Readers of this blog will remember that the National Popular Vote campaign is striving to effectively eliminate the Electoral College by asking states to allocate their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of state popular votes. Now, it looks like NPV’s long road to changing the Electoral College might encounter a sudden detour.

Some Pennsylvania Republicans have proposed an alternative: a congressional district system. One elector would be given to the winner of each district; the two remaining Pennsylvania electors would go to the winner of the state’s popular vote. Republicans would likely gain 11 or 12 electors in 2012. Needless to say, many Democrats are protesting the effort (see: here, here, and here).

Ultimately, Pennsylvania must decide for itself what to do. But there are several pros and cons to consider.

This piece was originally posted on National Review Online. Please click here for the rest of the post.

Pennsylvania Republicans want to change the state’s method of awarding presidential electors: Instead of a winner-take-all system, they propose to award electors based on congressional district.  http://bit.ly/qp1z6S

One of the great strengths of the current system is the great discretion given to state legislatures in picking a manner of elector allocation. If Pennsylvania legislators deem this method to be in their interest, then they should go for it. The rest of the states retain their ability to choose a different method, as dictated by the needs of their states.

Importantly, this proposal differs from the NPV plan recently adopted by California and other states (http://bit.ly/oMZLCb). NPV purports to rely on the states’ discretion to choose electors; in reality, it would rob most states of their ability to have any voice in choosing a presidential election system for this country.

More about Pennsylvania’s effort appears here: http://on.fb.me/pfsTL7

Originally posted on Tara’s Facebook page at http://on.fb.me/nemfNs

Following four failures in Rhode Island and two in New York, National Popular Vote may have sealed up a California victory with recent legislative approval of their interstate compact legislation. (For a description, see “What is ‘National Popular Vote’?“)

Dr. John Koza and Tom Golisano (the campaign’s founder and their new billionaire supporter, respectively) have shifted focus to Virginia their attempt to gain the 270 electoral votes needed to bring their plan into effect.

The Washington Post recently announced that NPV heavy-hitters Golisano and Fred Thompson, the lackluster 2008 Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. Senator from Tennessee, were venturing to Richmond along with former Iowa Gov. Chet Culver in an attempt to pump life into their thrice-failed Virginia campaign.

Unlike NPV’s previous successes–all Democratic “blue” states–Virginia is “purple”, with Republicans holding a majority in the House of Delegates. Why would the campaign pour time and resources into this state when they’ve historically only had successes with Democrat majorities? Five years of campaigning from their California headquarters failed to sway any California Senate Republicans.

Perhaps Virginia is seen as their best opportunity to get a foothold among Republicans, as well as in the South—and the 13 electoral votes wouldn’t hurt any, either.

Ultimately, John Koza and NPV have their work cut out for them if they believe that “four” is the lucky number for winning Virginia.

The NPV (a state-by-state campaign to abolish the Electoral College) has amassed 77 electoral votes by state legislatures passing bills committing their votes to the winner of the national popular vote. For more back story, click here.

What’s surprising is the amount of time, energy and money they’ve spent in one tiny state: Rhode Island. NPV was the top lobby in the state this year, looking to spend almost a quarter of a million. The whole Senate backed the bill, which made things look pretty rosy for Dr. John Koza, head of NPV.

For example, consider Illinois (which already passed NPV). Even with some hefty rural resistance they pushed it through. (See below)

So wait, you’re saying NPV was still shot down? How is that possible?

Oh yeah, this is becoming an annual ritual in the nation’s smallest state. The campaign has failed not once, not twice, but three  times. We’ve done a little background research into what have been the three “rounds” of lobbying for the three bills, who’s been lobbying them and how much has been spent.

Obviously there is a story to be told by the data. Certainly the NPV campaign can’t be simply unlucky? Perhaps Rhode Islanders aren’t too keen on the thought of west-coast out-of-towners bringing in their money and legislation to push through the legislature. Maybe legislators saw how partisan the NPV really is?

Round One, 2007

Beneficiary: Arianne Lynch, Clarendon Group
Result: Bill didn’t pass committee.

