The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and 2012
Disclaimer:
This article is not inteded to be a 'new math' or fantasy sports method of reliving the election or any kind of diatribe on 435 Districts vs Conservatives First' strategy. It is intended to explain the National Popular Vote laws and their potential impact on the electoral process. It was written after reading a WSJ article about 'Junking the electoral college' http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122930124441705413.html?mod=googlen...
Personally I like the electoral college and rules like Georgia's 50%+1 Senate law because I don't think that our current quality control processes are good enough when it comes down to recounting in particularly close elections.
Let me assert my firm belief that an election should never come down to week old ballots found in the trunk of a car... Yes that means you Minnesota!
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:
Four states have passed National Popular Vote laws. Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey with a combined total of 50 electoral votes or 19% of the magic 270.
The legislators are bound by law to select electors pledged to vote for the winner of the National Popular vote, regardless of how their state voted. Illinois and New Jersey are each expected to lose 1 electoral vote after the 2010 census. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionm...
Assuming an exact 2012 rematch:
The electoral distribution is governed by the census with the next occurring in 2010. Traditionally blue states are expected to continue to bleed votes to southern and western states who are seeing their populations grow. The biggest losers are NY and OH with -2 votes a piece. The biggest winner is TX with +4.
Population redistribution means that assuming an exact rematch of 2008 the electoral results would be:
Candidate 2008.. 2012
Obama.......365.... 358 (-7)
McCain.......173.... 180 (+7)
Obama would still be the winner by far, however taking into account the NPV states our base line would be.
Blue states: 310
Red states: 180
NPVote: 48
Again assuming an exact rematch Democrats would be at a huge advantage.
California Scenario:
But lets assume California joins the mix. As a state where the bill has previously passed both houses of the legislature, I consider it to be the most likely contender before the next election cycle.
California in 2012 is expected to have 54 votes, losing 1.
Our new baseline as follows:
Blue states: 256
Red states: 180
NPVote: 102
What NPVIC means is that every vote nation wide is significant and necessary.
The difference in 2008 was 7.36% or roughly 10 million out of 130 million votes cast, a significant but not overwhelmingly large margin, considering the high turnout. By picking up higher margins in Red states and by turning out more votes in Blue states, Republicans could jump to 282 even without flipping a single Blue state.
The need for a secure election process:
As more states join NPVIC it means that the individual vote is the new swing state. It increases the need for high turnout regardless of where people live, and it treats all voters equally. It also means that with our recent history of close elections, every precinct becomes a lucrative and easy target for fraud and corruption. Our elections are a local process with no national standard and few statewide standards on ballots, recording, certification or even result reporting processes. We even have rules and ballot requirements that contradict each other or are impossible to comply with, such as our system for Military absentee ballots.
NPVIC increases our need for each state legislature and congress to create strict and universal standards to safe guard our electoral process.
This article is not inteded to be a 'new math' or fantasy sports method of reliving the election or any kind of diatribe on 435 Districts vs Conservatives First' strategy. It is intended to explain the National Popular Vote laws and their potential impact on the electoral process. It was written after reading a WSJ article about 'Junking the electoral college' http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122930124441705413.html?mod=googlen...
Personally I like the electoral college and rules like Georgia's 50%+1 Senate law because I don't think that our current quality control processes are good enough when it comes down to recounting in particularly close elections.
Let me assert my firm belief that an election should never come down to week old ballots found in the trunk of a car... Yes that means you Minnesota!
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:
Four states have passed National Popular Vote laws. Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey with a combined total of 50 electoral votes or 19% of the magic 270.
The legislators are bound by law to select electors pledged to vote for the winner of the National Popular vote, regardless of how their state voted. Illinois and New Jersey are each expected to lose 1 electoral vote after the 2010 census. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionm...
Assuming an exact 2012 rematch:
The electoral distribution is governed by the census with the next occurring in 2010. Traditionally blue states are expected to continue to bleed votes to southern and western states who are seeing their populations grow. The biggest losers are NY and OH with -2 votes a piece. The biggest winner is TX with +4.
Population redistribution means that assuming an exact rematch of 2008 the electoral results would be:
Candidate 2008.. 2012
Obama.......365.... 358 (-7)
McCain.......173.... 180 (+7)
Obama would still be the winner by far, however taking into account the NPV states our base line would be.
Blue states: 310
Red states: 180
NPVote: 48
Again assuming an exact rematch Democrats would be at a huge advantage.
California Scenario:
But lets assume California joins the mix. As a state where the bill has previously passed both houses of the legislature, I consider it to be the most likely contender before the next election cycle.
California in 2012 is expected to have 54 votes, losing 1.
Our new baseline as follows:
Blue states: 256
Red states: 180
NPVote: 102
What NPVIC means is that every vote nation wide is significant and necessary.
The difference in 2008 was 7.36% or roughly 10 million out of 130 million votes cast, a significant but not overwhelmingly large margin, considering the high turnout. By picking up higher margins in Red states and by turning out more votes in Blue states, Republicans could jump to 282 even without flipping a single Blue state.
The need for a secure election process:
As more states join NPVIC it means that the individual vote is the new swing state. It increases the need for high turnout regardless of where people live, and it treats all voters equally. It also means that with our recent history of close elections, every precinct becomes a lucrative and easy target for fraud and corruption. Our elections are a local process with no national standard and few statewide standards on ballots, recording, certification or even result reporting processes. We even have rules and ballot requirements that contradict each other or are impossible to comply with, such as our system for Military absentee ballots.
NPVIC increases our need for each state legislature and congress to create strict and universal standards to safe guard our electoral process.
Tags: 2012
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Whitehorse (Robin Ray) on -
Interesting post. If I were in a state in which the legislature said to cast electoral votes for the popular vote winner, I'd be upset. The electoral college keeps the huge population centers from running the country.
Combatting the variations of vote fraud is something the Republican party needs to get up to speed on quickly. I'd like to see Republicans push for photo ID requirements for voting everywhere they can - it's the right thing to do & is very popular with the people.
I like Martin's idea of apportioning electoral votes on a US House district basis, with the 2 per state for the senate going to the state's popular vote winner.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim2000 on -
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Thomas Jefferson
I heard a fascinating idea about drastically increasing the number of seats in the U.S. House to be more representative of the people. If it stuck to the constitutionally defined representation in the House, it would need something like 4000 members. Interesting, if nothing else.
About
Events
-
Kerrville Texas April 15th 2010 Tea party
April 15, 2010 from 11:30am to 1pm – Kerrville County Courthouse
© 2009 Created by Rebuild the Party on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
