House Signs Off On National Popular Vote Bill

By: Michael C. Bailey
Published: 06/11/10

The House has signed off on a bill that would replace the current system of electing a President – the Electoral College – with a direct popular vote.

The proposal, backed by the national organization Fair Vote, would not truly abolish the Electoral College since that feat could only be achieved through amending the US Constitution. What it would instead do is take advantage of language in the Constitution that grants states complete control over how it allocates its votes in a Presidential election.

The bill would formally make Massachusetts a member of the national “Agreement among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote,” which would go into effect when enough states representing a total of 270 electoral votes (out of 538) sign onto the agreement. So far Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Washington and New Jersey -- representing 61 electoral votes total -- have already signed on to the compact.

According to Fair Vote, the Electoral College’s role in the system would be slightly altered; it would still serve to ratify the popular vote, but would do so on a national scale rather than ratifying states’ individual popular votes.

Under the Electoral College model, each state receives a number of “electors” equal to its total number of US Senators and Congressmen. These electors vote for a Presidential candidate as mandated by the outcome of their state’s total popular vote (“faithless electors” who vote contrary to public will are rare, but only 24 states have laws that punish faithless electors).

Among the arguments for a direct popular vote is that in the Electoral College system, states with larger populations have a disproportionately greater voice than small states. Yet opponents of a direct popular vote claim that the Electoral College in fact gives smaller states a greater presence in national elections because of the “all or nothing” nature of the college.

Using the 2008 Presidential election as an example, Massachusetts contributed 12 electors to Barack H. Obama’s total. In a direct popular vote situation, support would have been split between President Obama, who received 1.9 million votes in Massachusetts, and his Republican rival US Senator John McCain (R), who received 1.1 million votes.

Notably, had the 2008 election been decided by popular vote, President Obama’s victory would have been much tighter; he received 68 percent of the vote to Sen. McCain’s 32 as measured by the Electoral College, but only 53 percent to Sen. McCain’s 46 percent by popular vote.

Only four times in history has the Electoral College favored the candidate that won the popular vote, most recently in 2000 when Vice-president Al Gore lost to George W. Bush despite having a plurality of the popular vote.

Proposal supporters also claim a popular vote model would diminish the influence of so-called “swing states,” states that could lean toward either party in a given election.

By defusing the swing state factor, candidates would have to pay greater attention to traditional “safe states,” states that have historically supported one party over the other. Massachusetts is regarded as a Democratic safe state, which means neither Democratic nor Republican candidates generally campaign heavily here -- Democrats because they assume voter support is a given, Republicans because they assume they can’t win the state.

According to Fair Vote, 98 percent of post-Labor Day campaign spending in the 2008 Presidential election went toward 15 swing states.

The House voted 114 to 35 in favor of joining the popular vote project. The Cape delegation’s two Republican members voted against the bill.

State Representative Jeffrey D. Perry’s (R – Sandwich) reasons for voting against the bill this year were unchanged from 2008, when the House last voted on the proposal (it died after failing to receive a vote in the Senate before the end of the formal session).

“I don’t have any fundamental objections to changing the way we elect our President to a popular vote,” he said, “but it’s my view that the bill we voted on was an attempt at an end-run around the Constitution…if American and Massachusetts voters want to change to a popular vote, they need to do it through a proper Constitutional process.”

The House shot down a proposal to replace the National Popular Vote bill with a new measure that would chose at least one Presidential elector from each Congressional district, in addition to two statewide electors. Under this system, each district elector would vote for the candidate supported by the majority of voters in his Congressional district.

Supporters of this alternate model, which is already in use in Maine and Nebraska, claimed the result would be a more accurate representation of voter will.

Fair Vote criticized this approach in its report “Fuzzy Math: Wrong Way Reforms for Allocating Electoral College Votes," claiming that distributing Electoral College votes by Congressional district did not reflect public will as accurately as a direct popular vote.

Using the 2000 Bush/Gore race as an example, Fair Vote showed that President Bush’s margin of victory would have increased by six percent as compared to the Electoral College model.

3 Responses to "House Signs Off On National Popular Vote Bill"

1. mvymvy says: 06/17/10
   

   The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election. In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote. In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes. There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule. As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district -- a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected. The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
2. mvymvy says: 06/17/10
   

   Massachusetts has exercised its power to change its system of awarding its electoral votes on 10 different occasions. In 1789, the Massachusetts legislature, in effect, chose the state’s presidential electors. In 1792, the voters were allowed to elect presidential electors in four multi-member regional districts. Then, the voters picked electors by congressional districts (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors). Shortly thereafter, the legislature took back the power to pick all the presidential electors (excluding the voters entirely). Later, the voters picked electors on a statewide basis using the winner-take-all rule. Then, the legislature again decided to pick the electors itself, followed by the voters using districts, followed by another return to legislative choice, followed again by the voters using districts, and, finally, the present-day statewide winner-take-all rule. None of these 10 changes required an amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the Founding Fathers and U.S. Constitution gave Massachusetts (and all the other states) exclusive and plenary power to award their electoral votes.
3. mvymvy says: 06/17/10
   

   A survey of 800 Massachusetts voters conducted on May 23–24, 2010 showed 72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Voters were asked "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?" By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 86% among Democrats, 54% among Republicans, and 68% among others. By gender, support was 85% among women and 60% among men. By age, support was 85% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65. By race, support was 72% among whites, 82% among African-Americans, and 58% among Others. Massachusetts voters were also asked a 3-way question: "Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the state's electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?" The results of this three-way question were that 68% favored a national popular vote, 16% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district, and 16% favored the existing statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide). http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#MA_2010MAY