Round Two, 2008

Result: Bill passes both houses, vetoed by governor.

Beneficiary: Will Farrell, Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels

Beneficiary: Arianne Lynch, Clarendon Group

 Round Three, 2011

Result: 2011 Feb 3rd to Present, S164 Passes Senate, Heads to House.

Beneficiary: Wallace Gernt, Jr.

Beneficiary: Christopher Reilly

Beneficiary: Ryan O’Donnell

From Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, through every recession and rise in the economy, we’ve had one constant this century: A flood of money to the California far-left from Dr. John Koza. Check out “Do NPV & Koza really ♥ California Republicans?“ and “Who is John Koza?“ for the full scoop on Koza’s background pushing scratch-ticket lotteries and National Popular Vote (NPV).

Now certainly there’s nothing wrong with participating in politics, as long as it’s honest. The question is how seriously anyone should take Koza’s current campaign to convince California Republicans to back NPV.

To investigate for yourself (there’s over 50 entries) click here.

California may cast a critical vote on AB 459 as soon as tomorrow and Dr. John Koza couldn’t be happier. This isn’t his first foray into matters of the state. He has succeeded in using the government as a tool to secure his fortunes, and he believes he will win on more serious matters. California would supercharge his anti-Electoral College alliance and shoot them from 77 votes to 132 (toward their objective of 270). However there are a slew of reasons why legislators on both the right and the left shouldn’t bow to Koza’s financial and political prowess.

Is Koza confident? Perhaps. He’s spent millions pushing NPV, with a recent drive to convince Republicans that he’s on their side. It’s a tough sell, given the evidence.

Exhibit A: Koza acted as a California Elector (in the Electoral College) for both Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

Exhibit B: The only states to pass NPV have been dark blue.

Exhibit C: Koza’s hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions.

Here’s just a sampling. (Come back for updates.)

Check out the full PDF of Koza’s FEC-registered contributions here.

And some more via California’s database:

2007-2008
2005-2006

In a shocking twist, ex-Senator Fred Thompson has joined the effort to abolish the Electoral College. He claims that the National Popular Vote movement is “totally consistent with our constitutional principles.”

I like Thompson. I voted for him in the 2008 presidential primaries. But his endorsement of NPV simply cannot be reconciled with the Constitution. It is a pity, because he has spent so much of his public life defending these important principles. It is puzzling that he has abandoned them now.

NPV is consistent with the Constitution?

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected a nationwide popular vote for President. The small states would never have ratified the Constitution with such a system in place, for fear that they would be constantly outvoted by big states such as Virginia and New York. NPV implements the system that was rejected and pretends that it is somehow consistent with this constitutional history.

The Constitution requires approval from three-quarters (38) of the states before radical change can be made to constitutional processes. NPV is on track to change the method of electing a President with the approval of fewer than 20 states.

The Constitution implements a system that combines the best elements of federalism, republicanism, and democracy. The Founders understood from their study of history that a pure democracy “is one of the greatest of evils” that “soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.” It is “very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.” NPV shuns the lessons of history—so important to the Founders—and replaces America’s federalist, republican, democratic presidential election process with a purely democratic one.

There is more: NPV will likely cause Equal Protection, legal and logistical problems that I have discussed at length elsewhere. But even these few examples should show that Thompson and others need to more thoroughly study the history of our Constitution and the Electoral College before casually claiming that NPV is consistent with America’s founding principles.

Perhaps you wouldn’t expect Texas to join an effort to eliminate the Electoral College.  In fact, you may find such an idea to be ludicrous and a bit far-fetched. Unfortunately, a California-based group is working hard to prove you wrong. Indeed, its proponents are in the state today, making a pitch to the legislature’s House Committee on Elections. They want Texas to join an anti-Electoral College effort that has already been approved by six states and the District of Columbia.

National Popular Vote is practically guaranteed to tell Texas’s largely conservative, Republican legislature that its end-run around the Constitution is good for the Republican Party. Unfortunately, some Republicans in other states have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker. Others fell for the line at first, but then learned more and began to see that the Emperor has no clothes. Here’s hoping that Texas legislators will see through the ruse right from the beginning.

