The project has been supported by editorials in newspapers, including The New York Times,[12] the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times,[17]The Boston Globe,[18] and the Minneapolis Star Tribune,[19] arguing that the existing system discourages voter turnout and leaves emphasis on only a few states and a few issues, while a popular election would equalize voting power. Others have argued against it, including the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.[20] An article by Pete du Pont, a former Governor of Delaware, in the opinion section of The Wall Street Journal[21] has called the project an urban power grab that would shift politics entirely to urban issues in high population states and allow lower caliber candidates to run. A collection of readings pro and con has been assembled by the League of Women Voters.[22]
Some of the major points of debate are detailed below:
Spending on advertising per capita:
Campaign visits per 1 million residents:
|
Under the current system, campaign focus – in terms of spending, visits, and attention paid to regional or state issues – is largely limited to the few swing states whose electoral outcomes are competitive, with politically "solid" states mostly ignored by the campaigns. The adjacent maps illustrate the amount spent on advertising and the number of visits to each state, relative to population, by the two major-party candidates in the last stretch of the 2004 presidential campaign. Supporters of the compact contend that a national popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign with equal effort for votes in competitive and non-competitive states alike.[24] Critics of the compact argue that candidates would have less incentive to focus on states with smaller populations or fewer urban areas, and would thus be less motivated to address rural issues.[21][25]
Opponents of the compact have raised concerns about election fraud. In his article, du Pont argues that in 2000, "Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country's 175,000 precincts. 'Finding' three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing...". However, National Popular Vote has argued that the large pool of 122 million votes spread across the country would make a close or fraudulent outcome much less likely than under the current system, in which the national winner may be determined by an extremely small vote margin in any one of the fifty-one statewide tallies.[21][25]
The NPVIC does not include any provision for a nationwide recount in the event that the vote tally is in dispute. While each state has established rules governing recounts in the event of a close or disputed statewide tally,[26] it is possible for the national vote to be close without there being a close result in any one state. Proponents of the compact argue that the need for a recount would be less likely under a national popular vote than under the current electoral system.[27]
State population per electoral vote in the 2012 presidential election
There is some debate over whether the Electoral College favors small- or large-population states. Those who argue that the College favors low-population states point out that such states have proportionally more electoral votes relative to their populations. This is because each state's electoral votes are equal to the sum of its seats in both houses of Congress: the proportional allocation of House seats has been distorted by the fixed size of the House since 1929 and the requirement that each state have at least one representative, and Senate seats are not proportional to population at all.[20][28]
In the most populous state, California, this results in an electoral clout 16% smaller than a purely proportional allocation would produce, whereas the least-populous states, with three electors, hold a voting power 143% greater than they would under purely proportional allocation. The NPVIC would give equal weight to each voter's ballot, regardless of what state they live in. Others, however, believe that since most states award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all system, the potential of populous states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more actual clout than would otherwise be expected.[29][30][31]
Some supporters and opponents of the NPVIC have based their position at least in part on a perceived partisan advantage of the compact. Former Delaware Governor Pete du Pont, a Republican, has argued that the compact would be an "urban power grab" and benefit Democrats.[21] However, Saul Anuzis former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party wrote that Republicans "need" the compact, citing what he believes to be the center-right nature of the American electorate.[32]New Yorker essayist Hendrik Hertzberg maintains that the compact would benefit neither party, noting that historically both Republicans and Democrats have been successful in winning the popular vote in presidential elections.[33] In the last five presidential elections, simulations of close results with the electoral vote system have favored Democrats in three (2004, 2008, 2012)[34] and favored Republicans in two (2000, 2016).[note 1] In those same five presidential elections, Democrats won the popular vote in four.[35]
Two governors who have vetoed NPVIC legislation, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Linda Lingle of Hawaii, both in 2007, objected to the compact on the grounds that it could require their states' electoral votes to be awarded to a candidate who did not win a majority in their state. (Both states have since enacted laws joining the compact.) Supporters of the compact counter that under a national popular vote system, state-level majorities are irrelevant; in any state, votes cast contribute to the nationwide tally, which determines the winner. The preferences of individual voters are thus paramount, while state-level majorities are an obsolete intermediary measure.[36][37][38]
Supporters believe the compact is legal under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the plenary power of the states to appoint their electors in any manner they see fit: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress". Proponents of this position include law professor Jamie Raskin (now U.S. Congressman for Maryland's 8th congressional district), who, as a state legislator, co-sponsored the first NPVIC bill to be signed into law, and law professors Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar, who were the compact's original proponents.[39]
A 2008 assessment by law school student David Gringer suggested that the NPVIC could potentially violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but the U.S. Department of Justice in 2012 precleared California's entry into the compact under Section 5 of the Act, concluding that the compact had no adverse impact on California's racial minority voters.[40][41] FairVote's Rob Richie says that the NPVIC "treats all voters equally".[42]
Gringer also assailed the NPVIC as "an end-run around the constitutional amendment process". Raskin has responded: "the term 'end run' has no known constitutional or legal meaning. More to the point, to the extent that we follow its meaning in real usage, the 'end run' is a perfectly lawful play."[43] Raskin argues that the adoption of the term "end run" by the compact's opponents is a tacit acknowledgment of the plan's legality.
