New York lawmakers seek to undermine Electoral College

This is the sort of thing that makes me proud to be a New Yorker:

With little fanfare, five Republican assemblymen in May proposed a bill that would direct New York's electoral votes in presidential elections to the candidate who wins the plurality of the national vote. The compact would take effect only if the number of states entered into identical agreements represented a majority of the electoral votes. Once the threshold of 270 was met, which could be done with pledges from as few as 11 of the most populous states (or as many as 39 sparsely populated states), the candidate who won the most votes in the nation would be elected president. [NY Sun]

Don't say I never give Republicans any credit.

Comments

[The Phantom]

I oppose the Electoral College. It is anti-democratic, albeit anti-democratic from the Founding Fathers.

But it did save us from a Gore Presidency, so there are certain arguments one can make in its defense.

[togolosh]

Outstanding! I hope this gets traction with the major media. This is exactly the sort of thing we need to break up the two party system.

[Nancy in NYC]

ohforchrissakes

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

There's much to like about the idea. It is sort of New York's bandaid for something that's broken on a national level, but it sounds like a good bandaid. If direct, popular vote carried the day, instead of states (that is, regions) carrying the day, then candidates would need to court by large population centers instead of by state, correct? So if the Electoral College's influence were broken by enough states, or if we had no Electoral College at all, then I suppose candidates would tend to campaign most in population-heavy states like California and New York. Practically speaking, this would mean that these states would be lavished with the most federal largesse, and that would be a bad effect. But are we voting as one nation, for a candidate for national office, or aren't we?

However, what is bothersome about this is that individual states, addressing a national institution by dismantling it piecemeal, instead of the whole nation effecting a coherent plan to do so, makes for a system that could easily become chaotic. If the populous states choose such a system, meaning that candidates must court them, and the sparsely-populated states stay with the current system, because more clout accrues to them under that system, then what will happen? I can see that perhaps it would be the perfect answer, tailoring each state's rules to each state's situation. But I would prefer for such an important change to be managed and planned for, with some studies done on the long-term ramifications of it, not entered into on an ad-hoc basis.

[Alon Levy]

New York doesn't have to wait for the rest of the country, actually. In the meantime, it can enter into an agreement with a single state that typically votes for Republicans with margins similar to New York's margin for Democrats, i.e. Texas. So in Presidential elections, New York and Texas will merge into a single swing state with 65 electoral votes.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

It begins to sound like a nationwide version of Big Brother or Survivor.

>New York doesn't have to wait for the rest of the country, actually.

I would say this is important enough to the country that the federal government should commission a study on it, with recommendations for what should be done.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

>Big Brother or Survivor

"Last week on Electoral College: New York threatens to ally with Texas, to vote Florida out. But New Hampshire warns Florida: can Texas be trusted?"

ANGLE ON: Texas getting drunk.

ANGLE ON: New York's eye-rolling reaction.

ANGLE ON: New Hampshire's crafty eye-shifting.

[John Lucid]

Now that conservatives control all three branches of government, we shouldn't bother with abolishing the electoral college. We should abolish voting. It's the only way the Glorious Christian Conservative Cultural Revolution can maintain its iron grip on America. Look at the mess Iraq has had ever since its people got the right to vote. That could be us if we don't end this senseless democracy. Look at how well monarchy worked for centuries in Europe. For the monarchs, that is. The peasants - not quite as well. But we're not exactly the party of the peasants, are we?
God save the President!

[mike]

God, what an awful idea this is. At least if it's NY and CA and other reliably Democratic states doing it. Let Alabama and Georgia vow to vote against the wishes of their citizens. If I were a NY citizen I'd call for the impeachment of any yahoo that tried to disenfranchise me.

[DJA]

Mike, this proposal does nothing to disenfranchise NY, CA, or any other big Dem state. Quite the opposite, in fact:

The compact would take effect only if the number of states entered into identical agreements represented a majority of the electoral votes.

There was a Hendrik Hertzberg piece in the New Yorker a little while ago that explains the idea behind this compact in more detail. It's actually quite ingenious, and is certainly something all Democrats (and small-d democrats) should get behind. If the agreement comes into effect, it means that votes cast in, say, New York City will finally be worth just as much as votes cast in Ohio or Florida.

[Barbara]

I doubt if Texas or Florida as currently constituted would get behind this, but states such as Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania might. It's hard to say about states like Virginia or North Carolina, which go Red for presidential elections but are more eclectic within the state. It would likely get up to a total of 270 only if southwestern swing or trending blue states such as Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico joined in. That would make the difference. I think we can safely say that the Dakotas and like states have no interest in ceding what little influence they have in the matter, however relatively out of proportion it is to their population.

