Disqus - Latest Comments for mvy

Re: How We Break The Electoral College | Crooks and Liars

mvy — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 21:08:26 -0000

Repealing it would not make every vote in every state matter and count equally in presidential elections. And would not guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC wins the Electoral College.
The National Popular Vote bill will.

Re: How We Break The Electoral College | Crooks and Liars

mvy — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 21:06:57 -0000

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Pew Research surveys show Republican support for a national popular vote increased from 27% in 2016 to 42% in 2022.

21,461 choices and votes in 3 states were 329 times more important than the more than 7 million national vote lead in the country.
There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents.
That could have reduced future turnout more, if more voters realized their votes do not matter.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

More than 3,700 state legislators among all 50 states have endorsed it.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

Since 2006, the bill has passed 42 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 283 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, again using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to choose how to vote.

Re: How We Break The Electoral College | Crooks and Liars

mvy — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 19:16:27 -0000

The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day.

The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The Interstate Compact on Placement of Children is one of the many interstate compacts that do not require (and never received) congressional consent.

Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

The U.S. Constitution provides:
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state…."

Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
"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 [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."

Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
"Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."

The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"

The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states' action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:
"the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government."

The Court also noted that the compact did not
"authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence."

Re: How We Break The Electoral College | Crooks and Liars

mvy — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 19:14:56 -0000

I'm expecting to easily live to see it. Sorry to hear you're not in good health.

Re: How We Break The Electoral College | Crooks and Liars

mvy — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 11:46:22 -0000

The bill will not abolish the Electoral College system.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections,

Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the 23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. No Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“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, before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election, over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The Constitution does not give Americans the right to vote in presidential elections.

Article II of the National Popular Vote bill does.
“Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States.”

The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800).

In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

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

Now, Each political party in each state nominates a slate of candidates for the position of presidential elector. This is most commonly done at the party’s congressional-district conventions and the party’s state convention during the summer or early fall. It is sometimes done in a primary.

Typically, each political party chair certifies to the state’s chief election official the names of the party’s candidate for President and Vice President and the names of the party’s candidates for presidential elector.

Under the “short presidential ballot” (now used in all states), the names of the party’s nominee for President and Vice President appear on the ballot.

When a voter casts a vote for a party’s presidential and vice-presidential slate on Election Day (the Tuesday after the first Monday in November), that vote is deemed to be a vote for all of that party’s candidates for presidential elector.

Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the number of votes cast for each, and are signed and certified by the Governor, submitted to the National Archives, and used when Congress meets in joint session in January. You can see the real Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site

With both the current system and the National Popular Vote bill, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" by six days before the Electoral College meets in December.

Under statewide “winner-take-all” laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed in the Constitution, now used in 48 states, the presidential-elector candidates who receive the most popular votes statewide are elected.

In district winner states -- Maine (changed their law in 1969) and Nebraska (changed their law in 1992) - the candidate for the position of presidential elector who wins the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote).

In states enacting the National Popular Vote bill, when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538, all of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC).

Non-enacting states would award their electors however they want. Continuing with district or statewide winner-take-all, or enacting some other law.

The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 made the sixth day before the Electoral College meeting into a “hard” deadline for states to issue their Certificates of Ascertainment (whereas it was merely a “safe harbor” under the Electoral Count Act of 1787).

Each state’s elected presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President.

The electoral votes from all 50 states are and would be co-mingled and simply added together.

The Electoral College will continue to elect the President.

Re: How We Break The Electoral College | Crooks and Liars

mvy — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 11:45:22 -0000

The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day.

The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:

“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”

In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”

An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

Re: How We Break The Electoral College | Crooks and Liars

mvy — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 11:43:19 -0000

One person, One vote. The candidate with the most votes would win the Electoral College and the presidency.

We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP.

Re: How We Break The Electoral College | Crooks and Liars

mvy — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 11:42:43 -0000

Cynicism is democracy’s worst enemy of all. Being a cynic is the laziest thing.

State elections matter.

The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 65 additional electoral votes (for a total of 270).

