National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (abbreviation NPVIC ) refers to an agreement between different US states with regard to the mode of the presidential election . Translated from English, it means something like “Inter-federal pact for nationwide vote counting”.
The presidential election in the United States has so far been indirect, that is, the president is not directly elected by the voters , but the voters choose an electoral college, the Electoral College , which then elects the president. Each state elects electors to the electoral college according to its population . In the vast majority of states, the majority principle applies ; H. the respective winner receives all electoral votes. This electoral system has drawn a lot of criticism. With the NPVIC initiative, various states are ultimately trying to implement nationwide direct election of the president by means of interstate agreements without having to change the constitution of the United States .
Electoral mode of the presidential election in the United States
.png)
: Each "waving hand" symbol shows a campaign visit by a candidate or Vice President candidate for the Republicans or Democrats .
Bottom picture: Each US dollar sign ($) represents $ 1 million that has been spent on television advertising.
From the pictures it becomes clear that the election campaign took place predominantly in the swing states of the time ( Florida , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , Iowa and others). Even very populous states were hardly visited if the majority situation in them seemed clear, e.g. B. Texas , California and New York .
Each US state, plus the District of Columbia, sends electors to the electoral college according to its population. Under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, states have the right to choose how to elect their electorates to serve on the electoral college. Historically, throughout the history of the United States, different models of selection have been practiced by different states. Today 48 of the 50 states send their electors on a majority basis; H. the candidate with the most votes receives all of the state's votes. Only the states of Maine and Nebraska send representatives to the electoral college according to the respective majorities in the constituencies (congressional districts) .
Arguments against the previous electoral system
Swing states play a key role
Most states have a majority in one of the two major political camps in presidential elections. The southern states tend to vote with a Republican majority, while in the states of the Pacific Coast and New England the Democrats have a majority. In the electoral college, both political camps are therefore often represented similarly. In every presidential election there are states in which the majority situation is “on the brink”. These so-called swing states often play a decisive role in the election, especially when it comes to states with a large population. The election campaign therefore takes place almost exclusively in these swing states . Critics claim that only a relatively small number of voters (those of the swing states ) actually decide on the country's political future.
Majority in the electoral college does not always correspond to the national majority of votes
A special feature of the right to vote is that candidates who do not have a majority in the nationwide popular vote can also receive a majority in the electoral college . This has occurred four times in United States history, in the 1876 , 1888 , 2000, and 2016 presidential elections . In the 2000 election, George W. Bush / Dick Cheney faced Al Gore / Joe Lieberman . The majority in the electoral college was 271 votes to 266 for Bush / Cheney; in the nationwide vote count, however, Gore / Lieberman were in the lead with 50,999,897 (48.4%) to 50,456,002 (47.9%) votes, thus winning over half a million votes more than Bush / Cheney. The elections were ultimately decided by the result in swing state Florida, which the duo Bush / Cheney won after counting votes twice with 2,912,790 (48.85%) to 2,912,253 (48.84%), i.e. a 537 majority.
Discussion about the introduction of a nationwide direct election of the president
In multiple opinion polls over the last few decades, the majority of US citizens surveyed have voted for direct election of the president instead of the previous election by an electoral college. Proponents hope that the direct election will lead to a higher turnout. With the exception of the highly competitive swing states, voter turnout is currently of little importance. The number of electors in a state depends only on the size of the population and not on the number of voters. In a state like Texas, which has always voted Republican with a solid majority in the last election, there is little motivation for a Democratic supporter to vote because his vote is unlikely to have any influence on the overall result. The same goes in reverse for Republicans in the democratically dominated states of New York and California. Critics of the previous electoral law argue that voter turnout would be significantly higher if the president were to be present nationwide, i.e. H. would not be elected through Electoral College , since then, for example, a Democratic vote cast in Texas would count as much as one cast in California.
History of the NPVIC Initiative
The idea of the Electoral College by a Amendment to the Constitution (amendment) be abolished and replaced by a direct election of the president, there is a long time. However, there are very high hurdles to overcome in order to change the American constitution. The bill to amend the constitution can only be introduced if it is supported by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress . For the constitution-amending law to take effect, three-quarters of all states, i.e. H. currently 38 of 50, agree.