Ian Drake, an assistant professor of political science and another critic of the compact, has argued that the Constitution both requires and prohibits congressional approval of the compact. In Drake's view, only a constitutional amendment could make the compact valid.[44] Authors Michael Brody,[3] Jennifer Hendricks[45] and Bradley Turflinger[46] have examined the compact and concluded that the NPVIC, if successfully enacted, would pass constitutional muster. Brody has put forth a unique theory that the legality of the NPVIC could potentially hinge on the notion that faithless electors are not necessarily obligated to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.[3]
It is possible that Congress would have to approve the NPVIC before it could go into effect. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states that: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power." However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), and in several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except where a compact encroaches on federal supremacy.[47]Every Vote Equal argues that the compact could never encroach upon federal power since the Constitution explicitly gives the power of casting electoral votes to the states, not the federal government. Derek Muller argues that the NPVIC would nonetheless affect the federal system in such a way that it would require congressional approval,[48] while Ian Drake argues that Congress is actually prohibited under the Constitution from granting approval to the NPVIC.[44] NPVIC supporters dispute this conclusion and state they plan to seek congressional approval if the compact is approved by a sufficient number of states.[49]
Several proposals to abolish the Electoral College by constitutional amendment have been introduced in Congress over the decades. These efforts have, however, been hampered by the fact that a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate are required to send an amendment to the states, where ratification by three-fourths of the State legislatures or by conventions in three fourths of the states is required for it to become operative.
The amendment which came closest to success was the Bayh–Celler proposal during the 91st Congress (January 1969 – January 1971). Introduced by Representative Emanuel Celler of New York as House Joint Resolution 681, it would have replaced the Electoral College with a simpler plurality system based on the national popular vote. Under this system, the pair of candidates who had received the highest number of votes would win the presidency and vice presidency respectively, providing they won at least 40% of the national popular vote. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff election would be held, in which the choice of president and vice president would be made from the two pairs of persons who had received the highest numbers of votes in the first election. The word "pair" was defined as "two persons who shall have consented to the joining of their names as candidates for the offices of President and Vice President".[50] Celler's proposed constitutional amendment passed in the House of Representatives by a 338–70 vote in 1969, but was filibustered in the Senate, where it died.
A joint resolution to amend the Constitution, providing for the popular election of the president and vice president under a new electoral system was introduced in 2005 by Representative Gene Green of Texas. In 2009, at the start of the 111th Congress, Green introduced H.J.Res. 9, commonly known as the Every Vote Counts Amendment. Two other joint resolutions were proposed in the 111th Congress to amend the Constitution to establish a national popular vote for the president and vice-president. Sponsored by Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Illinois, H.J.Res. 36 would require a majority vote for president. Sponsored by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, S.J.Res. 4 would leave the method of election to an Act of Congress. Each of these measures died in committee.
In 2001, Northwestern University law professor Robert Bennett suggested a plan in an academic publication to implement a National Popular Vote through a mechanism that would embrace state legislatures' power to appoint electors, rather than resist that power.[51] By coordinating, states constituting a majority of the Electoral College could effectively implement a popular vote.
Law professors (and brothers) Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar defended the constitutionality of such a plan.[52] They proposed that a group of states, through legislation, form a compact wherein they agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of the balance of votes in their own state. These state laws would only be triggered once the compact included enough states to control a majority of the electoral college (270 votes), thus guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner would also win the electoral college.
The academic plan uses two constitutional features:
The Amar brothers noted that such a plan could be enacted by the passage of laws in as few as eleven states and would probably not require congressional approval, though this is not certain (see Debate above).
In 2006, John Koza, a computer science professor at Stanford, was the lead author of Every Vote Equal, a book that makes a detailed case for his plan for an interstate compact to establish National Popular Vote.[53] (Koza had previously had exposure to interstate compacts from his work with state lottery commissions after inventing the scratch-off lottery ticket.)[53] That year, Koza, Barry Fadem and others formed National Popular Vote, a non-profit group to promote the legislation. The group has a transpartisan advisory committee including former US Senators Jake Garn, Birch Bayh, and David Durenberger, and former Representatives John Anderson, John Buchanan, and Tom Campbell.[54]
By the time of the group's opening news conference in February 2006, the proposed interstate compact had been introduced in the Illinois legislature.[55] With backing from National Popular Vote, the NPVIC legislation was introduced in five additional state legislatures in the 2006 session.[56][57][58] It passed in the Colorado Senate[59] and in both houses of the California legislature before being vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.[60][61]
In 2007, NPVIC legislation was introduced in 42 states. It was passed by at least one legislative chamber in Arkansas,[62]California,[36]Colorado,[63]Illinois,[64]New Jersey,[65]North Carolina,[66]Maryland, and Hawaii.[67] Maryland became the first state to join the compact when Governor Martin O'Malley signed it into law on April 10, 2007.[68]
NPVIC legislation has been introduced in all 50 states.[1] As of March 2019[update], the NPVIC has been adopted by twelve states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 181 electoral votes, which is 7001336000000000000♠ 33.6% of the Electoral College and 7001670000000000000♠ 67.0% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.
The compact has also been passed by both houses in New Mexico and Delaware and is currently pending their Governor's signature.
States where only one chamber has passed the legislation are Arizona, Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Oregon. Bills seeking to repeal the compact in Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington have failed.
Total
Electoral
Votes of
Adoptive
States
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
'15
'16
'17
'18
MD
NJ
IL
HI
WA
MA
DC
VT
CA
RI
NY
CT
CO
← 181 ( 7001670000000000000♠ 67% of 270)
First
legislative
introduction
Reapportionment
based on
2010 Census
History of state enactment of the NPVIC as of March 2019
[update]| No. | Jurisdiction | Date adopted | Method of adoption | Current Electoral votes (EV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Maryland | Apr 10, 2007 | Signed by Gov. Martin O'Malley[68] | 10 |
| 2 | New Jersey | Jan 13, 2008 | Signed by Gov. Jon Corzine[69] | 14 |
| 3 | Illinois | Apr 7, 2008 | Signed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich[64] | 20 |
| 4 | Hawaii | May 1, 2008 | Legislature overrode veto of Gov. Linda Lingle[70] | 4 |
| 5 | Washington | Apr 28, 2009 | Signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire[71] | 12 |
| 6 | Massachusetts | Aug 4, 2010 | Signed by Gov. Deval Patrick[72] | 11 |
| 7 | D.C. | Dec 7, 2010 | Signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty[73][note 2] | 3 |
| 8 | Vermont | Apr 22, 2011 | Signed by Gov. Peter Shumlin[74] | 3 |
| 9 | California | Aug 8, 2011 | Signed by Gov. Jerry Brown[75] | 55 |
| 10 | Rhode Island | Jul 12, 2013 | Signed by Gov. Lincoln Chafee[76] | 4 |
| 11 | New York | Apr 15, 2014 | Signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo[77] | 29 |
| 12 | Connecticut | May 24, 2018 | Signed by Gov. Dannel Malloy[78] | 7 |
| 13 | Colorado | March 15, 2019 | Signed by Gov. Jared Polis[79] | 9 |
| Total | 181 | |||
| Percentage of the 270 EVs needed | 7001670000000000000♠ 67.0% |
For a detailed history of bills to adopt the compact, see
§ Bills.
In Maine, an initiative to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact began collecting signatures on April 17, 2016. It failed to collect enough signatures to appear on the ballot.[80][81] In Arizona, a similar initiative began collecting signatures on December 19, 2016, but failed to collect the required 150,642 signatures by July 5, 2018.[82][83] In Missouri, an initiative did not collect the required number of signatures before the deadline of May 6, 2018.[84][85]
Psephologist Nate Silver noted in 2014 that all jurisdictions that had adopted the compact thus far were blue states, and that there were not enough electoral votes from the remaining blue states to achieve the required majority. He concluded that, as swing states are unlikely to support a compact that reduces their influence, the compact cannot succeed without adoption by some red states as well.
On March 15, 2019, Colorado became the first "purple" state to join the compact, though no Republican legislators supported its bill.[87]