The bill has passed at least one legislative chamber in 8 additional states with 78 electoral votes (AR - 6 , AZ - 11, ME - 4, MI - 15, NC - 16, NV - 6, OK -7, VA - 13), including the Republican-controlled Arizona House and Oklahoma Senate.

Re: How We Break The Electoral College | Crooks and Liars

mvy — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 11:38:49 -0000

It's not up to Republicans to "allow" it.

Article II, Section 1
“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."

States are agreeing to award their combined 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again replacing their state’s law.

The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day.

The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 65 additional electoral votes (for a total of 270).

Re: How We Break The Electoral College | Crooks and Liars

mvy — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 11:38:14 -0000

3 of the current justices were appointed by a President who tried to overthrow the government, and a 4th is married to a woman who actively planned the overthrow with at least fraudulent electors in at least AZ and WI.

Since 1988, Republican presidents have won the national popular vote exactly one time, but have selected 6 of the last 9 SCOTUS Justices (16 of the last 20).

In 2016, Republicans believed having only 8 Supreme Court Justices was enough to hold a presidential election.
In 2020, after tens of millions of Americans had already voted, just 8 days before the last day of the election, they didn’t.

234 Trump Article III judgeship nominees were confirmed by the Senate.
By the early 2040s, Trump-appointed chief judges will simultaneously sit atop nearly every appeals court in the country.

Before anti-democracy Republicans, and new voter suppression and election subversion laws, based on the Big Lie/Big Grift, the system with 2020 election laws meant that the winning 2024 candidate could need a national popular vote win of 5 percentage points or more in order to squeak out an Electoral College victory.

Re: How We Break The Electoral College | Crooks and Liars

mvy — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 11:37:05 -0000

“Trump and his supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.”
“. . . to this very day the former president, his allies and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024 — if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican Party presidential candidate were to lose that election — that they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election.” – Judge Luttig
His Republican credentials are impeccable, and his warning about the former president and his supporters is unequivocal.

Before anti-democracy Republicans, and new voter suppression and election subversion laws, based on the Big Lie/Big Grift, the system with 2020 election laws meant that the winning 2024 presidential candidate could need a national popular vote win of 5 percentage points or more in order to squeak out an Electoral College victory.

The new presidential electoral map is more favorable to Republicans by a net six points.

The 2024 presidential race could be reduced to less than 15% of the US, in 4 remaining competitive battleground states, with as few as 43 electoral votes, where virtually all attention will be focused - Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin

Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were the top three most litigious states in 2022 in regards to elections.

234 Trump Article III judgeship nominees were confirmed by the US Senate

A majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices (5 of the 6 “conservative” justices) were appointed by Presidents who first entered office after not winning the most national popular votes.

Moore v Harper sets “a version of judicial review that is going to give the federal courts, and especially the Supreme Court itself, the last word in election disputes." - Hasen

Re: How We Break The Electoral College | Crooks and Liars

mvy — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 11:34:32 -0000

In ordinary plurality voting a vote cast for a third party candidate generally produces the politically counter-productive effect of helping the major-party candidate whose views are diametrically opposite to those of the voter.
For example, votes cast for Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr made it easier for Democrat Barack Obama to win North Carolina in 2008.

Even with RCV in a state, it is reckless voting for third-party presidential candidates simply to register dissatisfaction with the major-party choices. Those protest votes can lead to the election of a candidate who would not have won, except for the third-party spoiler. It’s an unintended consequence of plurality statewide elections, that candidates with the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC can lose despite being liked by a majority of voters.

Thanks to the intricacies of the Electoral College, a third-party candidate could end up becoming the president even if only a small percentage of the people vote for him. The House of Representatives choose the president if no candidate gets 270 or more electoral votes. If a third-party candidate wins even one state, he/she could end up as a compromise candidate despite getting the fewest actual votes.
This scenario demonstrates the very real problem of third-party candidates acting as spoilers who can thwart the will of the majority in our presidential elections.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system does not protect the two-party system. It simply discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support, while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The current system punishes third-party candidates whose support is broadly based.

Re: A Looming Threat to Our Democracy

mvy — Mon, 01 May 2023 15:30:50 -0000

The bill will NOT change the Constitution.

