The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ( NPVIC ) is an agreement between a group of US states and the District of Columbia to give every electoral vote to any presidential candidate winning the overall vote popular in 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular vote is elected president, and that will apply only if it will guarantee that result. As of May 2018, it has been adopted by eleven states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 172 electoral votes, 32.0% of the total Electoral College and 63.7% of the electoral votes required to provide a compact legal force.
Video National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Mechanism
Proposed in a statewide compact form, the treaty will prevail among participating countries in a compact form only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in Electoral College. In the next presidential election after being adopted by the required number of states, the participating countries will give all their electoral votes to the presidential voters associated with candidates who win the overall vote in 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, the national popular vote winner will always win the presidency by always securing the majority of votes in Electoral College. Until the compact conditions are met, all countries vote electors in their current way.
The Compact will modify the ways in which the participating countries apply Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, which requires each state legislature to determine a method for appointing its electorate to elect at the Electoral College (though a system that violates the 14th Amendment, the same law and prohibits racial discrimination, will be prohibited). The Constitution does not mandate certain legislative schemes to elect voters, and instead advocates state legislatures with the exclusive power to choose how to allocate its own electorate. Countries have chosen various methods of appropriation for years, with regular changes in the nation's early decades. Today, all but two countries (Maine and Nebraska) give all of their electoral votes to the candidates with the most votes in the state.
Maps National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Motivation behind compact
Because of the way the country historically chose to split their electoral votes, the presidential candidate has lost popular national votes but still won the presidency. Public opinion surveys show that the majority of Americans support the popular voice idea for the President. A 2007 poll found that 72% chose to replace Electoral College with direct elections, including 78% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans and 73% independent voters. The Gallup poll dating back to 1944 has shown a consistent majority of the publicly endorsing direct votes; However, support declined significantly in their 2016 polls, conducted several weeks after the 2016 election, when they found support for popular votes at 49%, the lowest all-time, with 47% looking to keep Electoral College. The reasons behind the compact include:
- The current Electoral College rules allow a candidate to win the Presidency while losing popular votes, as happened in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. In particular, in the 2000 election, Al Gore won 543,895 votes more nationally than George W. Bush, but Bush earns 5 more voters than Gore, partly because of Bush's narrow victory in Florida; in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton won 2,868,691 more votes nationally than Donald Trump, but Trump secured 77 more voters than Clinton, partly due to Trump's narrow victory in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
- The current Electoral College rules encourage candidates to focus disproportionately on a limited number of swing states (and in the case of Maine and Nebraska, swing districts), as small changes in popular voting in the region result in major changes in electoral college voting. For example, in the 2016 elections, a shift of 2,736 votes (or less than 0.4% of all votes cast) to Donald Trump in New Hampshire would result in 4 electoral votes for his campaign. Similar shifts in other countries will not result in changes in elections, prompting campaigns to focus on New Hampshire above other countries. A study by FairVote reports that 2004 candidates devoted three quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states, while 45 other countries received little attention. The report also states that 18 countries do not accept candidate visits and no TV ads. This means that the swing status problem receives more attention, while important issues for other countries are largely ignored.
- The current Electoral College rules tend to lower the number of voters in the imperceptible state. Voters living outside the swinging countries have greater certainty about which candidates are likely to win their country. Knowledge of these possible outcomes reduces their incentive to choose. A report by the Committee for the Study of Voters of America found that the participation of 2004 voters in competitive swing states grew by 6.3% from the previous presidential election, compared with an increase of only 3.8% in non-competitive countries. A report by the Center for Information and Research on Civil Learning and Involvement (CIRCLE) found that the number of eligible voters under age 30 was 64.4% in the nearest 10 states of combat and only 47.6% in other countries - a 17%.
Debate
The project has been supported by editorials in newspapers, including The Sun-Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Sun-Times, The Los Angeles Times Boston Globe, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, arguing that the existing system inhibits voter participation and leaves only emphasis on some states and some issues, while elections will equalize voting. power. Others have opposed it, including Honolulu Star-Bulletin . An article by Pierre S. du Pont, IV, the former governor of Delaware, in the opinion section of The Wall Street Journal has referred to this project as a struggle for city power that will divert politics entirely to urban affairs in high-income countries and allows low caliber candidates to run. Collection of pro and con reading has been assembled by the Women's Voters League.