NPV asks state legislators to change the way that their states allocate presidential electors. Instead of giving them to the winner of a state’s popular vote, electors would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote. So, for instance, Texas’s thirty-four electors would have gone to Barack Obama in 2008, despite the fact that John McCain won by a landslide within our own borders. If enough states were to agree to such a method of elector allocation, the Electoral College would be effectively eliminated, all without the bother of a constitutional amendment.

This probably sounds like a crazy liberal idea that could only succeed in places like Massachusetts and California. It probably should be, but NPV has more political savvy than that. It saw the writing on the wall last November: The emergence of the Tea Party as a political force convinced NPV to reconstitute itself. It now claims to be good for conservatives and good for Republicans. NPV describes its plan as pro-states’ rights, pro-federalism, and consistent with an originalist reading of the Constitution. Why, to listen to them describe it, you’d think the Founding Fathers practically expected states to do something like this eventually.

Yes, these would be the same Founders who explicitly rejected the idea of a direct national election for President, as proposed by NPV. Obviously, something doesn’t quite add up.

But NPV is hoping no one digs too deep or researches the issue too thoroughly. Otherwise, Republicans might start to wonder how NPV’s bill jibes with respect for the Constitution. Democrats might start to wonder why NPV is talking out of both sides of its mouth: It tells Democrats that NPV is a progressive measure that will update the Constitution, democratize American presidential elections, and consolidate political power in Democratic-leaning urban areas. But it tells Republicans that NPV is good for a center-right country that values the Founders’ wisdom; it will help the GOP to recapture the White House.

More research would show members of both political parties that the Electoral College serves everyone. It has a long and successful history of serving Americans in a non-partisan fashion. It ensures that the most successful presidential candidates are those who, in the spirit of FDR and Ronald Reagan, reach out to a wide variety of voters. It brings Americans together, encouraging us to focus on moderation and compromise—many other systems would instead drive us apart. It provides stability and certainty in presidential elections: It is harder to steal elections when you must predict in advance which state will be close and where stolen votes will matter. Finally, more research would show legislators the many dangerous legal and logistical problems created by NPV’s plan.

NPV has been introduced in the Texas legislature before. It was not taken seriously then, and it should not be taken seriously now simply because NPV has changed its tune and will be trying to sell the measure as a conservative, Tea Party measure.

States Representatives on the House Committee on Elections would act wisely if they treat the plan for what it is: An idea that is at odds with the lessons of history and inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.

This article originally ran on TexasInsider.org on April 18, 2011.

Vermont is one gubernatorial signature away from joining an effort to ditch the Electoral College. The Vermont legislature gave final approval to the National Popular Vote plan last week. (More details regarding the mechanics of the legislation can be found here.)

As a legislator, Governor Shumlin once sponsored the bill, so he is expected to sign it now. His signature will make Vermont the seventh state to join NPV’s compact.

The full article can be found at National Review Online.

If I were a Republican from California, it would be tempting to dislike the Electoral College. And it would be tempting to join the handful of Republican leaders who advocate passage of the recently proposed National Popular Vote plan, pending in the California Assembly as AB 459.  Their claims that NPV will benefit conservatives and Republicans in the state feel so true, don’t they?

Many Californians feel ignored, brushed aside during presidential elections. Californians contributed $151,127,483 during the 2008 election year, only to have a mere $28,288 spent on advertising within the state, as NPV advocates are quick to note. When election results came in, 5,011,781 Californians had cast ballots for John McCain and Sarah Palin, yet not even one Californian elector was awarded to that presidential ticket. Instead, 55 electors were awarded to Barack Obama. Democratic presidential candidates take California for granted, even as Republican candidates ignore the state altogether.

How can a big state such as California take a back seat to smaller states like Ohio, Missouri and Iowa during presidential election years? It feels unfair. Anything that changes this system has to be good for California . . . right?

Wrong. To see why AB 459 is a bad idea for California, two questions must be answered: First, does the Electoral College still serve America and California or should it be eliminated? Second, even assuming the Electoral College needs to be replaced, is NPV the best route toward change?