It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
[Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws]

Now, a difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 17 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 9 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections since 1988.

537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.
Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points … to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

In 2016, Trump became President even though Clinton won the national popular vote by 2,868,686 votes.
Trump won the Presidency because he won Michigan by 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes.
Each of these 78,000 votes was 36 times more important than Clinton's nationwide lead of 2,868,686 votes.

A different choice by 5,229 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 5,890 in Georgia (16), and 10,342 in Wisconsin (10) would have defeated Biden -- despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million. The Electoral College would have tied 269-269. Congress would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.
Each of these 21,461 voters was 329 times more important than the more than 7 million.

The national popular vote winner also would have been defeated by a shift of 9,246 votes in 1976; 53,034 in 1968; 9,216 in 1960; 12,487 in 1948; 1,711 votes in 1916, 524 in 1884, 25,069 in 1860, 17,640 in 1856, 6,773 in 1848, 2,554 in 1844, 14,124 in 1836.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY).

Re: A Looming Threat to Our Democracy

mvy — Mon, 01 May 2023 15:26:08 -0000

The Interstate Compact on Placement of Children is one of the many interstate compacts that do not require (and never received) congressional consent.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that congressional consent is only necessary for interstate compacts that ‘encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States [U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, 1978].’ Because the choice of method of appointing presidential Electors is an “exclusive” and “plenary” state power, there is no encroachment on federal authority.
Thus, under established compact jurisprudence, congressional consent would not be necessary for the National Popular Vote compact to become effective.

Re: A Looming Threat to Our Democracy

mvy — Mon, 01 May 2023 15:22:04 -0000

Electing a US President is not a sport.

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

The 2024 race could be reduced to 15% of the US, in 4 - 6 competitive battleground states, with as few as 43 electoral votes, where virtually all attention will be focused

One person, One vote. The candidate with the most votes would win the Electoral College and the presidency.

We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC.

You are objecting to an Election - "a formal and organized choice by vote of a person for a political office or other position" where the candidate with the most votes wins.

Re: A Looming Threat to Our Democracy

mvy — Mon, 01 May 2023 15:18:02 -0000

In 3 of the 4 recent presidential elections, MINNESOTA Democrats outnumbered Minnesota Republicans.

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

All of Minnesota’s electors were Democrats.
No Republican Minnesota presidential vote helped their candidates in any way.

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws in presidential elections, the current system completely wastes conservative presidential votes in states that vote Democratic.

Under a national popular vote for President, rural and conservative voters throughout the country would have their votes matter, rather than being ignored because of state boundaries.

A 2009 survey of Minnesota voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President. Support was 84% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 68% among others.
By age, support was 74% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 83% among women and 67% among men.

33 Minnesota Republican state legislators sponsored or voted yes on the National Popular vote bill in the past.

In 2019, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed an omnibus bill (HF1935DE1) containing the National Popular Vote interstate compact by a 73-58 vote.

Re: A Looming Threat to Our Democracy

mvy — Mon, 01 May 2023 15:13:53 -0000

The bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
[Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws]

Re: A Looming Threat to Our Democracy

mvy — Mon, 01 May 2023 12:25:29 -0000

The National Popular Vote bill is states with 270 electors replacing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

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 before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is by state legislatures with governors making changes in state law.

Historically, 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 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.

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.

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

Re: A Looming Threat to Our Democracy

mvy — Mon, 01 May 2023 02:26:58 -0000

The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

A difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 17 presidential elections since World War II.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), a small number of people in a closely divided “battleground” state can potentially affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes.

537 votes, all in one state determined the 2000 election, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

If 59,393 votes had shifted from George W. Bush to John Kerry in Ohio in 2004, Kerry would have won Ohio and thus become President, despite President Bush’s nationwide lead of 3,012,171 votes (51 times more). It would be far easier for potential fraudsters to manufacture 59,393 votes in Ohio than to manufacture 3,012,171 votes nationwide. Moreover, it would be far more difficult to conceal fraud involving three million votes.