Some of the main debate points outlined below:
Campaign focus
Under the current system, the focus of the campaign - in terms of spending, visits, and attention given to regional or country issues - is largely confined to a handful of countries whose competitive electoral outcomes, with political "solid" countries largely ignored by campaigns. The maps illustrate the amount spent on advertising and the number of visits to each state, relative to the number of residents, by two major party candidates at the final stage of the 2004 presidential campaign. Compact supporters argue that popular national polls will encourage candidates to campaign with equal efforts to voice in the same competitive and non-competitive countries. Compact critics argue that candidates will have fewer incentives to focus on countries with smaller populations or fewer urban areas, and thus will be unmotivated to address rural issues.
Close election and electoral fraud
Compact opponents have raised concerns about electoral fraud. In his article, du Pont argues that in 2000, "The 540,000-vote margin of Mr. Gore totaled 3.1 votes in each of the 175,000-country territories." Finding 'three votes per district in urban areas is not difficult...'. However, the National Popular Vote argues that a large pool of 122 million votes scattered across the country will make the result of being close or cheat much smaller than under the current system, where the national winner can be determined by a very small margin of voice in either from fifty-one counts across the state.
NPVIC does not include any provision for national recount if there is fraud in the vote count. While each country has established rules governing recounts in statewide or disputed counting, it is possible for a national ballot to be close without any close results in any of the states. The compact proponents argue that the need for a recount will be less likely under popular national voice than under the current electoral system.
populist countries compared to low-population countries
There is some debate as to whether the Electoral Institute supports small or large populated countries. Those who argue that the College supports low-income countries indicate that these countries have more proportional voting voices than their populations, since each country's voters are more than two per cent of the proportional number of representatives of Congress. In California's most populous state, this resulted in a 16% less electoral effect than a pure proportional allocation would yield, while the country with the fewest population, with three voters, had a voting power of 143% greater than pure proportional allocation. The proposed compact will give equal weight to every voter vote, regardless of the country where they live. However, others believe that since most countries vote electors on a take-all-winning system, the densest potential states to shift larger numbers. electoral votes gave them a more tangible effect.
Possible partisan benefits
Some supporters and opponents of the NPVIC have based their position at least in part on the perceived partisan benefits of the compact. Former Delaware Governor Pierre S. du Pont IV, a Republican, argues that the compact will be "seize the city's power" and benefit the Democrats. However, Saul Anuzis of the National Committee of the Republic wrote that the Republic "needs" a compact, citing what he believes to be the central right of American voters. New Yorker essay Hendrik Hertzberg argues that the compact will benefit both sides, noting that historically both Republicans and Democrats have managed to win popular votes in the presidential election. In the last five presidential elections, simulations of results close to the electoral system have benefited Democrats in three (2004, 2008, 2012) and favored the Republic in two (2000, 2016). In the same five presidential elections, Democrats won popular votes in four of them.
Relevance of the majority of state level
Two governors who have vetoed the NPVIC law, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Linda Lingle of Hawaii both in 2007, objected to the complex on the grounds that it could appeal to their state's electoral vote to be awarded to candidates who did not win a majority. in their country. (Both countries have since enacted compacting laws.) Supporters of the compact counter under the popular national voice system, the majority of country level is irrelevant; in any state, the vote contributes to the national account, which determines the winner. Therefore individual voter preferences are paramount, while the majority of states are an outdated measure of intermediaries.
Legality
Proponents believe that compact is legal under Article II of the US Constitution, which sets the powers of the plenary states to appoint their electors in whatever way they wish: "Each State shall appoint, in such manner as its Legislature may direct, an Amount Voters, equal to the entire Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled to Congress ". Supporters of this position include law professor Jamie Raskin (now a member of the US Congress for the 8th congress district of Maryland), who, as a state legislator, sponsored the first NPVIC bill to be signed into law, and law professor Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar, which is the original supporter of the compact.
A 2008 assessment by law school student David Gringer suggested that NPVIC could potentially violate the 1965 Select Act, but the US Department of Justice in 2012 preceded the inclusion of California into the compact under Section 5 of the Act, concluding that the compact had no negative impact against racial minority voters. Rob Richie from FairVote says that NPVIC "treats all voters equally".
