Amendment to the Constitution – The Electoral College
Article I
Each state shall appoint a number of electors for the
President of the United States equal to the number of
Representatives to which that state shall be entitled in Congress plus two; the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and such other organized territories as law may
recognize shall each be entitled to choose three electors.
Article II
Every candidate for the office of President shall, within
each state in which he intends to run for office, nominate a number of
candidates for electors equal to the whole number of electors to which that
state is entitled.
No elector shall hold an office of trust or profit under the
United States or be compensated in any way for his services by any person or
government.
On the day appointed for the election of President, the
registered voters of each state shall each cast one vote for one of the
candidate’s slate of candidates as electors. The state constitutional officer
responsible for elections in that state shall then appoint from each slate a
number of electors proportional to the number of votes which the person
received from the people, with any remaining electors being distributed in
order to those slates having the highest remainder until the whole number of
electors for that state have been appointed.
On the day predetermined by law, the electors shall gather
in the capitals of their respective states and cast two distinct votes, one indicating
their first preference for President and the second indicating their second preference
from among those candidates who submitted a slate of electors in that state or
any other state. The ballots shall then be transmitted under seal to the President
of the Senate and opened in the presence of Congress on a date determined by
law.
When the ballots are opened, if any person receives a
majority of first-preference votes, he shall be elected President, and the
person receiving the most second-preference votes from those electors casting ballots for the person elected President shall become the Vice President.
If, however, no person receives a majority, then the second
preference votes of the person receiving the fewest votes shall be distributed
to the remaining candidates. This process shall continue until either all the
second preference votes are exhausted or one of the candidates receives a majority. After
this, the person with the most votes is elected preference, and the person receiving
the most second-preference votes of those who cast their first-preference votes
for the winning candidate shall be named Vice President.
Article IV
If, at the conclusion of the voting, there is a tie in the
number of votes, then the members of Congress shall immediately vote between
the candidates who have the highest number of votes to determine the President,
with each member having one vote. The person receiving the most Congressional votes
shall be President, and the person receiving the second highest number of votes
shall be Vice President.
Article V
Congress shall have authority to enforce this amendment by necessary legislation.
A constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
ReplyDeleteElectors are people. They can only vote as whole numbers, not fractions.
Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant, it would not do this in practice.
It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;
It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and
It would not make every vote equal.
The political reality is that campaign strategies in ordinary elections are based on trying to change a reasonably achievable small percentage of the votes—1%, 2%, or 3%. As a matter of practical politics, only one electoral vote would be in play in almost all states. A system that requires even a 9% share of the popular vote in order to win one electoral vote is fundamentally out of sync with the small-percentage vote shifts that are involved in real-world presidential campaigns.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every voter equal.
It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, even the fractional proportional allocation approach, which also would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
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).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every of the 39 states surveyed in recent polls, almost always in the 70-80% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
In case you are not a troll, I am going to go ahead and write a response to this.
ReplyDeleteFirst, t has been the experience of most of the rest of the world using a presidential system that a directly elected executive becomes too powerful, especially since he is the only person in such a system to have a direct mandate from the whole country. To mitigate this, you would either have to directly elect the members of the cabinet or elect the Senate nationally by who knows what method. Without this, our government would almost inevitably slip in the direction of the rest of the Western Hemisphere.
Second, there are good reasons for making sure that a state's relative voting power wouldn't be lessened by a change in voter turnout. For example, imagine that a generally conservative state is having a bad storm on election day (not unusual in November); it could potentially throw the whole balance of the election into question. By weighting every state according to a predetermined balance, the interests of the state are represented, even if only a smaller number of people show up. Also, by progressively weighting the number of votes each state receives, it ensures that the federal nature of our national government is respected by balancing the overall mood of the country with local geographical interests. (In fact, this is the system used for the European parliament, for example.) This idea, which is present in the original constitution, was basically destroyed once the presidential electors started being selected directly rather than by the state legislatures and when we amended the election process to separately elect the President and Vice President. My proposal attempts to work out a balance between these different effects.