If as few as 11,000 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 12,000 in Georgia (16), and 22,000 in Wisconsin (10) had not voted for Biden, or partisan officials did not certify the actual counts -- Trump would have won despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million.
The Electoral College would have tied 269-269.
Congress, with only 1 vote per state, would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression and subversion. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who wins a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression or subversion. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 54 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Re: A Looming Threat to Our Democracy

mvy — Mon, 01 May 2023 02:22:02 -0000

With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could win with less than 22% of the popular vote by winning the 12 largest states, despite losing 78%+ of the popular vote and 38 smaller states.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 12 most populous states, containing 60% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!

But, the political reality is that the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter. Under a national popular vote, the margin of your loss within a state matters as much as the size of your win.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% R), 1,691,267
* New York (59% D), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% R), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% R), 426,778
* California (55% D), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% D), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% D), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

Smart candidates have campaign strategies to maximize their success given the rules of the election in which they’re running.
Candidates do NOT campaign only in the 12 largest states now.
Candidates do NOT campaign in at least 4 of them.
Successful candidates would NOT campaign only in the largest states.

Re: A Looming Threat to Our Democracy

mvy — Mon, 01 May 2023 02:20:59 -0000

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years.

In 2024, the presidential race may have only 4 competitive states -- Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Arizona as true battlegrounds, where all the focus of campaigns would be, with 15% of US population and 43 electoral votes -- would begin with Democrats favored to win 260 Electoral College votes and Republicans 235.- CNN, 11/22/22

38+ states and 70% of all Americans have been irrelevant in presidential elections.

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states.

Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important.

Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions.

Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states.

The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican.

In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined,

This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic.

When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
"The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,"
“The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

Mitt Romney said at a fund-raising dinner in Boca Raton, Florida in 2012:
“All the money will be spent in 10 states, and this is one of them.”

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

12 states had 96% of the general-election campaign events (204 of 212) by the major-party presidential and vice-presidential candidates during the 2020 presidential campaign (Aug 28 to Nov 3).
All of the 212 events were in just 17 states. 33 states and DC did not have any general-election campaign events at all.
Pennsylvania got 47 general-election campaign events -- the most of any state and 22% of the total. Florida got 31 events -- 15% of the total. Together, Pennsylvania and Florida got 3/8 of the entire presidential campaign attention.

In the 2016 general election campaign
Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country's population).

In 2016, Karl Rove advised Trump - “Look, you’re welcome to try and win [a state you can’t win], but every day you spend trying to win a state you can’t win is a day that a presidential candidate forfeits winning in a state like, in your case, Pennsylvania or Michigan or Wisconsin or Iowa.”

“You’ve got to—we had to focus on 270 and that meant that every day that we spent outside those states was a day that was wasted, unless we had either fundraising necessities or a national message that we needed to...” “Every day is vital, and we put all of our time and all of our energy and all of our resources into our battleground-state effort.”

In the 2012 general election campaign

38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states.

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

In the 2008 campaign, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA).

In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Issues of importance to 38+ non-battleground states have been of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager in 2016, said,
“When I took over as campaign manager in 2016, we did zero—let me repeat the number—zero national polls.”

When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Re: A Looming Threat to Our Democracy

mvy — Mon, 01 May 2023 02:18:51 -0000

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. Period.

Under the “short presidential ballot” (now used in all states), the names of the party’s nominee for President and Vice President appear on the ballot.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

Non-enacting states would award their electors however they want. Continuing with district or statewide winner-take-all, or enacting some other law.

Each state’s elected presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President.

The electoral votes from all 50 states are and would be co-mingled and simply added together.

The Electoral College will continue to elect the President.

Re: A Looming Threat to Our Democracy

mvy — Mon, 01 May 2023 02:18:16 -0000

In 3 of the 4 recent presidential elections, MINNESOTA Democrats outnumbered Minnesota Republicans.

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

All of Minnesota’s electors were Democrats.
No Republican Minnesota presidential vote helped their candidates in any way.

MICHIGAN Democrats have outnumbered Michigan Republicans in 5 of the 6 recent presidential elections.

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Michigan's electors have all voted for the Democrat in 5 of the 6 recent presidential elections.
No Republican Michigan vote has helped its candidate in any way in those elections.

