Overview

 

[TomC]

Nevada | National Popular Vote

On May 18, 2023, the Nevada Senate the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a constitutional amendment (status of AJR6). The Nevada Assembly previously passed AJR6 on April 17. The amendment must now be passed a second time by both houses of the 2025-2026 Nevada legislature. After that, the amendment would be submitted to the voters for their approval in November 2026.

The bill itself: AJR6 Overview

Is this about an amendment to the Nevada constitution? That's what I assume, but it isn't clear in the quote.

It's also not clear why the legislature decided on an amendment to the state constitution, assuming that is what this is about. There's no U.S. constitutional requirement for it.
Tom

 

[lpetrich]

Nevada | National Popular Vote

On May 18, 2023, the Nevada Senate the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a constitutional amendment (status of AJR6). The Nevada Assembly previously passed AJR6 on April 17. The amendment must now be passed a second time by both houses of the 2025-2026 Nevada legislature. After that, the amendment would be submitted to the voters for their approval in November 2026.

The bill itself: AJR6 Overview

Is this about an amendment to the Nevada constitution? That's what I assume, but it isn't clear in the quote.

Yes indeed, an amendment to that state's constitution.

It's also not clear why the legislature decided on an amendment to the state constitution, assuming that is what this is about. There's no U.S. constitutional requirement for it.
Tom

No idea.

 

[lpetrich]

Nate Silver Calculates that a 3-Million Lead Only Gives Biden a 46% Chance | National Popular Vote -- he uses some probabilistic model where states' vote totals vary by random amounts. To find the inputs for his model, he estimates how much scatter from recent elections.


Here are some past threads on this and related electoral issues:

• Abolishing the US Senate? | Internet Infidels Discussion Board
• Making the US Senate More Representative | Internet Infidels Discussion Board
• Revising the Electoral College | Internet Infidels Discussion Board
• Weakening democracy lol | Internet Infidels Discussion Board
• CONSTITUTION DRAFTING PROJECT | Internet Infidels Discussion Board

 

[lpetrich]

The Debt Ceiling: One of America’s Six Worst Traditions - "Believe it or not, the debt ceiling is an improvement on what the United States used to do." - Micromanagement.

The list:

1. The Debt Limit
2. The Electoral College
3. The Senate
4. The Filibuster
5. “First Past the Post” Voting
6. The Florida Panhandle

(1) is a folly that no other country does, and it is arguably contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

(2) is the subject of this thread. It is far from what the Founders intended, and it creates some perverse incentives, like for mainly campaigning in swing states and not states that are reliably one party or the other.

(3) is worse than the EC, it must be noted. One can get an EC victory with as little as 43% of the total population, while one can get a Senate majority with as little as 18% of the total population.

The proportional House and the same-per-state Senate are a compromise between what large-state and small-state delegations wanted, the Connecticut Compromise between the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan.

(4) is absolute stupidity. Placing holds on bills? That's demeaning. It seems like the fake war in Star Trek: TOS "A Taste of Armageddon". At least with a talking filibuster, one has to do something.

(5) is only good for two-candidate elections. Two-ballot elections (CA, WA), ranked-choice elections, and proportional representation are all much better. The House can be made per-state proportional without changing any of the Constitution.

(6) is only one example of state-boundary oddities, including outright gerrymandering, like dividing the Dakota Territory into North and South Dakota.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Color me suspicious. The elections in 2000 and 2016 were won by Republicans via the EC vote, and this change is being pushed by Democrats. Would the Democrats be pushing the NPV, or even just be in favor of it, if it was the Democrats who won in 2000 and 2016 via the EC? I'm guessing the answer is no, which makes me think the purpose of it has less to do with any principal of election fairness and more about wanting "my side to win". Its like the Democrats lost twice at the game of chess, and instead of improving their strategy for future games, they want to change the rules of chess instead.

We're not supposed to talk about that part.

You can talk about it. It makes you look stupidly partisan. Not everyone shares your partisanship.

The reason that Republicans as a group oppose free and fair elections is because they don't reflect American values and have such low integrity. If everyone's vote for president counted equally, the GOP/TeaParty would be left in the dust.

Maybe then the American people could get on dealing with the huge problems we have.


The chess game analogy is ridiculous. The "rules" aren't the same for both sides as things are. What National Popular Vote is attempting to accomplish is leveling the playing field.
Tom

Elections are fair if they favor Democrats and unfair if they favor Republicans.

 

[Toni]

I cannot help but be concerned that lower population states (including MInnesota) will give up what little power and influence they have if we go to popular vote for POTUS elections. Why does this matter? Well, the concerns of large population states such as CA, TX, and NY are often quite different than those of less populous states. One issue that leaps to mind is with regards to water rights. CA would like to get its hands on water from the Great Lakes, rather than curb its own water use, an enormous amount of which is for agricultural crops.

 

[Elixir]

There has already never been a president from Minnesota. But CA hasn’t stolen all their water.

 

[TomC]

Elections are fair if they favor Democrats and unfair if they favor Republicans.

Not all of us are as hard core partisan.

Elections are fair when everybody's voice is equally heard.

Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

The electors are likely to have a broad knowledge of who might be a good President, and their voting separately ought to make the electors less vulnerable to demagoguery and to foreign meddling.

Worked great at that, didn't it.