Also, while it is true that political campaigns would focus on a number of states where only one or fewer votes are in play, it is also true that failing to attempt a broad appeal could result in rapid losses of electoral votes. Because this is a proportional rather than first-past-the-post system, third parties would always be in the wings ready to catch voters who were disenchanted with the national parties, while a national plurality or majoritarian vote would almost certainly continue two-party dominance in national elections.
Finally, you cite as an example the popular vote vs. the electoral vote (as proposed here) differential at work in the 2000 election. It is not my goal that every vote counts equally, but that geographical and popular interests are balanced in the executive, just as they are for the legislative branches. On the other hand, even if you accept the dubious idea that Bush won the greatest number of votes from states by less than 1/10th of a percent, when one adds to Gore's total the number of people who WOULD have voted for him second if Nader could not be elected, Gore not only wins the plurality but even the majority of votes. Clearly, those who voted for Nader would not have supported a conservative President. My system proposes that, in this case, in return for Nader getting the Democratic "alternative" vote, Nader could offer his electoral votes (which would basically just be spoilers in a first-past-the-post system) to Gore, resulting a Gore-Nader administration. In other words, there would have been a coalition with greater cooperation and less partisan squabbling.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or region . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
DeleteThe National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.
A natural disaster is much more likely to swing an election under state-by-state winner-take-all electoral apportionment than under the National Popular Vote plan. A natural disaster could depress turnout in a battleground state enough to affect the outcome. On the other hand, a natural disaster would be very unlikely to depress turnout enough to affect the winner of the national popular vote. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against depressed turnout.
With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
You didn't respond to my concerns. I am not promoting (or defending) the winner-takes-all system. I am promoting an alternative. You do not respond to the historical difficulties experienced by presidential republics in the direct election of the head of state and head of government. (And it's worth pointing out that in the vast majority of states the executive is NOT elected directly but appointed by the head of state on the advice of the legislative branch.) You also do not respond to the need for geographical balance. Finally, you argue against my point with the phrase "most Americans think...." My approach is to try and design a system that actually gauges what most people think, rather than attempting to gauge that through a self-selecting direct electoral process.
DeleteNational Popular Vote is not direct election of the President.
DeleteWith National Popular Vote, the United States would still elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states.
There is no agreement in America that an election system needs to ensure geographical balance. Virtually every election is determined by one person, one vote, the candidate with the most votes (from anywhere within the jurisdiction) wins.
Elections with "One person, one vote, the candidate with the most votes winning" tells us exactly what most people think.
For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, your alternative falls far short of the National Popular Vote plan.
So, take that for what it is worth. A proportional electoral college system would reward more votes to third parties, particularly in larger states, and those third parties would have more bargaining power in forming governing coalitions. It would also ensure that the election results most accurately represented the overall feelings of the country, rather than simply the opinions of those who could make it to the poll, much as a scientific poll seeks to balance sample sizes from different demographics to ensure that the result accurately reflects the larger population. Finally, it respects the federal nature of our government and does not fall into the pitfalls that have plagued almost every other presidential system of government.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether or not such an amendment could be passed, I think that it could, if the differential between the electoral college and the popular vote were wide enough. I do not agree with the "compact" idea without federal approval, and I think the idea that it is promoting is in fact dangerous to the careful balance of powers in the federal government.
Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.
DeleteThe U.S. Constitution provides:
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state…."
Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
"Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.
"The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."
Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
"Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."
The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."
In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"
The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.
In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states' action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:
"the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government."
The Court also noted that the compact did not
"authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence."
Indeed. The compact would hold only as long as states adhere to it, and why would any state adhere to it if their state continually voted against the person who won the national election? Why not just pretend to be in the compact, and then repeal it immediately before the election, making your state a swing state?
DeletePerhaps they could get away with it without getting federal approval. That does not mean that they should, and that does not mean that the results would be beneficial.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete