« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

National Popular Vote Compact

By: fredccox (Diary)  |  November 28th, 2011 at 10:27 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The US Constitution provided for a balance between small population states and large ones. This is one of the reasons for the Senate having 2 per state and the House being divided based on population.

The current US Presidential Electoral System keeps part of that concept so that voters in California, New York, and a few others do not decide who is elected, ignoring the rest of the country.

The original system was designed to that the electors nominated two candidates, one not from their state, and unless there was a candidate nominated by the majority of electors, the voting for president out of the top 5 nominees was done by the US House of Representatives, one vote per state. If two candidates received a majority of electors, the House would decide between just the two. Basically, the loser of the top two became the Vice President, who would take over if something happened to the President. The elector college system protected every state from being ignored.

By 1796 and 1800, partly due to political party influence, and because the public didn’t want the US House to decide the election a movement to change happened and under the 12th amendment this was changed. One reason was to make sure the President and the Vice President could run together. The change made it so the electors would almost always reach a majority and therefore cast the final vote, and because of that, most states have now required that the elector vote based on which party they represent. Utah requires that an elector be replaced if they do not vote per party. See http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE20A/htm/20A13_030400.htm

Under the current system, Utah having 6 votes instead of 4 gives us a slight edge over population. Utah has decided to have a winner take all system. If Utah were to split our vote, it would carry less weight in the national election.

If the National Popular Vote Compact proposed were to happen, (states making up over 270 electors were to join) the group would all have their electors match the popular vote of the entire country. So the group’s electors would match the popular vote, meaning if Utah joined the compact, it could end up voting for Pres. Obama, even if most of the voters in Utah voted against him.

While the current system doesn’t work as originally intended, there is still some balance favoring smaller states, just barely enough to encourage candidates to campaign throughout most of the country. If the Popular Vote Compact were to succeed, I believe that would be eliminated and I also believe the cities with the most population would be the locations where campaigning would occur, making the situation of ignoring parts of the country even worse.

I disagree with some of my colleagues. I believe this National Popular Vote Compact is a bad idea. A bill for Utah to join is expected to be voted on for the 2012 Legislative Session.

Some information:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700184502/Pros-and-cons-of-electoral-college.html

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsoutofcontext/52941274-64/popular-vote-electoral-idea.html.csp

http://www.1888932-2946.ws/ComTool6.0/ckfinder/userfiles/files/UtahRepublicanPartyResolutionOpposingNPV.pdf

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

http://www.freedomformula.us/endorsements/endorsements-frameset

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

See my post also at:

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/11/national-popular-vote-compact.html

 

Fred Cox, Utah State House of Representatives, District 32

District 30 for 2012 elections

 

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • gawken

    We’ve had several stories recently by left leaning commentators about how Obama can squeak to victory with 270 electoral votes..

    As the economy, the middle east, and Obama’s poll numbers worsen, one of these guys will soon realize that Obama could likely WIN the EV but LOSE the popular vote.

    OOPSIE!!

  • http://www.fredcox4utah.com fredccox

    Thanks for the comments. I have included the rest of the post.

    • gekster

      I look forward to more articles from you.

  • Pingback: Electing Presidents – Part III: The Popular Vote is Gaining Momentum | Everblog

  • gekster

    I believe posting part of an article as a teaser with the rest of the article on your website is, to be nice, and out of respect for your office, is unkewl.
    Some may see this as an attempt to get hits for thier website, although I don’t believe this to be your aim.
    You should post the full article with a cross post to it.

    the rest of the article:
    By 1796 and 1800, partly due to political party influence, and because the public didn’t want the US House to decide the election a movement to change happened and under the 12th amendment this was changed. One reason was to make sure the President and the Vice President could run together. The change made it so the electors would almost always reach a majority and therefore cast the final vote, and because of that, most states have now required that the elector vote based on which party they represent. Utah requires that an elector be replaced if they do not vote per party. See http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE20A/htm/20A13_030400.htm

    Under the current system, Utah having 6 votes instead of 4 gives us a slight edge over population. Utah has decided to have a winner take all system. If Utah were to split our vote, it would carry less weight in the national election.

    If the National Popular Vote Compact proposed were to happen, (states making up over 270 electors were to join) the group would all have their electors match the popular vote of the entire country. So the group’s electors would match the popular vote, meaning if Utah joined the compact, it could end up voting for Pres. Obama, even if most of the voters in Utah voted against him.

    While the current system doesn’t work as originally intended, there is still some balance favoring smaller states, just barely enough to encourage candidates to campaign throughout most of the country. If the Popular Vote Compact were to succeed, I believe that would be eliminated and I also believe the cities with the most population would be the locations where campaigning would occur, making the situation of ignoring parts of the country even worse.

    I disagree with some of my colleagues. I believe this National Popular Vote Compact is a bad idea. A bill for Utah to join is expected to be voted on for the 2012 Legislative Session.

  • davenj1

    Giving you benefit of the doubt here, but you should print the entire article here at RS, or at least give us a condensed version if the original is too long and involved. We can then consult it for more details if need be.
    That being the case, I have to wonder whether this is even Constitutional. How can any single state in effect change the will the of their voters just because other states vote differently? Wouldn’t that usurp the basic tenets of a Constitutional Republic, not to mention the notion of federalism? What about one-man, one-vote in the literal sense?
    Why do liberals have to screw with something that works so well? We have no run offs or major controversies or military in the streets after an election unlike many, many other countries (including democratic ones). Most of this is in response to Florida 2000. However, I believe Bush would have won even if a recount occurred in ALL counties. Liberals point to a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court, but the actual vote was 7-2 that Bush was wronged with selective recount. The 5-4 decision was about the practical solution- that allowing a total recount (something required under the 7-2 vote) would delay certification of the election and violate Florida’s own laws. Instead, the liberal solution is to toss out the very healthy baby with the bath water and, in effect, rewrite the Constitution.
    This powerful evidence that liberals need to be stopped at every level of government and an area most Americans are truly ignorant about on all levels. An important posting- just one I wish I had the time to read in full without jumping to another website.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    ..will get their comeuppance when:

    –an unforseen weather event truncates election activity in that state on the day of the election…

    –a large-scale New York or California-style black-out or brown-out occurs on the day of the election, and radically diminishes turn-out

    –a Sarah Palin-type conservative wins a popular vote, but loses an electoral contest in a very blue state, like Massachusetts.

    All these geniuses trying to out-smart the Founders….

  • ajshea

    I’m glad to see that someone else understands the danger of removing the genius of the Electoral College.

    The popularity of the National Popular Vote hinges on the misconception that we live in a “democracy”, so everyone’s vote should be counted. (In fact it is, and your vote could end up carrying more weight than one single vote if it swings all your state’s electors!) We don’t live in a democracy — democracy is mob rule, and is what we see at the “occupy” movement. We live in a Republic, which is the rule of law, not a democracy or rule of the mob.

    I was in Africa during the 2000 elections and for news listened to BBC and Radio France International on shortwave. Radio France incredibly was waxing eloquent about the genius of the founding fathers in creating the Electoral College system, and they explained how it forced the candidates to campaign more widely. They expressed admiration and jealousy over our system. That was the first time I realized how important the EC is. I’m still asking why a Frenchman was educating me about how my country worked (in French!), and why I didn’t learn about this in school.

    The real irony of the situation was that at the time of the disputed 2000 US Presidential election the country I was in was experiencing violent demonstrations because of a disputed presidential election. Commenters on the radio and on the street were remarking how good America was to have a disputed election and not take to the streets to settle it. =)

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    …in close elections. That’s what I explained here in 2008. The EC is still a good idea, especially for minorities.