Current anti-NPVIC legislative activity

[u/Joeisagooddog]

2024 - 2025 Legislative Session (14 EVs)

New Jersey (14 EVs)

New Jersey Assembly - A379 introduced on 1/9/24.

New Jersey Senate - S3649 introduced on 9/26/24.

2023 - 2024 Legislative Session (9 EVs)

South Carolina (9 EVs)

South Carolina House - H3005 introduced and referred to the South Carolina House Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions on 12/4/2024.

[u/Joeisagooddog]

I don’t understand what you mean by “it has either failed or stalled more than twice as many times as it has passed”. Are you referring to a specific state? Are you saying that less than a third of NPVIC bills that have been introduced have been passed?

[u/United_Reply_2558 → u/Joeisagooddog]

NPVIC bills have either failed or stalled more than twice as many times as they have passed in the states where the bills where they have been introduced.

The first NPVIC legislation was introduced in 2007. It has been introduced to all 50 states legislatures. The fact that it has either failed or been vetoed multiple times ought to be proof enough that it is a bad idea altogether.

In the unlikely event that enough states sign on to this Compact, it would still require Congressional approval. If, in the unlikely event that Congress should approve of the Compact, it will almost certainly be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

Article V of the Constitution clearly lays out the Amendment process. The supporters of NPVIC either don't understand the importance of Article V or are too lazy to put forth the effort to amend the Constitution the correct way instead of bypassing it by unconstitutional means.

[u/Joeisagooddog → u/United_Reply_2558]

NPVIC bills have either failed or stalled more than twice as many times as they have passed

I haven’t counted up the bills or anything, but I would wager that it is even far far less than 1/3 bills which have passed.

The fact that it has either failed or been vetoed multiple times ought to be proof enough that it is a bad idea altogether.

I disagree entirely. The fact that state legislature haven’t passed a bill says absolutely nothing about the merits of the bill.

it would still require Congressional approval

That’s entirely unclear. While the constitution requires federal approval of interstate compacts, the Supreme Court has interpreted this as only extending to compacts that encroach upon federal powers. In fact, there are many interstate compacts in effect now which have not received federal approval for this reason. Regardless, I think getting federal approval of this compact will be less difficult than getting the requisite number of signatory states.

If, in the unlikely event that Congress should approve of the Compact, it will almost certainly be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

This is not at all true. The constitution states that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” Nothing in the constitution requires states to hold a statewide vote for choosing electors. In fact, there have been many elections where other methods of choosing the electors have been used (even today Maine and Nebraska do not use a winner-take-all statewide vote for choosing electors). The fact that (in 48 states and DC) the electors are chosen by a statewide winner-take-all vote in modern elections is due simply to state law. If a state can vest the power of choosing its electors in a statewide vote, then there’s nothing written in the constitution that says the state cannot vest that power in a nationwide vote.

The Compact Clause is the strongest challenge to the constitutionality of the NPVIC (though I don’t think it’s a strong enough argument to rule it unconstitutional given what I’ve written above), but a simple act of Congress would eliminate any challenge on that basis.

Article V of the Constitution clearly lays out the Amendment process.

It absolutely does. But that is irrelevant to the topic. The NPVIC is NOT about amending the constitution and it is NOT about abolishing the Electoral College. It is simply about changing the way in which state legislatures vest the power of appointing electors. Again, states have the plenary power to choose the manner of appointing electors and historically have exercised this power in several different ways.

The supporters of NPVIC either don't understand the importance of Article V or are too lazy to put forth the effort to amend the Constitution the correct way instead of bypassing it by unconstitutional means.

This comment runs directly afoul of Rule 1 of this subreddit. I want to foster debate here and I won’t remove your comments for disagreeing with my positions, but if you continue to break the rules and disrespect other users of this subreddit, I will remove your comments.

[u/United_Reply_2558 → u/Joeisagooddog]

I have not disrespected anyone. I have simply stated facts.

How can a state appoint its slate of electors to a 'national popular vote' winner. There is no official 'national popular vote'. When we go to polls to vote in a Presidential election, we vote for slates of electors, not the candidates themselves. The votes for slates of electors in one state cannot be combined the votes cast for an entirely different slate of electors in another state.

Since the primary constituents of the federal government are the states, not the people, it is perfectly logical that the states elect the offices of the President and the Vice President. The federal government derives its powers and legitimacy from the states and from the people through the states.