Further evaluation of the Electoral College and the NPV proposal will show that the current system, while it has its frustrating moments, is by far the best available alternative for a country as large and diverse as our own.

To loosely steal a line from Winston Churchill: The Electoral College is the worst form of presidential elections, except for all the others.

The rest of this article appears at FlashReport.org.

Deep thinking and deliberation are getting in the way of the National Popular Vote campaign in Oregon (HB 3517). This is my conclusion after stopping briefly in Salem yesterday and talking with a few legislators and several legislative staff.

It was all true to a pattern that I’ve seen in my cross-country travels. NPV’s soundbites, at first, have some appeal. Yet as thoughtful legislators consider the novel—not to mention profoundly important—issue of how best to elect the President of the United States, they come to realize how many questions NPV simply does not, cannot, answer. Cosponsors back out; chairmen hold off.

NPV brags about how many bills they have had introduced, how many hearings have been held, but almost every time, NPV legislation has then died. Often the very same legislators who initially moved NPV later had second thoughts. This is happening in Oregon, and rightly so.

It is a credit to legislators when they are willing to consider all the evidence and even to change their minds. I always give legislators the benefit of the doubt—often talking with cosponsors and even prime-sponsors of NPV. Wisconsin is just one example of a state where legislators changed position after hearing the “other side.” (Yesterday was the only time I’ve encountered a rude legislator, Vicki Berger, who appeared desperately out of her depth and almost frantic that someone would disagree with her in her office.)

A legislative session isn’t over until it’s over. NPV has hired at least two high-powered lobbyists in Salem. (A lobbyist in another state capital who was offered a contract by NPV tells me that they pay “very well”; nevertheless, he recognized the threat NPV poses to our republic and he  turned them down.) Yet a growing number of Oregon legislators are asking the right questions about NPV, making it evermore likely that the legislation there will fail.

Last week I visited Juneau to talk with state legislators about National Popular Vote. NPV’s anti-Electoral College legislation (SB 39) has moved through two of their Senate committees in as many months. Because NPV says different things to different people, it’s always fascinating to pick up the echoes of their latest sales pitch. This was particularly true in Alaska.

NPV’s slogan is “every voter equal.” The claim is preposterous: their plan would shift more power to political consultants and pollsters to decide which voters to focus on and who to ignore. Nevertheless, NPV tries to convince legislators that their state’s voters will get more attention if NPV succeeds.

In the remote state of Alaska, NPV’s pitch is, essentially, how can you lose? Presidential candidates don’t visit now; maybe with NPV they’d at least send the vice presidential nominee’s spouse or something…. The first problem with this is, under any electoral system, Alaska really is remote. And it’s vast area is home to only 710,321 people. That’s less than half the population of Manhattan (consider that only 27 people would live in Manhattan if it had the same population density as Alaska).

While no presidential election process is going to put Alaska at the forefront of the campaign plan, the state very nearly became a focus in 2008–because of the Electoral College. Until the nomination of Sarah Palin, Barack Obama’s campaign believed it had a chance to win in Alaska. And then, having your governor nominated for vice president is hardly being ignored….

As I’ve pointed out on this blog before, the “swing state” effect of the Electoral College is actually a good thing for several reasons. And again, by wiping away state lines NPV only changes who gets attention, it doesn’t mean presidential campaigns will suddenly become omnipresent.

All this, however, is something of a sideshow. What really matters about any political process is whether it works. To know that, you need an idea of what government is for. NPV’s arguments imply that government exists to hold majoritarian elections after everyone watches the same number of campaign commercials. But perhaps government exists for some other reason, say, to protect individual rights. If that’s true, then things like stability, moderation, and sustainability begin to matter a lot more than where candidates hold campaign rallies.

NPV has catchy catch phrases. They whisper to Republicans that their plan will help Republicans, then whisper to Democrats that NPV will consolidate more power in urban areas. But in the end, what is certain is that NPV would radically alter the incentives in American politics and have cascading unintended consequences. As one Democratic legislator in Alaska told me: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And the Electoral College ain’t broke.”