# Oregon lawmakers consider changing how electoral votes are cast **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 15, 2017, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238 "2017-03-15T15:24:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2017, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/41 "2017-03-17T02:30:18Z")
A National Popular Vote Compact is fine, but the states involved need to understand that if there’s any confusion over who won the popular vote, states that did not sign on are under no obligation to do recounts. So they need to have a plainly stated out in case it comes to that. Which would be fine. I agree that it would probably be okay if elections were decided by popular vote, just so long as the EC remained as a sort of tiebreaker. I think the EC is a much better tiebreaker option than a national recount, which would bring nothing but hard feelings and suspicions of cheating and stealing elections. In the event there’s a tie in the popular vote, or near enough, then if one candidate has over 300 electoral votes, I’d say that’s more than good enough. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2017, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/42 "2017-03-17T03:14:03Z")
> [@ckalli1998](#): > > Just a bunch of left-wing zealots angry they didn’t get their way. I support our current Electoral College system. > > Everybody has a right to vote in presidential elections in America, they don’t have a right to see their candidate win their state, or lose it, etc Welcome to the SDMB. The NPV has been endorsed by [Newt Gingrich](http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/newt-gingrich-endorses-national-popular-vote) and[Bob Barr](http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/sites/default/files/barr-letter-may-2016-pdf.pdf), and, to the extent that he is able to express a coherent thought, [Donald Trump](http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/president-elect-trump-reaffirms-his-long-standing-opposition-electoral-college-and-favors-nationwide) favors a national popular vote, though he hasn’t specifically endorsed the NPV compact. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2017, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/43 "2017-03-17T04:26:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > A National Popular Vote Compact is fine, but the states involved need to understand that if there’s any confusion over who won the popular vote, states that did not sign on are under no obligation to do recounts. So they need to have a plainly stated out in case it comes to that. > > Which would be fine. I agree that it would probably be okay if elections were decided by popular vote, just so long as the EC remained as a sort of tiebreaker. I think the EC is a much better tiebreaker option than a national recount, which would bring nothing but hard feelings and suspicions of cheating and stealing elections. In the event there’s a tie in the popular vote, or near enough, then if one candidate has over 300 electoral votes, I’d say that’s more than good enough. By definition, a compact doesn’t obligate any State that doesn’t sign on to do anything. And States which did sign the NPV wouldn’t lose their right to manage counts and recounts according to their own laws. Recounts always engender hard feelings and suspicion; remember 2000? But I don’t think people who lived outside Florida were any less worked up about the situation than people in Florida were. The EC system offers 51 separate votes in each Presidential election, each of which have the potential for a disputed outcome. Under NPV, there is only one, much larger, pool of voters, so the chance of a recount being required is much, much smaller than with the EC system. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2017, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/44 "2017-03-17T04:37:51Z")
> [@ckalli1998](#): > > Just a bunch of left-wing zealots angry they didn’t get their way. I support our current Electoral College system. > > Everybody has a right to vote in presidential elections in America, they don’t have a right to see their candidate win their state, or lose it, etc Heh. Just ran across this gem from the New York Daily News of November 1, 2000: > [@](#): > > “Quietly, some of George W. Bush’s advisers are preparing for the ultimate > ‘what if’ scenario: What happens if Bush wins the popular vote for President, but loses the White House because Al Gore won the majority of electoral votes? > .“‘The one thing we don’t do is roll over,’ says a Bush aide. ‘We fight.’ > “How? The core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course.“In league with the campaign—which is preparing talking points about the Electoral College’s essential unfairness— > a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged. ‘We’d have ads, too,’ says a Bush aide, ‘and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted.’ > “Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the clergy > will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team Bush will enlist > as many Democrats as possible to scream as loud as they can. ‘You think > ‘Democrats for Democracy’ would be a catchy term for them?’ asks a Bush > adv iser. > “The universe of people who would be targeted by this insurrection is > small—the 538 currently anonymous folks called electors, people chosen > by the campaigns and their state party organizations as a reward for their > service over the years. > .“Enough of the electors could theoretically switch to Bush if they wanted > to—if there was sufficient pressure on them to ratify the popular verdict.” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2017, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/45 "2017-03-17T08:08:17Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > By definition, a compact doesn’t obligate any State that doesn’t sign on to do anything. And States which did sign the NPV wouldn’t lose their right to manage counts and recounts according to their own laws. > > Recounts always engender hard feelings and suspicion; remember 2000? But I don’t think people who lived outside Florida were any less worked up about the situation than people in Florida were. The EC system offers 51 separate votes in each Presidential election, each of which have the potential for a disputed outcome. Under NPV, there is only one, much larger, pool of voters, so the chance of a recount being required is much, much smaller than with the EC system. If the compact members are the only ones doing recounts there will definitely be some hard feelings. Plus there’s a legal issue with doing recounts if the rules aren’t explict in the compact. Why would California be recounting its votes when the Democrats won by 4 million? Recounts in California are only authorized if the vote is within a certain percentage. They’d have to remember to change that. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2017, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/46 "2017-03-17T15:29:18Z")
(wishes for “beating head against wall” smiley) _Every State has the right under the Constitution to regulate its own elections, including regulations pertaining to recounts._ Nothing in NPV changes that. Presumably States, whether members of the compact or not, would wish to change their laws to provide for recounts in the case of a close Presidential vote, even if the vote in their own State wasn’t close. But that is entirely up to the discretion of each State, and no plausible “legal issues” would arise from any State’s decision to change its laws, or to not do so. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/47 "2017-03-19T05:22:32Z")
If a state legislature was serious about this, they would appoint their EVs according to the popular vote without the compact. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/48 "2017-03-19T13:56:21Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > If a state legislature was serious about this, they would appoint their EVs according to the popular vote without the compact. … with no need for a 270-ev majority for the plan to go into effect. Now, there’s a plan I might get behind! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/49 "2017-03-19T14:16:56Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > (wishes for “beating head against wall” smiley) > > _Every State has the right under the Constitution to regulate its own elections, including regulations pertaining to recounts._ Nothing in NPV changes that. Presumably States, whether members of the compact or not, would wish to change their laws to provide for recounts in the case of a close Presidential vote, even if the vote in their own State wasn’t close. But that is entirely up to the discretion of each State, and no plausible “legal issues” would arise from any State’s decision to change its laws, or to not do so. “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State” States could do this on their own if they wanted. But the NPV is a compact between states, which would require approval from Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blue_blistering_barnacle/32/3386_2.png) [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blue_Blistering_Barnacle)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/50 "2017-03-19T15:11:50Z")
There are tons of reciprocity laws and rules between adjacent states. Did all those need federal approval? ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/51 "2017-03-19T16:33:14Z")
This is a classic example of someone coming up with an absolutely horrendous “solution” to a real problem which does need to be addressed. As described, this would tell all Oregon voters: “it doesn’t matter who you vote for or want. Whoever the REST of the country likes, we’ll pretend that’s who you voted for.” It’s just plain stupid, and worst of all, in an attempt to solve a problem where Democracy was defeated by the structure of the system, the proposed “solution” is to ignore Democracy entirely. The main thing that gets ignored or is overlooked, whenever a discussion of the Electoral system and how we ought to do away with is, is that in order to do that, we have to completely reboot the entire United States Government. This is a REPUBLIC. Not a Democracy. The reason for the Electoral system, is to empower the STATES, as being members of that Republic. That’s why most states award ALL electors to whoever wins the popular vote in the state, even if they only win 50.00000001% to 49.99999999%. The entire system of rights and the Constitution itself is based on the Republic model. So whatever people propose, they need to be aware that they could well end up making a LOT more changes to the government than they realize they are doing. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/52 "2017-03-19T18:24:44Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > If a state legislature was serious about this, they would appoint their EVs according to the popular vote without the compact. No, because that really would amount to throwing that State’s influence over the election away. That’s like saying “if a State was really serious about single-payer health care, it would pay for health care for everyone in the country”. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/53 "2017-03-19T18:29:58Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State” > States could do this on their own if they wanted. But the NPV is a compact between states, which would require approval from Congress. > [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](#): > > There are tons of reciprocity laws and rules between adjacent states. Did all those need federal approval? The Constitution (Art I Sec 10 cl 3) does literally say that all interstate compacts require Congressional approval, but SCOTUS, most recently in _US Steel Corp vs Multistate Tax Commission_, 1978, has ruled that this applies only to compacts which encroach on Federal authority. Since the right to choose how to appoint Presidential electors is explicitly given entirely to each State (Art I sec 1 cl 2), there is no issue. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/54 "2017-03-19T18:59:35Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Think about what you’re saying. The NPV scenario is like the batter flying out to the first-baseman, who then tags the base to be sure; and the umpire declares the batter safe at first because a majority of batters in some other game were safe. The scenario I envision is where some judge or election official finds that this rule is absurd on its face _ **and finds an I that wasn’t dotted or a T that wasn’t crossed** _ in the wording of NPV. If you think no lawyer or judge has ever been able to find fault with a law or ruling, then you live in a different America from me. > > In _Bush v Gore_ a partisan Scotus effectively insisted that Florida cast its ev’s for Bush even though Gore might have won the vote. In my scenario, Scotus would insist that a state cast its ev’s for the state’s winner. See the difference? And a large plurality of Congress and public would be adamant that this was the correct thing to do. > > The idea that the present-day GOP will suddenly change its modus operandi if NPV passes strikes me as very naïve. > \*“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” \* > > ETA: As just one examine, _a judge might rule that the national popular vote is close_ and uncertain and, in the absence of a national recount (which won’t happen), the state shouild revert to casting its ev’s for the state’s winner. Is that really far-fetched? Right. What happened in 2000 is that a vote was too close to call, and partisan judges were able to put their thumbs on the scale and get their guy in. This was the second time in US history (1876) that this happened. So this isn’t some theoretical danger that might happen if we tamper with the system, _this is how it works now!_ And although the NPV system wouldn’t entirely remove the possibility of such a thing happening, it would make it much, much less likely. The EC system has hinged on disputed recounts twice already, and delivered the Presidency to the wrong candidate five times…with many other close calls. Never yet in US history (since 1828, when the popular vote was first recorded) has there been an election in which the popular vote was too close to be definitively called. PS It doesn’t affect your basic point – that political/judicial shenanigans can happen in close elections – but as I explained to\*\* Fotheringay-Phipps\*\* above, the exact scenario you describe couldn’t happen. If a judicial determination was made that the national popular vote winner couldn’t be definitively identified, the electoral votes of NPV member States would be determined by their respective Legislatures. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/55 "2017-03-19T20:22:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **igor frankenstein** : > > This is a classic example of someone coming up with an absolutely horrendous “solution” to a real problem which does need to be addressed. > > As described, this would tell all Oregon voters: “it doesn’t matter who you vote for or want. Whoever the REST of the country likes, we’ll pretend that’s who you voted for.” Quite the contrary; this would tell all voters (in Oregon and in the rest of the country alike) that all of their votes all count equally. This would in fact give Oregonians more say in the election, not less, because they’re currently one of the many states that is ignored for not being a “swing state”. And I find it quite amusing that, in the same post, you complain about this proposal not being democratic enough, and then go on to decry democracy with the “republic, not a democracy” nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/56 "2017-03-21T08:22:32Z")
> [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](#): > > There are tons of reciprocity laws and rules between adjacent states. Did all those need federal approval? I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that “compact”= treaty only if it’s formal and enforced like a treaty. Whereas many of our “treaties” are actually just agreements that got a simple majority vote in Congress and are not actually the law of the land. I think it probably works the same way for states. In a formal compact, states would have to allocate their electoral votes according to the rules, and that would probably require Congress’ consent. But if they just make an “agreement”, then they can do it, but it’s probably not enforceable. And we all know how much you can trust state governments if they can get their way by breaking the agreement. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/57 "2017-03-21T14:00:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that “compact”= treaty only if it’s formal and enforced like a treaty. Whereas many of our “treaties” are actually just agreements that got a simple majority vote in Congress and are not actually the law of the land. I think it probably works the same way for states. In a formal compact, states would have to allocate their electoral votes according to the rules, and that would probably require Congress’ consent. But if they just make an “agreement”, then they can do it, but it’s probably not enforceable. And we all know how much you can trust state governments if they can get their way by breaking the agreement. It’s not an “agreement”. It’s state level electoral law that would of course be enforceable. igor frankenstein, don’t know if you missed but this rule would only kick in if enough states have passed the legislation. So Oregan votes would matter just as much as anyone else’s even if Oregon’s electoral votes must go to the party they didn’t lean towards. ---
**Author:** ![Patx2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/73ab20/32.png) [@Patx2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patx2)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/58 "2017-03-21T20:23:03Z")
I don’t understand why it’s not just done by percentages. Forget about the 270 needed. If there are 2 candidates and one gets 75% of the popular vote in a given state, they get 75% of the votes, the other candidate 25%. Don’t announce any results until all 50 states have divided up their votes and the winner is the one with the most. Oversimplified and I know in reality it wouldn’t work, but it seems like a fair way to do it as opposed to winner take all. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/59 "2017-03-22T08:50:56Z")
> [@Patx2](#): > > I don’t understand why it’s not just done by percentages. Forget about the 270 needed. If there are 2 candidates and one gets 75% of the popular vote in a given state, they get 75% of the votes, the other candidate 25%… > Oversimplified and I know in reality it wouldn’t work, but it seems like a fair way to do it as opposed to winner take all. Just to be clear: Are you proposing national popular vote? Or just allocating a state’s current ev’s proportionally? In the latter case, be aware that each Wyoming voter will carry more than three times the weight of a California voter. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238/60 "2017-03-22T14:28:30Z")
> [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](#): > > There are tons of reciprocity laws and rules between adjacent states. Did all those need federal approval? By the plain language of the Compact Clause, yes. Under the case law interpreting the Clause, no, not really. > [@](#): > > 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 Virginia v. Tennessee, supra . His conclusion that the Clause could not be read literally was approved in subsequent dicta, but this Court did not have occasion expressly to apply it in a holding until our recent decision in New Hampshire v. Maine, supra. > > Appellants urge us to abandon Virginia v. Tennessee and New Hampshire v. Maine, but provide no effective alternative other than a literal reading of the Compact Clause. At this late date, we are reluctant to accept this invitation to circumscribe modes of interstate cooperation that do not enhance state power to the detriment of federal supremacy. > > United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 434 U.S. 452, 459-60, 98 S. Ct. 799, 806 (1978) U.S. Steel and its predecessors have basically made the Compact Clause a nullity except as to agreements between states and foreign countries. In any event, Congress has generally declined to bother granting or withholding approval of state compacts since, oh, around the Civil War. > [@CarnalK](#): > > It’s not an “agreement”. It’s state level electoral law that would of course be enforceable. … and which imposes a binding, reciprocal obligation on each adopting state, and which is only effective upon ratification by a sufficient number of states. It’s certainly an agreement between states, no matter that it is implemented at the level of the individual states. Otherwise you might as well argue that the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is “national level law” rather than an agreement because the signatories had to pass enabling legislation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-lawmakers-consider-changing-how-electoral-votes-are-cast/782238.md?page=4)