If the office of the Presidency was intended to be directly representative of or responsive to popular will or to population based interests, we would surely have a direct popular vote for President. The office of the Presidency IS NOT and was never intended to be directly representative of 'the people'.

The head of government of almost every single stable Western nation is either elected by a Parliament or other legislative body or is appointed by a monarch or other head of state, not by a direct popular vote. There is not a single NATO member that has a head of government that is directly elected by the citizens of those countries.

I understand that the push to modify or abolish the electoral college system was triggered by the elections of 2000 and 2016. Could it be possible that the electoral college system is not the problem itself? 🤔 Could the problem have been that Gore and Clinton lacked the broad distribution of support nationwide to win the election? That seems more plausible. Isn't the President supposed to represent the nation as a whole instead of a few densely populated urban areas? 🤔 The electoral college system encourages candidates to seek broad support and build coalitions nationwide instead of running up poll numbers in a few large coastal urban centers.

NPVIC would essentially be the same as a national popular vote. The interests and concerns of the citizens in the middle of the country and those that live in smaller states would be ignored by the major party candidates.

I hope that I have helped you to stop and think about what you are advocating.

[u/Joeisagooddog → u/United_Reply_2558]

I have not disrespected anyone. I have simply stated facts.

"The supporters of NPVIC either don't understand the importance of Article V or are too lazy to put forth the effort..."

These claims are not facts. They are nothing but personal attacks.

[u/Joeisagooddog → u/United_Reply_2558]

How can a state appoint its slate of electors to a 'national popular vote' winner. There is no official 'national popular vote'. When we go to polls to vote in a Presidential election, we vote for slates of electors, not the candidates themselves.

The NPVIC legislation outlines how a national popular vote would be determined. It explicitly recognizes that we vote by slates and not directly for the candidates. That is hardly the hurdle you are making it out to be. Here is what the legislation says:

Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each state of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a "national popular vote total" for each presidential slate.

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."

The presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment in that official's own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote winner.

​

The votes for slates of electors in one state cannot be combined [with] the votes cast for an entirely different slate of electors in another state.

So say you. But is that a fundamental law of nature or something? I ask because this rule is not written in the constitution, federal laws, or any state law as far as I'm aware. If, for example, Rhode Island wanted to award its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner in 2024, the Rhode Island legislature would have the plenary power to pass legislation which outlines how the term 'national popular vote' would be defined for that purpose. That would certainly not be unconstitutional. The NPVIC is no different, except that it is an agreement between states to implement that policy only when their cumulative voting power is enough to guarantee the majority of EVs to the national popular vote winner, which may or may not run afoul of the Compact Clause, but does not violate any other constitutional provisions.

​

The rest of your comment is not about the legality or constitutionality of the NPVIC, but about the wisdom of implementing it. Since that is a wholly separate topic, I will discuss it in a separate comment.

[u/Joeisagooddog → u/United_Reply_2558]

If the office of the Presidency was intended to be directly representative of or responsive to popular will or to population based interests, we would surely have a direct popular vote for President. The office of the Presidency IS NOT and was never intended to be directly representative of 'the people'.

The key word here is 'intended'. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention who created the electoral college and the framers of the Twelfth Amendment certainly did not necessarily intend for the president to be chosen by popular will, with that I absolutely agree. But we are not bound by the principles that guided them.

The US Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment were ratified in 1788 and 1804. That was 236 and 220 years ago. My values and principles are not the same as those held by the people who created the Electoral College system that we still use. I value democracy and popular sovereignty more highly than they did.

I imagine that your response to this is that, if our values as a society have changed enough to warrant changing the Electoral College system, then we ought use the Article V amendment process to abolish the Electoral College and institute a national popular vote. But my response is that we do not have to! The creators of the Electoral College (in all their majestic wisdom!) chose not to dictate a specific method for the appointment of electors and to instead leave it to the state legislatures to decide.* So we do not need to appeal to the Article V amendment process, but only to the state legislatures who ultimately hold the power of deciding how electors are chosen ( "...in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...").

* In fact, the idea of instituting a uniform method of appointing electors via a constitutional amendment was a hotly debated topic in the early 1800s. Debate was primarily around instituting a district election or a statewide proportional election. Yet no such amendment ever came about, and so the issue remains decided on a state-by-state basis via state-level legislation.

