Recently both houses of the Massachusetts Legislature passed the National Popular Vote Agreement/Compact. StateLine.org story: Anti-Electoral College pact could expand <read> The StateLine article and their earlier one attempted to present arguments from both sides, however, missing are the most important arguments against the NPV, especially via the Compact as we have covered in our Case Against “The National Popular Vote“:
- The franchise is not uniform from state to state
- We cannot trust reported results
- Reported popular vote totals are a fiction
- The Agreement is likely to result in Presidential Elections being decided by the Supreme Court
Perhaps Governor Patrick will consider the arguments of Democrats like Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz who opposes the Agreement and Minneosota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie who objects for the difficulty in counting the popular vote. We are not in principle against a national popular vote, but as a prerequisite we would require sufficient uniform national voting franchise and integrity laws, enforceable and enforced.
States now and under the National Popular Vote would have to abide by the consequences of what other states do. The entire nation is certainly affected by the decisions made in the battleground states, such as Florida and Ohio.
The U.S. Constitution does not require that the election laws of all 50 states are identical in virtually every respect. State election laws are not identical now nor is there anything in the National Popular Vote compact that would force them to become identical. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution permits states to conduct elections in varied ways.
Neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Existing federal law (the “safe harbor” provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state’s “final determination” of its presidential election returns is “conclusive”(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).
The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/certificates_of_ascertainment.html
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-ascertainment.html
A survey of 800 Connecticut voters conducted on May14–15, 2009 showed 74% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Voters were asked:
“How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”
The results of the first question, by political affiliation, was 80% among Democrats, 67% among Republicans, and 71% among others. By gender, support was 81% among women and 66% among men. By age, support was 82% among 18-29 year olds, 69% among 30-45 year olds, 75% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.
Then, voters asked a second question that emphasized that Connecticut’s electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not Connecticut, vote. In this second question, 68% of Connecticut voters favored a national popular vote.
“Do you think it more important that Connecticut’s electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular vote in Connecticut, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?”
The results of the second question, by political affiliation, was 74% among Democrats, 62% among Republicans, and 63% among others. By gender, support was 75% among women and 59% among men. By age, support was 75% among 18-29 year olds, 57% among 30-45 year olds, 68% among 46-65 year olds, and 70% for those older than 65.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#CT_2009MAY
Mvymvy,
Thanks for your comments.
Your first post reinforces my points. There is notihng in the NPV Agreement/Compact that would provide for states to actually verify the results in other states, leaving the national popular vote number at best an questionable approximation, and at worst a fiction designating the incorrect candidate the winner (the one who actually received the least votes). You make the case that states can do nothing about this with the current laws plus the NPV Compact/Agreement unequal franchise, lax enforcement, and poor, risky accounting are completely constitutional.
Sadly the public is unaware of the risks of the NPV. Understandably they like the conceptual idea of the popular election of a president. But they do not understand the risks with the current system of state by state laws, enforcement, and enfranchisement or how they would interact with the NPV. Almost all people like fatty, fast food, and many do not recognize the risks. Within my lifetime, people and medical professionals believed and promoted that smoking was good for health…what would a poll in 1948 have shown?