In 2001, Northwestern University professor of law Robert Bennett proposed in a scientific publication a process that, without a constitutional amendment, would result in practically a direct national election of the president. All that is required is a legal coordination of the voting behavior of the states in the Electoral College . Legal experts believe that such legal coordination is constitutional. Fundamental to this is the right guaranteed by the constitution to the states to determine their electors according to their own laws. However, some legal experts see a possible violation of the Compact Clause from Article I, Section 10 of the American Constitution, which restricts the right of states to make pacts.
The NPVIC legislative initiative
The pact between the states stipulates that they first select their electors in the same way as before, until so many states have joined the pact that they determine a majority in the electoral college (currently 270 of the total of 538). According to this, all electors of the states assembled in the pact are to be determined in such a way that they vote for the candidate who received the relative majority in the nationwide vote count. This is to ensure that the candidate with the highest number of votes nationwide wins the election. States that join the pact undertake to pass a corresponding law. The law has the following content, among others:
Article II-1
Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States.
"Each member state should hold an election for President and Vice President of the United States on its territory."
Article III-1
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.
"Before the statutory deadline for electors to meet and vote for the presidential election, the chief electoral officer [usually the state Secretary of State ] shall vote for each candidate for the presidency in the states of the United States and the District of Columbia determine and determine a "nationwide total number of votes" for all candidates. "
Article IV-1
This agreement shall take effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted this agreement in substantially the same form and the enactments by such states have taken effect in each state.
"This agreement comes into force when the states that have implemented this agreement in its essential parts into a binding and legally valid legal form have obtained a majority of votes in the electoral college."
The pact members undertake to select their electors so that they vote for the candidate with the highest number of votes nationwide. If the (extremely unlikely) case occurs that two candidates get exactly the same number of votes, the current electoral system should be used. If the Electoral College is dissolved, the pact also loses its validity.
List of states that have joined the pact
The law has come into effect in the following states:
| No. | Country | Votes in the electoral college |
Date of entry into force |
Cumulative electoral votes |
as a percentage of the 270 aspired votes in the electoral college |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
 Maryland
|
10 | April 10, 2007 | 10/538 |
3.7% |
| 2 |
 New Jersey
|
14th | January 13, 2008 | 24/538 |
8.9% |
| 3 |
 Illinois
|
20th | April 7, 2008 | 44/538 |
16.3% |
| 4th |
 Hawaii
|
4th | May 1, 2008 | 48/538 |
17.8% |
| 5 |
 Washington
|
12 | April 28, 2009 | 60/538 |
22.2% |
| 6th |
 Massachusetts
|
11 | 4th August 2010 | 71/538 |
26.3% |
| 7th |
 District of Columbia
|
3 | December 7, 2010 | 74/538 |
27.4% |
| 8th |
 Vermont
|
3 | April 22, 2011 | 77/538 |
28.5% |
| 9 |
 California
|
55 | August 8, 2011 | 132/538 |
48.9% |
| 10 |
 Rhode Island
|
4th | 12th of July 2013 | 136/538 |
50.5% |
| 11 |
 new York
|
29 | April 15, 2014 | 165/538 |
61.1% |
| 12 |
 Connecticut
|
7th | May 24, 2018 | 172/538 |
63.7% |
| 13 |
 Colorado
|
9 | 15th March 2019 | 181/538 |
67.0% |
| 14th |
 Delaware
|
3 | March 28, 2019 | 184/538 |
68.4% |
| 15th |
 New Mexico
|
5 | 4th April 2019 | 189/538 |
70.3% |
| 16 |
 Oregon
|
7th | June 12, 2019 | 196/538 |
72.6% |
Currently active bills
As of June 2020, bills were being discussed in the respective parliaments of the states listed in the table below.
| State | Voices in the Electoral College |
Brought in | Bill (noun) |
|---|---|---|---|
.svg){kind=small} Georgia
|
16 | Jan. 30, 2019 | GA S 42 |
 New Hampshire
|
4th | Jan. 3, 2019 | NH H 541 |
|
New Jersey
|
4th | Jan. 14, 2020 | NJ A 161 |
 Ohio
|
18th | Feb. 14, 2019 | OH H 70 |
 Pennsylvania
|
20th | July 9, 2019 | PA S 270 |
 South carolina
|
9 | 20 Mar 2019 | SC H 4277 |
Status of the legislative initiative in the individual states
The NPVIC bill has been tabled at least once in all states. In many cases she was then referred to committees, where she ultimately got no further in the legislative process and was then shelved at the end of the legislative period . In some states it was accepted by one of the two houses, but rejected by the other, or "dragged off" in a committee so that it could not be voted on. Most of the states that ultimately accepted the bill took several attempts.