Gringer also attacked NPVIC as "the final process of the constitutional amendment process". Raskin has replied: "the term 'end-of-life' has no known constitutional or legal meaning.More importantly, so long as we follow its meaning in real usage, 'run end' is a fully legitimate game." Raskin argues that the adoption of the term "end run" by compact opponents is a tacit admission of the legality of the plan.
Approval of Congress
Ian Drake, assistant professor of Political Science and other compact critics, has stated that the constitution requires and prohibits Congressional approval of the treaty. In Drake's view, only constitutional amendments can make compact valid. Authors Michael Brody, Jennifer Hendricks and Bradley Turflinger have examined briefly and concluded that the NPVIC, if successfully authorized, will pass constitutional. Brody has proposed a unique theory that the legality of the NPVIC has the potential to rely on the idea that unfaithful voters need not be obliged to vote for the candidates they promise.
It is possible that Congress must approve the NPVIC before it can be enacted. Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution states that: "No State, without the Congressional Approval... entry into the Covenant or the Agreement with another State, or by Foreign Strength." However, the US Supreme Court has ruled at Virginia v. Tennessee , 148 U.S. 503 (1893), and in some more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary unless there is a minor violation of federal supremacy. Each Vote Equal is of the opinion that the compact will never violate federal powers because the Constitution explicitly provides the power to vote electors to the state, not the federal government. Derek Muller argues that NPVIC will somehow affect the federal system in such a way that it will require Congressional approval, while Ian Drake argues that Congress is actually banned under the Constitution from granting approval to the NPVIC. NPVIC supporters dismiss this conclusion and say they plan to seek congressional approval if the compact is approved by a number of countries that are sufficient.
History
Proposal to remove Electoral College with amendments
Several proposals to abolish Electoral College with constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress for decades. These efforts, however, have been hampered by the fact that two-thirds of the votes in the House and the Senate are required to send amendments to countries, where ratification by three quarters of the State's legislature or convention in three quarters of the country is required to be operative.
Bay Bayh-Celler Amendment
The closest successful amendment was Bayh-Celler's proposal during the 91st Congress (January 1969 - January 1971). Introduced by New York's Emanuel Celler Representative as House 681 Resolution, it will replace the Electoral Institute with a simpler plurality system based on popular national voice. Under this system, the candidate pairs who have received the most votes will win the presidency and their respective vice presidents, giving them won at least 40% of the national vote. If no couple receive 40% of popular votes, a second round of elections will be held, where the president and vice president's choice will be made from the two pairs of people who have received the highest number of votes in the first election. The word "spouse" is defined as "two people who will agree to join their name as candidates for the office of President and Vice President". The constitutional amendment proposed by Celler was passed in the House of Representatives by 338-70 votes in 1969, but was rejected in the Senate, where he died.
Each Counting Vote Counts
A joint resolution to amend the Constitution, providing for president and vice presidential elections under a new electoral system introduced in 2005 by Gene Green of Texas Representative. In 2009, at the start of the 111th Congress, Green introduced H.J.Res. 9, commonly known as Any Counting Vote Count. Two other joint resolutions were proposed at the 111th Congress to amend the Constitution to form a popular national vote for the president and vice president. Sponsored by Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. from Illinois, H.J.Res. 36 will require a majority vote for the president. Sponsored by Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, S.J.Res. 4 will leave the electoral method for the Congressional Act. Each of these steps died on the committee.
Academic plan
In 2001, Northwestern University law professor Robert Bennett suggested a plan in an academic publication to apply the National Popular Voice through a mechanism that would embrace the legislative power of the state to appoint voters, rather than reject the power. By coordinating, the majority of states of Electoral College can effectively carry out popular voting.
Law professors (and brothers) Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar defend the constitutionality of the plan. They proposed that a group of countries, through legislation, form a compact in which they agreed to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of the sound balance in their own country. The law of this country will only be triggered after a compact state includes enough to control the majority of electoral institutions (270 votes), thus ensuring that national popular vote winners will also win electoral colleges.
The academic plan uses two constitutional features:
- The Presidential Voter Clause in Section 2, Section 1, clause 2 which gives each state the power to determine the mode of voting of its electorate.
- Compact Clause, Article I, section 10, clause 3 below which creates a compact that can be enforced.