Math and political reality.
The most populous 6 states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population.
All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate.
Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome

In 2016,
CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

Re: A Looming Threat to Our Democracy

mvy — Mon, 01 May 2023 02:15:20 -0000

Our democracy is “under vicious, unsustainable, and unendurable attack—from within.” - Judge Michael Luttig

Trump called for the termination of the Constitution because of his 2020 Electoral College loss.
90% of congressional Republicans have nothing to say about that.
GOP cynically equate peaceful protests by Democratic lawmakers as “insurrection.”

Trump promises pardons AND government apology to insurrectionists if re-elected.
Trump hugged and supported a convicted January 6th convict.

“The Constitution is hanging by a thread . . . The funny thing is, I always thought it would be the other guys. And it’s my side. That just rips at my heart: that we would be the people who would surrender the Constitution in order to win an election. That just blows my mind.”- Former Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R)
He called a failed Republican proposal that would have allowed the legislature to overturn election results in his state akin to “fascism.” “The legislature, after the election, could dismiss the election.”

“A divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, siding with almost all of the district court decisions considering the question, has held that some of those who invaded the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 could be charged under a federal statute that makes it a crime to, among other things ‘corruptly….obstruct…or impede any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.'”

Trump on Jan. 6, 2021 urged the Secret Service to remove security magnetometers to let in people carrying weapons (illegal in DC) because “they’re not here to hurt me.”

By Apr 15, 2023, the Justice Department had secured convictions of 14 Oath Keepers members and affiliates for felonies surrounding the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol,
Since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 1,000 individuals have been arrested in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including more than 320 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement. The investigation remains ongoing.

Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have pleaded GUILTY to seditious conspiracy.

The founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, and the leader of the Florida chapter of the organization, were found guilty by a jury of seditious conspiracy and other charges for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Their actions disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress that was in the process of ascertaining and counting the electoral votes related to the presidential election.
4 more Oath Keepers convicted of seditious conspiracy.

More members of the Oath Keepers have been convicted of conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

A member of the far-right Oath Keepers told a jury that she got 'swept up' in the moment when she stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, comparing it to the same feeling shoppers get on Black Friday when they rush to buy flat-screen televisions.

33% of Republicans have supported the actions of the January 6 insurrectionists.

33% of Republicans said in June 2021 that Jan. 6 was an insurrection, later just 13%.
62% of Republicans called it a riot, later down to 45%.
47% said it was a legitimate protest, later up to 61%.

In January 2021, 56% of Republicans understood Jan. 6 as an attempt “to overturn the election and keep Trump in power,” by December 2021, just 33%.

By early September 2022, an estimated 13 million had insurrectionist sentiments.

In October 2022, 71% of registered Republicans were comfortable voting for a candidate who believes the 2020 election was “stolen.

2/3 of all voters think Trump tried changing 2020 election outcome.

More than 65% of those think he should be prosecuted for his actions.

About half of all voters believe Trump committed a crime.

“When you convince people that politicians are rigging elections, drink babies' blood ... you will get violence," warned GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger.

Re: A Looming Threat to Our Democracy

mvy — Mon, 01 May 2023 02:11:59 -0000

33 Minnesota Republican state legislators sponsored or voted yes on the National Popular vote bill in the past.

The bill was first introduced in Minnesota in 2007 !

In 2019, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed an omnibus bill (HF1935DE1) containing the National Popular Vote interstate compact by a 73-58 vote.

In 3 of the 4 recent presidential elections, MINNESOTA Democrats outnumbered Minnesota Republicans.

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

All of Minnesota’s electors were Democrats.
No Republican Minnesota presidential vote helped their candidates in any way.

If the 2022 Election Were a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Lost the Popular Vote by about 3 million votes (2.8 percentage points). but Won the Electoral College 280-258.

“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws in presidential elections, the current system completely wastes conservative presidential votes in states that vote Democratic.

Under a national popular vote for President, rural and conservative voters throughout the country would have their votes matter, rather than being ignored because of state boundaries.

With the National Popular Vote bill, the vote of every voter in the country would matter and count equally to help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency.