Illinois enters National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[Sims2789]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#2008

This means that 46 out of 538 electors, or 8.5%, are bound to this compact. States cannot pull out of it the week before Election Day if it looks like the election won't turn out the way the residents of that state (or that state's legislature) desire.

Members of the compact agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, so long as the member states possess over half of the total electoral votes.

This helps smaller states because most of them aren't swing states so they get ignored in presidential elections. If there was a popular vote, their direct influence would be lessened but candidates would run on national platforms that affect people in small states and people in large states, instead of tailoring their platforms to states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, and Florida.

 

[The Yankee]

Forty-six electoral votes are pretty significant, though obviously more states would have to agree to do this if it were to truly have an effect on rendering the Electoral College powerless. But then again, the electors can still go their own way, no? What happens if there's a faithless elector in one of these states?

 

[Theige]

YES. 46 down, 224 to go.

There is hope yet for me voting in this years presidential election!

 

[amadeus]

Good! The more this happens in Democrat-controlled states...

 

[The Yankee]

Good! The more this happens in Democrat-controlled states...

I would be curious to see how much backtracking takes place if the results don't go the way they want it....

 

[Sims2789]

Forty-six electoral votes are pretty significant, though obviously more states would have to agree to do this if it were to truly have an effect on rendering the Electoral College powerless. But then again, the electors can still go their own way, no? What happens if there's a faithless elector in one of these states?

Good! The more this happens in Democrat-controlled states...

Member states must only appoint their electors based on the national popular vote if over half of the electoral votes are bound to it, so it doesn't matter if it's only Democratic states. Plus, it's passed both houses in North Carolina, and they've gone Republican since 1980 and haven't been competitive until now.

I haven't read the compact myself so I don't know what happens in the case of faithless electors. Around 24 states have criminal or other penalties for them and those would still apply. A good way to prevent faithless electors is to require that electoral votes be public and replace faithless electors until they all vote for the winner of the national popular vote, but as far as I know this requirement is not in the compact.

I would be curious to see how much backtracking takes place if the results don't go the way they want it....

That's why it's an interstate compact. Though it makes governor vetoes less constitutionally questionable, it prevents states from pulling out.

 

[JerichoHill]

As I mentioned in the other thread on this by Godwynn, this Compact is going to be declared unconstitutional if it ever gets put into effect. Since it constitutes a change in the voting power of the states without needing 3/4ths of the states to agree (one only needs about 11), it would be struck down quite quickly.

First it would be sued in a federal circuit court, then moved up and up until it hit the SC and it would be struck down procedurally.

Go ahead though and think its a great idea if you want. However, if you live in a state that's not top 15 in Registered Voters, no presidential campaign is going to give you anything more than a token effort under a national popular vote sceme.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

I'm sorry I missed the other thread, but how could this be unconstitutional? The Constitution itself grants to State legislatures the power to determine how to apportion their electoral votes. The individual states may choose to do it however they want (provided they don't disenfranchise racial minorities, or stuff like that).

Jericho, I know you're a DoJ election guy, so I'm really curious. I don't know that much about election law. (I'll go search for the other thread, too.)

Cleo

 

[nonconformist]

I hate Illinois Nazis....

 

[woody60707]

This is a crap idea, like pure crap! And sound pretty unconstitutional. The people of IL. are the only people who should have ANY say on who gets our electoral votes. Illinois's general assembly (IL's congress for non-USA-ers) has no power to over turn the vote of the people.

Look, Illinois can vote to be a all or nothing (which it is now) or vote to have there votes proportional. Hell it can vote to put the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact on the ballet, and the people can vote that option election year. Those are all legal and fine.

But the General assembly has no right what so ever to over turn the vote, and give out the electoral votes any way they wish. Really, this is crap. And assume I am cussing a lot when I am typing this.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

woody60707,

But the General assembly has no right what so ever to over turn the vote, and give out the electoral votes any way they wish.

No, I think the Illinois General Assembly has precisely that right. The U.S. Constitution states that "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors" to select the President. In fact it's an open question whether State Constitutions can restrict the State legislatures' power to select electors.

Cleo

 

[JerichoHill]

I'm sorry I missed the other thread, but how could this be unconstitutional? The Constitution itself grants to State legislatures the power to determine how to apportion their electoral votes. The individual states may choose to do it however they want (provided they don't disenfranchise racial minorities, or stuff like that).

Jericho, I know you're a DoJ election guy, so I'm really curious. I don't know that much about election law. (I'll go search for the other thread, too.)

Cleo

Essentially, the unconstitutional part rests in some small parts of the Constitution involving the powers of Congress. There's a clause in there about how only Congress is allowed to make changes to how we elect our President when a shift in power between states is involved. Since the Compact does significantly change the power relationship between states (those states that do not sign see their electoral power reduced if the Compact passes, and the Compact re-arranges the power distribution if it passes without states suing against it anyways).

There's a procedural charge here called Congressional Consent. Lacking that, the Compact would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

I want to make it clear that while I am completely against the Compact and its idea (I see it just as a shift of power from one group of 10 states to another group of 10 states, minus any small states), I'm presenting the constitutionality argument as neutral as I can. If it came to the Supreme Court in its current form, it would, based on the justice's patterns in cases of this regard, either uphold a lower court's finding of unconstitutionality via a procedural violation or find a procedural violation 6-3.