[pebird]

These are great ideas until there is a close election and one state decides not to honor it's agreement. Guess where that dispute ends up. The Supreme Court gets to decide another election.

[mark]

What if an elector said to himself, "This is crazy stuff!" and voted for someone else? At this time, the folkses are still voting for the electors, not actually for the president, aren't they? What actually determines who the electors are and how they vote?

[Steve]

If I remember, Hendrick Hertzberg of The New Yorker was touting this idea from a couple of political scientists a few months ago. But it's remarkable that it's Republicans (albeit New York Republicans) who are actually trying to bring it into practice. With enough states agreeing to support the popular choice, the small Western states may ultimately realize their advantage in the electoral college is at an end and then be more agreeable to a Constitutional Amendment taking national elections away from state legislatures and giving them to the people, which, after this 220-year experiment with democracy, is where they belong.

[Uncle Kvetch]

Speaking as a New York State resident, I heartily endorse this idea, no matter what side of the aisle it comes from.

[mike]

This was proposed in the California assembly a while back. I don't know if it passed or back.

[Mike]

Other Mike: The bit about it requiring 270 evs to go into effect doesn't matter. If reliable blue states pass this and the red ones don't, it means we'll hand over an election that we won and the republicans won't. The very fact that republicans pushed for this in NY should indicate that their strategy is for the liberal states to "do the right thing" and hand elections over to republicans.

[DJA]

The bit about it requiring 270 evs to go into effect doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. Mike, it seems you don't quite understand how this proposal works -- I recommend, again, the Hertzberg piece, which explains it all very clearly.

Under this system, the winner of the national popular vote will be guaranteed a majority in the electoral college, because states worth at least 270 electoral votes (i.e., a majority of EVs) will pledge to vote en masse for the winner of the national popular vote. So it doesn't matter what any of the non-participating states do, and it makes absolutely no difference how those 270 EVs are construed -- they could come from mostly red states or mostly blue states, but that doesn't affect the outcome either way. The only thing that matters is that the participating states have at least 270 EVs between them.

Mark: in most states, there is nothing currently compelling electors to vote for the winner of their state's popular vote. There have, in fact, been "unfaithful electors" in the past. Obviously, any agreement would want to guard against unfaithful electors, but that's something we should be doing already.

Pebird: same goes for your argument -- what is currently stopping the Florida Secretary of State from arbitrarily declaring the winner of a contested election? We all know the answer to that question. Your arguments are arguments against the status quo, not arguments against reform.

[pebird]

This is a gimmick tactic that does not provide the people with the power to elect the president. The power still lies in the state legislatures. A state legislature may agree to the compact, until the party that feels disenfranchised takes control of the state legislature and decides to bail on the compact. One election it's in effect, the next who knows? It's very weak democratic election of the president, and not guaranteed. If you want reform, better be real reform.

[Matt Austern]

If by "real reform" you mean a constitutional amendment, then, for obvious reasons, we won't get it. This scheme is a second best alternative, but, unlike a constitutional amendment, there's a chance that it'll actually happen.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Trust me: even if it is a good idea, the piecemeal, ad hoc restructuring of our approach to the Electoral College is a recipe for chaos. Even if it's well-thought out and workable on the part of the individual states, unless it's planned for, with buy-in from not only the two holy political parties, but the people, then just watch the accusations of fraud fly, at the very first result, the first time it's used. If it's at all complicated, there is no way that the losing side will accept the result from a jury rig.

A comprehensive, planned -- well, hopefully a nice, comprehensive, planned throwing out of it -- but at least a good, solid expert study of our options as a nation, before we start messing with it, would be very much advisable. We won't get it, because we seem doomed at the moment, but that's what we _should_ do.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

>then just watch the accusations of fraud fly,

And yes, I know you're thinking: "and that changes things how?"

[Ken C.]

New York doesn't have to wait for the rest of the country, actually. In the meantime, it can enter into an agreement with a single state that typically votes for Republicans with margins similar to New York's margin for Democrats, i.e. Texas. So in Presidential elections, New York and Texas will merge into a single swing state with 65 electoral votes.

Why NY and Texas? Why not NY and California? In general, why wouldn't the agreement be that the votes of the joining states go to the plurality candidate among voters in those coalition states alone? So the eleven most populous states could simply disenfranchise the voters in the other states.

I suppose what would happen next would be that the other states would bind their votes in the same way, and then try to entice one of the eleven into their group. And then....

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Secession!

[aeroman]

I think it's worth pointing out that while this is a longshot, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the electoral college will be abandoned any other way. Way to go, NY state.