Perspectives
The election researcher Nate Silver pointed out in an analysis in April 2014, after the success of the initiative in New York, that the NPVIC initiative must also win some of the so-called " red states ", ie states in which the Republicans are traditionally successful . Otherwise the initiative will fail. All 11 states won so far are "blue", ie democratically dominated states, and in the 2012 presidential election were among the 14 states with the most votes for Barack Obama . Democratically dominated states such as Delaware , Connecticut , Maine , Oregon and New Mexico could possibly be won over to the initiative. In Michigan and Minnesota this is more difficult because they are already approaching the swing states . With the votes of the aforementioned states, however, no majority in the Electoral College has been achieved overall . The actual nine swing states in the broader sense ( Ohio , New Hampshire , Colorado , Florida , Virginia , Nevada , Iowa , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania ) would have decided the 2012 election outcome with a 98.6% probability and thus little motivation to join the NPVIC. “Red”, republican-dominated states could also have an interest in joining the NPVIC, since, for example, in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, the Democrats were preferred by the current electoral system. The 2016 presidential election was won by Republican Donald Trump , although he received almost 3 million votes less than Democrat Hillary Clinton . In the New York State Senate and House of Representatives , in the Oklahoma Senate, and in the Arizona House of Representatives , a majority of Republican MPs also voted to join the pact. On March 15, 2019, Colorado, the first "violet" state (ie with changing majorities), joined the pact after the corresponding applications had failed in four previous attempts in previous years. However, the Republicans in both Colorado houses unanimously voted against the initiative.
Web links
- Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy
- National Popular Vote - Website of the initiators
- Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote - Text of the pact
- Every Vote Equal: a federal plan to elect the president by direct nationwide election
- FairVote
- Common cause
- Electoral College legislation at the National Conference of State Legislatures
- Make Every State "Purple" YouTube video of the advocates ("purple states instead of blue states and red states ")
Individual evidence
- ^ The Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation-Harvard University: Survey of Political Independents. (pdf) The Washington Post, accessed April 2, 2019 .
- ^ Robert Bennett: Popular Election of the President Without a Constitutional Amendment. Social Science Research Network, March 27, 2001, accessed on May 16, 2011 (English, abstract).
- ↑ How to achieve direct national election of the president without amending the constitution: Part Three Of A Three-part Series On The 2000 Election And The Electoral College. Findlaw, 2001, accessed March 16, 2009 .
- ^ The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote. (110 kB) (No longer available online.) Every Vote Equal, archived from the original on July 10, 2011 ; accessed on May 14, 2011 (English, pdf).
- ↑ Every state is legally obliged to report the election results to the federal government: Responsibilities of the States in the Presidential Election. In: US Electoral College. US National Archives and Records Administration, accessed June 20, 2019 .
- ^ A b Status of National Popular Vote Bill in Each State. nationalpopularvote.com, accessed June 18, 2019 .
- ^ State Elections Legislation Database. National Conference of State Legislatures, accessed on June 18, 2020 (English, search settings: Topic Electoral College-National Popular Vote , States: All States , Status: Pending ).
- ^ Progress in the States. nationalpopularvote.com, accessed March 25, 2016 .
- ^ Nate Silver: Why a Plan to Circumvent the Electoral College Is Probably Doomed. FiveThirtyEight.com, April 17, 2014, accessed March 26, 2016 .
- ^ Nate Silver: As Nation and Parties Change, Republicans Are at an Electoral College Disadvantage. FiveThirtyEight.com, November 8, 2012, accessed March 26, 2016 .
- ^ New York. nationalpopularvote.com, accessed May 17, 2019 .
- ^ Josh Israel, Oklahoma Senate Endorses Plan To Effectively Abolish The Electoral College. thinkprogress.org, February 14, 2014, accessed May 17, 2019 .
- ^ Arizona. nationalpopularvote.com, accessed May 17, 2019 .
- ^ Colorado House Passes National Popular Vote Bill, Republicans Push For Ballot Measure. CPR News, February 21, 2019, accessed August 8, 2019 .