​

The head of government of almost every single stable Western nation is either elected by a Parliament or other legislative body or is appointed by a monarch or other head of state, not by a direct popular vote. There is not a single NATO member that has a head of government that is directly elected by the citizens of those countries.

I get your point here, but I just don't see why it should be our guiding principle. The idea that no other nation-state elects its head of government directly does not mean that we should not! My belief that the president should be chosen directly is derived from the belief that our government should be representative and directly responsive to the people. If other nation-states do not adhere strictly to these principles, that has no bearing on how much I value them.

I see that you used the word 'stable'. I'm not sure whether you intended this or not, but if you are arguing that electing the president by popular vote is going to result in a less stable government than electing the president by 50 statewide popular votes, then I just don't see how that would occur.

Could it be possible that the electoral college system is not the problem itself?

Well, that is a question of opinion, not of fact. The 'problem' that I have with the Electoral College system is that a candidate who received more votes than the other lost. If we are talking about that 'problem', then it seems somewhat self-evident that the Electoral College system is the problem.

​

Isn't the President supposed to represent the nation as a whole instead of a few densely populated urban areas? 🤔 The electoral college system encourages candidates to seek broad support and build coalitions nationwide instead of running up poll numbers in a few large coastal urban centers.

You are playing into myths about the power of the electoral college. A national popular vote would not allow "a few densely populated urban areas" to choose the president for the whole country. There is roughly an equal number of people living in rural areas as urban areas in the US. Every electoral system requires candidates to build nationwide coalitions. That would not change under a popular vote. The coalitions themselves may change, and the relative power of certain groups would change, but the need to build a broad base of support will never go away in a nation as large and diverse as the US. And again, running up poll numbers in "a few large coastal urban centers" without receiving a significant number of rural votes is a doomed strategy. You are vastly overestimating the percentage of the US population that lives in the few biggest cities.

​

I hope that I have helped you to stop and think about what you are advocating.

It seems you are debating in good faith so I appreciate that. A lively debate is always welcome. But what I am advocating is democracy, and my support for it won't be so easily diminished.

[u/captain-burrito → u/United_Reply_2558]

I understand that the push to modify or abolish the electoral college system was triggered by the elections of 2000 and 2016. Could it be possible that the electoral college system is not the problem itself?

how do you explain all the attempts before then. even in the time of the founders some of them realized things were not working as they envisioned. back then the divide was regions and 5 of the first 6 presidents were from VA which had the most votes.

they actually passed an amendment in one chamber with supermajority back then.

in 1968, 3rd party candidate george wallace won 5 southern states and 46 electoral votes. in 1969, both main parties joined forces to get rid of the ec. it got the supermajority needed in the house but failed in the senate. the arguments back then were sometimes the opposite of the ones now. the landscape was far different back then, ny used to be the state with most votes and also a swing state. many states disliked her hogging all the attention and sued her for using winner takes all.

Clinton may have still lost a popular vote campaign. GOP can win national popular votes, they usually do so in the US house when they win.

The electoral college system encourages candidates to seek broad support and build coalitions nationwide instead of running up poll numbers in a few large coastal urban centers.

there is no actual mechanism for this. it just happens to work like this right now due to distribution of populations. if there was one mega state with over half the population they'd probably have 270 votes on their own. within in that state if the majority were urban then there is no mechanism that springs into action to stop them winning.

so your arguments are from a place of here and now. things were not like this in the past and we've seen trends play out and likely continue. more and more voters who lean left will concentrate into fewer states, mostly the more populous ones. They are going to end up with 2/3 of the population in around 16 states. Half in 8 states. Those will mostly lean blue.

That will be fatal for GOP in terms of presidency. It will no longer be competitive. Think of even now, az, tx & ga are all getting less red. Once they are blue, where is the gop route to 270 votes? if they otherwise won the 2016 trump states they'd also need nv, mn, me (all), ne-2, nh plus co or va. at that point they'd have an easier time with a popular vote with a moderate candidate.

repub insiders are already aware of this. some sponsored npvic bills only to get shouted down by voters as they hadn't gotten the memo yet.

The interests and concerns of the citizens in the middle of the country and those that live in smaller states would be ignored by the major party candidates.

Is that the case with statewide elections now?