The Amar brothers noted that such a plan could be enacted with the passage of the law in at least eleven countries and would probably not require Congressional approval, although this is uncertain (see Debate above).
Organization and advocacy
In 2006, John Koza, a professor of computer science at Stanford, is the lead author of Every Vote Equal, a book that makes a detailed case for his plans for an interstate to form the National Popular Vote. (Koza had previously been exposed to interstate compacts from his work with state lottery commissions after creating a lottery anti-scratch ticket.) That year, Koza, Barry Fadem and others formed the National Popular Vote, a nonprofit group to promote the law. The group has a transpartisan advisory committee including former US Senators Jake Garn, Birch Bayh, and David Durenberger, and former Representative John Anderson, John Buchanan, and Tom Campbell.
At the group's opening press conference in February 2006, the interstate compact proposal was introduced in the Illinois legislature. With support from the National Popular Vote, the NPVIC legislation was introduced in five additional state legislatures in session 2006. It was adopted at the Colorado Senate and in both California legislative assemblies before being vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Adoption
In 2007, the NPVIC law was introduced in 42 states. It was authorized by at least one legislative space in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Hawaii. Maryland became the first country to join the compact when Governor Martin O'Malley signed it into law on April 10, 2007.
New Jersey became the second country to enter the complex when Governor Jon S. Corzine signed the bill on 13 January 2008. Illinois became the third country to join when Governor Rod Blagojevich signed it into law on April 7, 2008 and Hawaii became the fourth. on May 1, 2008, after the legislature ruled out the second veto of the governor.
Washington became the fifth state to join when Governor Christine Gregoire signed it into law on 28 April 2009. Massachusetts became the sixth country to join when Governor Deval Patrick signed it into law on August 4, 2010. The District of Columbia entered into the compound when the bill was signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty on October 12, 2010. (Both the Congressional assemblies object to the part of the bill during the mandatory review period of 30 legislative days after that date, thus allowing District action to proceed.)
Vermont joined the compact when Governor Peter Shumlin signed it into law on 22 April 2011. California entered the compact on August 8, 2011, with the signature of Governor Jerry Brown. Rhode Island enters the compact on July 12, 2013, with the signature of Governor Lincoln Chafee. On April 15, 2014, New York entered a compact bipartisan voice in the NY assembly and the signature of Governor Andrew Cuomo. On May 24, 2018, Connecticut entered a compact bipartisan voice in CT senate and the signature of Governor Dannel Malloy. The NPVIC law has been introduced in all 50 states. Countries where only one room has adopted the law are Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Oregon. In Colorado and New Mexico, legislation has been passed in both rooms (in different sessions). Bills that tried to pull out the hassle in Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington have failed.
Bills
Initiatives and referendums
In May 2018, an initiative to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is underway in Arizona and Maine. In Arizona, an initiative began collecting autographs on December 19, 2016, and had to collect 150,642 signatures before July 5, 2018 before it could appear on the ballot. In Maine, an initiative began collecting signatures on April 17, 2016, and had to collect 61,123 signatures on October 19, 2018.
In Missouri, similar initiatives did not collect the required number of signatures before the May 6, 2018 deadline.
Prospects
Psephologist Nate Silver noted that all jurisdictions that have adopted the compact so far are "blue countries", and that there is not enough election votes from the remaining "blue country" to reach the required majority. He concluded that, as the "swing state" is unlikely to support a compact that reduces their influence, the compact can not succeed without the adoption by some "red state" as well.
Charges
Bill in current session
The table below lists state bills for joining NPVICs that are introduced or archived in every state legislative session today. The "EVs" column shows the number of electoracles each country has.
Bills received a vote on the floor in the previous session
The table below lists previous bills that received a voting on the floor (voting by full room) in at least one state legislative room. Unsubscribed floating bills on unlisted floor. The "EVS" column shows the number of state-owned electoral votes when the charge is introduced. This number may have changed since then due to reapportionment after the 2010 Census.
See also
Note
References
External links
- Symposium on the Journal of Electoral Law on Popular National Pollution
- Popular National Voices
- Agreements Among States to Select President by Popular Popular Voices - text from interstate compact
- Each Same Voice: A State-Based Plan for Choosing a President by Popular Popular Voices - read or download free books
- FairVote
- Common Causes
- Electoral Law College at National Conference of State Legislatures
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments