Intended as a workaround for the bugs (some think them features, of course) of the Electoral College: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia
There’s discussion of the NPVIC starting at post 1453 here: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=833354&page=30
For further discussion here, have at it!
Also see this earlier debate: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=811687
I think it is illegal to conclude such an agreement without the consent of Congress, per Article I section 10: “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…”
If states spontaneously decided to appoint electors for someone other than who won the popular vote in their state, I suppose they could do that… though personally I wonder if that may run afoul of the “guarantee a republican form of government” clause of the Constitution, as having a government decide an election in opposition to the actual vote is pretty damn un-republican.
But the fact that the agreement literally is a compact is the fatal flaw here. Interstate compacts require congressional approval, period.
Ravenman: If I understand it correctly, it’s set up as a voluntary agreement. There is no enforcement mechanism. Do you think that makes any difference?
It’s literally called an interstate compact. The Constitution literally applies limitations to interstate compacts. To claim that an interstate agreement is not an interstate agreement is entering Bill Clinton “it depends what the definition of ‘is’ is” level of doublespeak.
I think this is a perfectly legal – but hokey – thing to do IF Congress approves of it. Of course, who knows what may happen if Congress later revokes its approval of the compact!
OK, so would your average citizen have standing to take this to the SCOTUS? I would think so, but I’m not certain. You already don’t have any guarantees that if you vote for Mr. X, your state won’t give all it’s EC votes to Ms. Y.
I would assume that any candidate would have standing.
ETA: any “winning candidate that loses” I mean.
I’ll support it. Far from a perfect solution (a “perfect” solution, IMO, would be a Constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college as well as instituting ranked-choice voting), but still better than the electoral college.
True.
I think that’s overstating it. Sure, the compact could not take effect without Congressional approval. But when we’re talking about a change to the workings of our elections that would otherwise require 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress plus ratification by 38 state legislatures, many of which would be adamantly against such a change, getting the agreement of the remaining needed states for the Compact plus simple majorities of both houses of Congress is a much easier lift.
IF Congress approves the Compact, it’s hard to see how such a candidate would have a leg to stand on. The Constitution gives states a free hand in determining how their electors are to be chosen.
I think it would promote more faithless electors. It would get REALLY interesting if faithless electors ever threw an election to the House.
I agree; I was talking about the scenario in which states sign up and execute the compact without the approval of Congress. A winning/losing candidate would surely have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the compact that leads to the selection of electors.
And one thing to keep in mind in that scenario is that it isn’t ‘one Congresscritter, one vote.’ Each state delegation gets one vote, and a majority of the state delegations is needed for a win.
Agreed.
The NPVIC seems to be a convoluted way to allow a nationwide popular vote for POTUS. As I understand it, that is the ultimate goal of the NPVIC supporters.
In Illinois, under the NPVIC (Public Act 095-0714 - Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 095-0714), if Illinois voters chose Candidate A as President, but the national popular vote choses Candidate B, the chief election official of each member state shall designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the "national popular vote winner."
It will no longer matter what the voters of Illinois had decided. Assuming California, or Texas, or Florida, or New York (largest numbers of EC electors) overwhelmingly (let’s say 10 million votes in an otherwise close national vote) voted for Candidate B, the voters in that state will superceed the will of the voters in Illinois. Thanks for taking the time to vote, unfortunately your votes no longer matter. But please remember to vote again next election.
The first time the NPVIC is used to decide an election, the election process and it’s results are going to be fast tracked to the Supreme Court. Will the Supremes decide that existing federal(s) do not apply? Or will they decide that an interstate agreement doesn’t carry the legal weight that the “Lets have a national popular vote for President” folks wish it did?
It would be just as time consuming to push for state-by-state legislation allowing the federal government to hold a national election for electing a President. Since that is the ultimate goal. IMHO, of course.
I refer honorable guests and members to the answer I gave some moments ago (in #1456). And note that past performance (never having a close national vote) is not indicative of future results.
This, and various other possible mischiefs, would be increased threats. Especially in the present ‘Cheating is better than letting Party XXX win’ climate.
Interesting proposal, I must say.
On the contrary, every voter’s influence would be exactly the same – 1 vote. A voter in Illinois would have just as much influence as a voter from Texas or California or Rhode Island, and vice versa. Every single American would have the exact same influence on who becomes President in terms of voting power. Right now, it’s heavily skewed towards swing states and small states – a voter in Iowa has much, much more influence on who becomes President than a voter in California.
If I understand correctly, and I’m not certain I do, the EC is set up in the US Constitution, but states determine how to allocate their EC votes.
What if, rather than entering the NPVIC, there was a huge push to get states to allocate EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in their state. ISTM this would be a fairly easy sell – most voters have lived through a situation where their vote for POTUS really didn’t mean anything since their state’s EC votes went to another candidate. If enough states did this, there would be only a small chance that the EC wouldn’t reflect the popular vote. If that chance essentially went to 0, I could see a nonpartisan push to amend he Constitution to eliminate the EC as being superfluous and costly.
Since states exist and the constitution is an agreement between states I don’t see the problem with differences between states or those who reside in them.
I do, especially since the current system (like many others) just so happens to benefit white voters, who are far more likely than non-white voters to live in small states and thus have greater voting influence per capita for the country at large. And just on the principle that one-man = one-vote should be more important (far, far more important, IMO) than concerns about the influence or “rights” of states.