Hawaii joins National Popular Vote

Hawaii’s state legislature has overridden the governor’s veto of the state-based plan to elect the president by national, popular vote, according to a Common Cause news release. That means the compact now has four member states accounting for 50 total electors: MD, IL, NJ and the Aloha state.

Until now, the only states to ratify NPV have had united, Democratic governments. Otherwise it has died on Republican governors’ desks or in Republican legislatures. Hawaii is the first state to break the pattern – sort of.

See plan co-author Rob Richie’s comment on NPV’s background and prospects from the perspective of a movement leader. Just because Hawaii only breaks the pattern “sort of” doesn’t mean we can’t have a normal presidential election by 2012. After all, electoral reform is about defying the model predictions.

IL signs onto National Popular Vote

Illinois’ governor today signed the interstate compact to elect the President by national, popular vote.

Illinois is the third state to ratify the agreement, joining New Jersey and Maryland. NPV’s website reports the compact now accounts for one-sixth of the electoral votes needed to bring it into effect.

Here is what the governor said:

“This nation is built on the principle ‘for the people, by the people.’ By signing this law, we in Illinois are making it clear that we believe every voter has an equal voice in electing our nation’s leaders.”

The case for Nader

Ralph has decided to run again, and he’s getting a beating for it. The argument goes like this: Green-leaning candidates “take” votes away from Democrats. This particular election is so critical that “we” can’t afford to lose. Nader therefore should do the “right” thing and withdraw.

I want to make the case for Nader’s candidacy. This is not an endorsement of the man or his program. His decision to run urges consideration of structural ‘democracy problems’ in America. 2008 may be more critical than 2004, 2000, 1932, 1896 or even 1796, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore our democracy problems. Run-of-the-mill condemnation of Nader reflects a choice to do just that.

The Democratic Party would benefit from three reforms that Nader’s run brings to mind. A direct election for President would decrease third party “spoiler” impact by taking the emphasis off battleground states. Remember Florida 2000. Second, instant runoff voting would translate most votes for Greens into votes for Democrats. Third, proportional representation would undo the conservative bias in Congressional elections that inheres in the nexus of our partisan geography and winner-take-all elections. In a sense, PR would unpack the packedness of those population-dense districts Democrats tend to inhabit.

The absence of each reform is a democracy problem. The electoral college¹ silences voters in “safe” states and sometimes crowns the wrong winner. Plurality elections force voters to support candidates they don’t like and candidates to pay lip service to those voters, lest they defect to a spoiler like Nader. And the only real diversity of opinion in our two-party Congress comes from members’ personal predispositions. These old institutions diminish democracy for everyone.

If bad institutions hurt more people than Democrats, why the concern with Democrats? They are the likely agents of change. Politicians don’t improve institutions out of commitment to democracy. Reforms are self-interested. Nader’s candidacy underscores Democrats’ overall vulnerability in the present party system-cum-electoral system. As the vulnerable camp, with majorities in both houses and a prospect for united government in 2009, Democrats are best positioned to effect electoral reform.

Yet they don’t take their vulnerability seriously. Hence the case for Nader.

Two scenarios confront the Democratic Party. One is to learn the hard way. Nader costs the Dems another election, they make the institutions-outcomes connection, and they become a party of reform. The other option: skip step one, make the connection, and become a party of reform.

To blame Nader is to shoot the messenger. The conversation should be about lasting solutions. Browbeating Greens to depress their turnout, if doable at all, is not a lasting solution.

1. No caps; it’s a common noun.

Corzine signs NPV; Bill before IL governor

Someone at FairVote reports:

Gov. Corzine signed the National Popular Vote (NPV) bill into law last week, ushering New Jersey into the interstate compact to change the way the president is elected, nine months after Maryland enacted the same law.

The NPV compact will require an Electoral College majority of 270 electors to take effect. In addition to Maryland’s 10 votes and the Garden State’s 15, all eyes now turn to Illinois, where the bill was sent to the governor for signing last week as well.

FairVote is the main group leading public education efforts on the NPV plan for direct election of the president. They launched it together with Common Cause at a press conference in March 2006.

As always, more information can be had from National Popular Vote, Inc.

National Popular Vote on NJ governor’s desk

This excerpt from New Jersey’s Gannett desk says it all:

On the same day the presidential race kicked off with the Iowa caucuses, the state Senate gave final legislative approval to adding New Jersey to an interstate compact to skirt the Electoral College by requiring the state’s electors to cast their vote for president and vice president based on the national popular vote winner.

The compact might never take effect, and electors chosen this year will still back the winner in New Jersey.

The legislation, passed 21-12, in effect circumvents the Constitution without an amendment by changing the way presidents are elected. The bill, passed by the Assembly in December, now heads to Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who is expected to sign it.

Well, almost. Sadly the belief is that NPV somehow “circumvents” a constitutional provision that elections be held state-by-state on an at-large, plurality basis. No such provision exists. The framers left open the question of how to elect a president for want of compromise on any manner of (s)election:

The Founding Fathers gave the states exclusive and plenary control over the manner of awarding of their electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election. Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) award electoral votes by congressional districts—another reminder that a federal constitutional amendment is not required to change the way the President is elected.

If Corzine signs, the compact will be 15 electors closer to implementation – not likely to be in effect this year, but a possibility for 2012.

NJ Assembly passes National Popular Vote

New Jersey’s lower house has passed the National Popular Vote plan:

The Assembly voted 43-32 on Thursday to approve legislation delivering the state’s 15 electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote, although the measure could result in the electoral votes going to a candidate opposed by Garden State voters.

The apparent warning reminds me how much this discussion is mired in a state-by-state paradigm. No other consolidated, presidential democracy uses an electoral college, and our government certainly would not set one up in any autocracy it overthrew.

Though some congressional districts near New York City have gotten gradually more Republican-leaning since 2000, there’s little chance New Jersey would see its electors go to a Republican candidate any time soon. That would require seismic movements in the major parties’ coalitions.

One letter writer implores voters to “listen to and respect the wisdom of the founding fathers” who intentionally designed the system to protect small states and check mob rule. Yet another reminder of how misinformed the debate is.

The electoral college was a last-minute compromise in the spirit of keeping perfect’s hands off the good. In the final days of the convention, delegates could not agree on how to elect a president – whether one should be elected at all, in fact – so they threw the matter to the individual states.

The electoral college moreover does not protect small states, depending on the observer’s time horizon. It protects “battleground” states like Wisconsin, Florida and Ohio. Everyone else doesn’t matter.

According to BAN, the state senate votes on the bill on Monday.

National Popular Vote to see floor vote in Mass.

Ballot Access News reports that the National Popular Vote plan “cleared all House Committee hurdles on October 24, and will probably receive a vote on the House floor in the next ten days.”

What are the compact’s prospects in Massachusetts? It’s hard to tell, but a betting man would say “good.”

Mitt Romney is governor and a contender for the Republican presidential nomination. Republicans do not like National Popular Vote. While the battleground/spectator state divide is relatively indiscriminate in partisan impact, small states get affirmative action in the Electoral College as a result of Senate malapportionment. Right or wrong, the Republican establishment seems to calculate that bonus is stable. So Republican governors like Schwarzenegger, reform credentials notwithstanding, veto the thing.

What about the state General Court? In the Senate, Democrats have a veto-proof majority. Same in the House of Representatives. Massachusetts well could be the second state to sign on, following Maryland (D legislature, D governor) last April.

NationalPopularVote.com (linked above) has a neat map tracking the status of the compact.

Gerrymandering the presidency

CA Congressman Darrell Issa (R-49) will help bankroll the effort to split California’s Electoral College votes by congressional district (CD allocation). And he’s defending it as a move to “proportional representation.”
Read the rest of this entry »