NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label presidential elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential elections. Show all posts

02 August 2013

The electoral college is halfway to being abolished 2AUG13

MORE on the movement to abolish the electoral college without amending the US Constitution. Express your views by voting on the issue, click the link on the left side of this blog. From the Washington Post Wonkbook....
Ev 2012
The 2012 electoral college map (Wikimedia)
Opponents of the electoral college reached an important milestone last month.
Gov. Lincoln Chafee (D-R.I.) signed a bill into law that committed Rhode Island to the National Popular Vote interstate compact. That’s a deal wherein states commit to send their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote — but only once states representing over half of all electoral votes adopt similar laws. Once that threshold is reached, the electoral college is effectively abolished, without a constitutional amendment.
Rhode Island’s addition means that the National Popular Vote plan — first conceived of by Northwestern’s Robert Bennett and developed by Akhil and Vikram Amar at Yale and UC Davis, respectively — is halfway to its goal. As plan supporter Rick Hertzberg at the New Yorker explains, nine states plus the District of Columbia have now signed on, representing 136 electoral votes. That’s 50.4 percent of the votes needed for the plan to come into force and for the electoral college to be abolished.
But there’s a catch. If you look at the nine states that have passed the plan (not to mention D.C.), all of them did so when both houses of their state legislatures were run by Democrats. All but Hawaii had Democratic governors, and the Hawaii legislature overrode the Republican governor’s veto. There’s nothing inherent in the proposal that gives Democrats an advantage, and plenty of Republicans — like former Sens. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and Jake Garn (R-Utah) and former Gov. Jim Edgar (R-Ill.) — support it. But since the electoral college cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000, abolishing it has come to be perceived as a Democratic priority.
As long as that’s still the case, the National Popular Vote compact just isn’t happening. The numbers aren’t there.
There are six states with Democratic legislatures and Democratic governors that haven’t yet passed the deal: Oregon, Minnesota, Delaware, Connecticut, Colorado and West Virginia. There’s also New York, where Republicans sort of control the Senate but love the idea, and where the main bottleneck has been the opposition of the Democratic State House speaker, Sheldon Silver. If Silver can be persuaded, and all six Democrat-controlled states also adopt the pact, that gets the deal to 206 electoral votes. That’s 76.3 percent of the way there. But that last 23.7 percent is going to be really tough.
NY House Speaker Sheldon Silver is keeping the state from signing onto the National Popular Vote compact. (Getty Images)
New York House Speaker Sheldon Silver is keeping the state from signing onto the National Popular Vote compact. (Getty Images)
Here are a few ways to get those final 64 electoral votes, all of them tough:
– Texas and Florida alone would bring 67 electoral votes. That’s enough right there. But Texas and Florida both have Republican-controlled legislatures and Republican governors. Florida’s governorship could very well flip hands, but flipping both the state House and Senate is a tall order. So unless Republicans suddenly get into electoral college reform, those two are probably out of contention.
– Maine, Nevada, New Mexico and New Jersey all have Republican governors but Democratic legislatures. That’s 29 votes. But to get them, Democrats would have to knock off popular Republicans like Chris Christie or Susana Martinez, or else win super-majorities in state legislatures. That’s not easy. And even if they got all four, you’re only halfway there.
– Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana and New Hampshire all have Democratic governors but Republican legislatures. That’s 31 electoral votes. But getting them means the governors have to play hardball with their legislatures, perhaps sacrificing some other priorities, and even that might not work. Ultimately, they can’t force the change through. And again, 31 isn’t enough. Thirty-one plus the 29 from states with Republican governors but Democratic legislatures isn’t even enough.
All of which is to say that one of two things needs to happen if the National Popular Vote is going to come into effect. Either Democrats need to win a lot — a lot — of state elections, or else the issue has become nonpartisan and Republican legislators in deep red states have to get on board.
You could imagine a reverse-2000 scenario, where a Democrat wins in the electoral college but loses the popular vote and Republicans suddenly begin wondering whether the college is such a good idea after all. Somewhat less plausibly, you could imagine, for instance, Texas Republicans getting tired of being ignored in national presidential races just because the state is reliably red, and signing on. That would be a big shift from the trends to date, but reformers are going to need something big for this to happen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/02/the-electoral-college-is-halfway-to-being-abolished/?wprss=rss_national&clsrd

25 July 2013

The National Popular Vote effort, explained 25JUL13

AFTER the US supreme court's judicial coup d'etat in the 2000 presidential election I have been a supporter of the move to have our President elected by popular vote. Here is an update on the National Popular Vote Project, and you can add your yea or nay to this idea by clicking the widget on this blog and casting your vote for or against. From the Washington Post....

By Aaron Blake, Updated:

