Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mvymvy

(309 posts)
26. NPV achieves the goal of guaranteeing the Presidency to Candidate with most national popular votes
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 01:23 PM
Feb 2012

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.

Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) 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, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

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. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

The U.S. Constitution says "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."

& & &

Under the National Popular Vote compact, the mechanics for counting and tallying votes for President at the precinct local, county, and state levels would be the same as they are today.

The only difference is that each state’s chief elections officer would add up the popular vote totals from all 50 states and the District of Columbia to determine which slate of presidential electors will be called upon to cast the state’s electoral votes.


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

End the electoral college [View all] wilt the stilt Jan 2012 OP
Agreed. Here's a good mathematical case for why... Scuba Jan 2012 #1
The National Popular Vote Bill mvymvy Jan 2012 #2
It's completely unenforceable. Angleae Jan 2012 #3
Realities mvymvy Jan 2012 #5
The whole thing boils down to one question. Angleae Feb 2012 #6
Neither party will allow it to happen joeglow3 Feb 2012 #10
There are all kinds of constitutional problems with National Popular Vote. Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #14
Each state has a number of electors equal to its total Congressional representation Zebedeo Jan 2012 #4
Why must this compromise extend to the Presidential election? 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #19
Sounds great, but not likely to ever happen Major Nikon Feb 2012 #7
National Popular Vote is not a constitutional amendment mvymvy Feb 2012 #9
That doesn't end the electorial college as the OP suggested Major Nikon Feb 2012 #12
National Popular Vote does not end the EC, but it does make every vote equal mvymvy Feb 2012 #15
And it's probably unconstitutional. Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #18
Would be great -IF... upi402 Feb 2012 #8
As long as you like having the interior states unpaved. nt Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #11
No, we can't Motown_Johnny Feb 2012 #13
NPV does NOT require a constitutional amendment. It is 49% of the way to going into effect mvymvy Feb 2012 #16
What stops a state from just not doing this, or Motown_Johnny Feb 2012 #17
or if (say) Texas chooses to not participate, and declines to provide a popular vote count? Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #20
Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 6 of the United States Code Requires States to Report Totals mvymvy Feb 2012 #22
And what if Texas refuses? What's the remedy? Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #23
49% of the way to going into effect - Enacted by 3 jurisdictions among the 13 smallest states mvymvy Feb 2012 #21
I'm still not buying it Motown_Johnny Feb 2012 #24
It would be a constitutional and administrative nightmare. Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #25
NPV achieves the goal of guaranteeing the Presidency to Candidate with most national popular votes mvymvy Feb 2012 #26
But it would be the popular vote of only the states in that 270 block Motown_Johnny Feb 2012 #29
Winner of Popular Vote in ALL 50 States and DC gets NPV's enacting states' electoral votes - 270+ mvymvy Feb 2012 #31
I'm still not buying it.. again Motown_Johnny Feb 2012 #34
see my post #13 of why this can't be done Motown_Johnny Feb 2012 #28
See Post #16 mvymvy Feb 2012 #32
Why? Don't you like a select group picking our leader for us? Rex Feb 2012 #27
It won't change much zipplewrath Feb 2012 #30
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence mvymvy Feb 2012 #33
About 76% of Americans and States are Ignored Under the Current System mvymvy Feb 2012 #35
When a presidential candidate spends more time in Iowa than California taught_me_patience Feb 2012 #36
That's a totally separate issue. The primary system is decided by the parties Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #37
Iowa was a swing state in 2008 taught_me_patience Feb 2012 #38
Sorry, thought you were talking about the caucuses (nt) Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #39
To answer your Q directly: "No, we cannot end it." Bruce Wayne Feb 2012 #40
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»End the electoral college»Reply #26