Almost Halfway to Popular Vote for President
Billionaire Tom Golisano, who ran unsuccessfully three times as an independent for governor of New York, believes that there's a decent chance to change the mechanism of presidential elections to more closely reflect the nationwide popular vote in time for the 2012 race
Almost Halfway to Popular Vote for President
Thomas Fitzgerald, Inquirer Politics Writer
Billionaire Tom Golisano, who ran unsuccessfully three times as an independent for governor of New York, believes that there’s a decent chance to change the mechanism of presidential elections to more closely reflect the nationwide popular vote in time for the 2012 race.
“If you’d asked me that question three months ago I would have probably said it was not at all likely,” said Golisano, who is running the National Popular Vote initiative. “There’s some momentum and a lively national debate.”
One driver is in Pennsylvania, where a GOP proposal is pending to replace the winner-take-all system of allocating the state’s 20 electoral votes with a plan to award 18 votes based on the popular vote in each congressional district, and two votes to the statewide winner.
The other: California just enacted a law agreeing to the National Popular Vote interstate contact, making it one of nine backers with a combined 132 electoral votes. The plan can take effect when states with a total of 270 electoral votes, the majority needed to win the presidency, iagree to it.
“We’re just under halfway there,” Golisano said in an interview. “We’re lobbying hard.”
Under the plan, states pledge to award their presidential electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide, regardless of who came out ahead in their own states. The idea, backers say, is to prevent disputed elections when the candidate with the most votes loses tin the electoral college, such as 2000, when George W. Bush edged Al Gore.
They say it would end the tyranny of the perennial “battleground” states, including Pennsylvania and Florida, whose partisan allegiance is up for grabs each for years.
“I think it would change the game,” Golisano said. “Candidates now spend most of their time and advertising money in eight to 10 swing states. That’s not very democratic, if you’re living in the ‘flyover’ states of New York, California and Texas. There are a lot of disenfranchised voters in those states. Candidates are going to have to visit more places, and seek out issues and concerns different than they are now.”
The proposal has not been scheduled for consideration in the Pennsylvania legislature. Meanwhile, a state Senate committee held a hearing Tuesday on the congressional-district electoral plan written by Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R., Delaware).
Golisano, who was not invited to testify about his alternative, showed up at the Capitol in Harrisburg with former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson to plug the National Popular Vote.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.
In Pennsylvania, the National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in both the House (HB 1270) and Senate (SB 1116)— mvymvy- In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes -- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.— mvymvy - all or nothing... unless we move to this system in all 50 states at one time it actually has a negative impact on national elections.— recoveryroad
- When the National Popular Vote bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
One person, one vote, the candidate with the most votes wins, as in every other election in the U.S.
How do you figure "unless we move to this system in all 50 states at one time it actually has a negative impact on national elections"?
— mvymvy - NPV=Unconstitutional! Do you really think that SCOTUS would not demand that the need for a Constitutional Amendment over-rides a "Gentleman's Agreement" which is just sugar-coating for "Conspiracy" or "Collusion"? Dream on, but at best many, many years away!— Bucks County Mike
- The Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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."— mvymvy
- The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.— mvymvy
- An interstate compact, like National Popular Vote, 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. 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.— mvymvy - The National Popular Vote bill was only conceived in 2006. Since then it has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes -- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
Obvious recent partisan machinations like those in PA, NE, and ME should add support for the National Popular Vote movement.— mvymvy 
Comment removed.- I like the idea of eliminatiing the winner-take-all.— junethe4th
- I can't wait to see the recounts happening in every ward, in every district, in every county of every state. The lawyers are going to love this. It could take 4 years to litigate the vote recount for each election.— Mr. Smith
- Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
— mvymvy - Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every 4 years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years under the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
— mvymvy - A nationwide recount would not happen. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and recount. The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.— mvymvy
You can reach Tom Fitzgerald at 215-854-2718 or tfitzgerald@phillynews.com.
Reach Thomas at tfitzgerald@phillynews.com.