The National Popular Vote effort is now halfway to its goal of electing future presidents via the popular vote, after Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (D) made his state the latest to sign on.
The years-old effort is slowly making its way through state legislatures in hopes of changing the way United States presidents are elected — without overcoming the huge hurdle of passing a constitutional amendment getting rid of the Electoral College.
But precisely what is the National Popular Vote effort? And how close are we to electing a future president by the number of votes cast rather than by the number of electoral votes won?
Here’s a quick explainer:
What is the National Popular Vote?
National Popular Vote is a campaign launched in the mid-2000s. It basically seeks to get states that comprise a majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College — 270, to be precise — to agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
These states are not required to allot their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner until the effort has garnered the number of states it needs to get to 270 electoral votes.
So in other words, Rhode Island can continue to award its electoral votes to the winner of its state — rather than the nation — until the effort reaches 270 electoral votes. Once that threshold is met, it would be required, along with the other states that have joined the effort, to award its votes to the national popular vote winner.
Those states would effectively determine who wins the election, and their votes would be based on the national popular vote.
Why are they doing it this way?
Basically, it’s supremely difficult to overturn the Electoral College, because it’s in the Constitution.
In order to get rid of that method of electing a president, two-thirds of both the House and Senate would need to vote to repeal it via a Constitutional amendment, and then three-fourths of state legislatures would need to ratify the amendment. Achieving such a change is intentionally very difficult.
“There’s literally nothing else on the table that has the remotest chance of fixing it and passing,” said Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, an electoral reform group that favors the National Popular Vote effort.
What the National Popular Vote effort does is effectively reduce the number of states that need to agree to the change; the measure only needs to pass in enough state legislatures and get signed by their governors to get to 270. And, of course, Congress plays no role.
While the Electoral College would technically still be in effect, the agreement among the states to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner would effectively render it moot.
How many states have signed on?
Rhode Island’s decision to join the effort means it now has nine states and the District of Columbia, comprising 136 of the 270 electoral votes it needs to succeed — a little more than half.
  • District of Columbia – 3 electoral votes
  • Hawaii – 4 electoral votes
  • Illinois – 20 electoral votes
  • Maryland – 10 electoral votes
  • Massachusetts – 11 electoral votes
  • New Jersey – 14 electoral votes
  • Washington – 12 electoral votes
  • Vermont – 3 electoral votes
  • California – 55 electoral votes
  • Rhode Island – 4 electoral votes
You’ll notice that every state above is a blue state.
How many states are needed?
Just how many states are needed to get to 270 votes depends on which states are involved and how many electoral votes they have. The way things look right now, it would need about 20-25 states.
California (55 votes) is the biggest state in the country to sign on — and the biggest overall — with the next biggest state being Illinois (20 votes).
The measure also recently passed in the New York general assembly, and it passed easily in previous sessions of the state Senate. So far, it’s not clear that the state Senate will pass it again, but if it did and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed it, that would mean another 29 electoral votes.
What are its prospects?
The effort still has a long way to go, and Rhode Island was the first state in the last two years to sign off on it, so it’s not as if the effort is rife with momentum.
If supporters want to succeed, they’ll likely have to branch out into red states, because there are only so many blue states (and so many electoral votes in them) on the map. And passing this legislation in swing states would be very difficult, for reasons to be discussed below.
Do people like the popular vote?
In a word, yes. Polling regularly shows Americans prefer electing the president via popular vote rather than via Electoral College. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in October showed 56 percent preferred the popular vote approach, while 37 percent preferred the Electoral College.
(For an interesting history of how this issue polls, see this piece from our great pollster Jon Cohen.)
In addition, supporters of the effort note that it makes every state — the majority of which are generally ignored because they aren’t swing states — relevant in the process. So if you’re from a clearly red or clearly blue state, this method has appeal.
What are the arguments against it?
Well, for one, the framers of the Constitution constructed the Electoral College for a reason — they were wary of presidents being elected by popular vote.
In addition, some states might balk at the idea that they have to award their votes to a candidate that may have lost their state, even by a very large margin.
Finally, if you’re in a swing state, you probably don’t like this, because it makes your vote much less significant. (On the flip side, of course, it would mean you would no longer be bombarded with campaign ads and phone calls.)
Would National Popular Vote actually change anything?
Ever heard of President Samuel Tilden? Of course you haven’t. That’s because we have the Electoral College.
Tilden in 1876 would have beaten Rutherford B. Hayes if the election were determined by popular vote.
Hayes is one of four presidents to win without carrying the popular vote. The others are John Quincy Adams (1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote), Benjamin Harrison (1888, Grover Cleveland), and of course George W. Bush (2000, Al Gore).

21 August 2010

What To Do With The Electoral College? 29JUL10 & NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE

THIS is an interesting read from NPRs Political Junkie, and if you click on the header you can go to the National Popular Vote website. I have added their poll on elections to this blog....vote if you want, and have added their website to My Favorite Sites list on this blog too. 
 
The Constitution may mandate it, but choosing a president through the Electoral College has always been a controversial topic, made even more so after the 2000 election.  That's when Al Gore, who received the most popular votes, was defeated in his bid for the presidency by George W. Bush who, by being awarded Florida's 25 electoral votes, won the required 270 E.V.s to get him to the White House; actually, he finished with 271.
The 12th Amendment to the Constitution outlines how we elect our president.
Bush is the fourth person to win the presidency without having taken the popular vote.  The others:  John Quincy Adams in 1824 (instead of Andrew Jackson), Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 (instead of Samuel Tilden), and Benjamin Harrison in 1888 (instead of President Grover Cleveland).
In the case of Adams vs. Jackson, neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College, and so the election was thrown into the House, which picked Adams.
Since 2000, efforts to abolish the Electoral College or at least change the system have picked up speed.  A group called National Popular Vote has been pushing state legislatures to pass bills that would award the states' electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote — regardless of how that state voted.
Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington have already passed such legislation.  On Tuesday, a sixth state's legislature, Massachusetts, approved it and sent it to Gov. Deval Patrick (D) for his signature.
According to NPV, 30 state legislative chambers have already passed the bill (click here for list).
The law would only take effect if the total of the electoral votes of the states that passed the measure reached 270.
Many small states oppose this change.  If the name of the game was the most popular votes nationally, why would a candidate spend time in places like New Mexico, or Nevada, or Colorado — so-called "Purple States" that could go either way in November?  They wouldn't.
There have been other methods suggested as well.  Some want to see the winner determined by whoever wins the most congressional districts nationwide.  Others like the system used in Maine and Nebraska: two electoral votes to the statewide winner plus an e.v. to the winner of each congressional district.
What do you think?  What is the best way to elect a president?  Take our fake poll:
How should the election of a president be decided?

VoteView Results
Share ThisCreate A Poll