As for what state legislatures can do, they can change how they apportion electors, but they cannot change the number of electors (that is done via congress)

 

[I'm Cleo!]

JerichoHill,

Thanks. I think I get it. It would certainly change the power between states. I found a journal article linked-to by Wikipedia about this, but I could only read the first page. It sounded like what you just said.

Regarding the Electoral College, would any country setting up a Constitution nowadays ever choose something like it? I'm sick of it.

Cleo

 

[JerichoHill]

Most Western Countries seem to adopt a proportionally representative system, which leads to coalition governments. Our system's been around a mite longer than most democracies I would believe, so that might be one bit of difference. It's tough to change a governing style without resorting to some sort of revolution.

The Electoral College, in my opinion, is a football politicos like to play with, but it gets far too much blame. The EC forces candidates to spend time in smaller states, and more states, than would occur under a strictly popular vote system. States would also not compete as hard for inter-state migration as population would no longer mean more influence, to the degree that it does now. I remember when Georgia went from 11 to 13 EV's it was a very big deal in the state. The EC was a compromise to ensure that big states didn't control all the power of selecting the executive branch, like the Senate wasfor the legislative.

There are law scholars who disagree with my interpretation, but they are a minority, and a significant one. I go to a good many conventions on electoral practice, but here and overseas, and this is often a subject of talk at 11pm at the hotel bar, with most professionals what-iffing but most talking about the myriad unintended consequences that would cause regret quickly.

 

[sourboy]

Why not just have each person vote and tally them all in the end.

simple.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

JerichoHill,

Well, states are just arbitrarily drawn lines on a map. I understand the historical significance and how important that tradition is to our nation, but in terms of creating a government that really functions well, there's no reason why Delaware should have as many Senators as California.

Cleo

 

[woody60707]

woody60707,



No, I think the Illinois General Assembly has precisely that right. The U.S. Constitution states that "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors" to select the President. In fact it's an open question whether State Constitutions can restrict the State legislatures' power to select electors.

Cleo

Wait, by that logic, the Legislature can just vote to give the electoral votes to anyone they wish. Why bother to have votes at all When the Legislature can put in place any rules they wish and over turn the election?

I'm no expert on the law, but its pretty evident to me that this whole line of logic is pretty flawed.

Honestly, if this is legal, whats to stop the Legislature from passing other arbitrary rules that in fact make voting pointless.

 

[JerichoHill]

Why not just have each person vote and tally them all in the end.

simple.

Because then only the largest states matter, and last I checked, this country was a union of 50 states, and in the beginning 13, so our founders wanted to ensure that elections significantly involved as many states as possible.

There's alot of nuanced political theory with regards to elections and electionioring. I could craft electoral schemes to guarantee any outcome, or I could craft them to allow for any outcome.

 

[JerichoHill]

JerichoHill,

Well, states are just arbitrarily drawn lines on a map. I understand the historical significance and how important that tradition is to our nation, but in terms of creating a government that really functions well, there's no reason why Delaware should have as many Senators as California.

Cleo

Yes, there is good reason. Notice how Senators serve 6 years vs. a Representative 2 years, and the breadth of who Sens and Reps serve. It's a balance of power issue. By your reasoning countries are just lines drawn on a map (most of the US states are much larger than countries, especially in Europe).

Also, because of the size of our country, there are very big differences in needs and demographics in many easily defined areas. This wouldn't as much an issue if states were all separate countries, or the US was just the east coast, or the size of say, Germany. Topography and demography are more homogenous there.

I know it seems like its so simple and our system is so complex, but its a product of our nation being a very complex union.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

woody,

Well, there are Constitutional requirements regarding the right to vote -- as JerichoHill pointed out, you need Congressional approval if the power between the states shifts, and voting is a fundamental right, so if you're going to change laws about it, they have to pass careful scrutiny by the courts. But the U.S. Constitution itself charges State legislatures with the determination on how to pick electors. During Bush v. Gore, there was talk at the Supreme Court that the Florida Constitution could not constrain the Florida legislature's decisions on how to apportion electors, and that therefore the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida election law (duly passed by the Florida legislature) was actually unconstitutional. It's kind of a crazy point, but Scalia at oral argument indicated that he might be willing to buy it. (And who knows, maybe Thomas, too, though he doesn't indicate anything at oral argument.)

JerichoHill,

I understand why the Framers decided on the disproportionate representation of the Senate, and why the electors exist, but I just don't think they're the best solutions to the problem. I know the Senate is meant to make sure that the tons of people who happen to live in a place called "California" can't outweigh the handful of people who happen to live in a place called "Delaware," but my point is that maybe it shouldn't be that way, at least in the modern world. I mean, look at how the power of sparsely populated farming states results in ethanol subsidies that harm the country more than they help it. As Marty Lederman has famously argued, the Constitution is why Americans are fat (corn states have more power -> corn subsidies -> artificially created market for corn -> high-fructose corn syrup in everything -> fat Americans).

Again, I get it. I just think that looking at things now, our system isn't perfect, and that's one of the things I think can be improved upon.

(And countries are "just lines drawn on a map.")

Cleo