Along with a short but growing list of other states, New York has now officially joined the National Vote Compact by deciding to award its 29 electoral votes “in any manner it deems appropriate.” This would allow the transition to a national popular vote once enough states pass similar measures.

Report from the National Journal:

On Monday, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation that adds New York to the roster of states in the National Popular Vote compact.

The law allows New York to award its 29 electoral votes “in any manner it deems appropriate,” under Article II of the Constitution. Cuomo has pledged New York to give those votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. Currently, New York awards its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote.

So far, nine other states and the District of Columbia have signed on to the National Popular Vote compact. Unfortunately for popular vote advocates, this sort of legislation does not actually take effect until enough states—representing a majority of the Electoral College’s 538 votes—pass similar laws. Ironically, popular-vote advocates have to win over the Electoral College before they can dismantle it.

As a refresher from your high school civics class, here’s how the Electoral College works: Instead of tallying up every vote during the presidential election and declaring a winner that way, the U.S. uses “electors,” or delegates who vote for the candidate who wins in their state. The number of electors in each state varies by the number of congressional districts each state has. In almost every state, electors pledge their votes to the candidate who wins their state’s popular vote.

Other states in the compact, besides the District of Columbia, include Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, and Hawaii. As of Tuesday, add New York to the list.

This is a fairly touchy subject in my opinion. There are valid arguments on each side of the issue whether you favor keeping the current system in place or switching to a popular vote model.

This likely isn’t going to happen by 2016 since there are still large factions which oppose such a move but support seems to be somewhat bipartisan. What side do you fall on in this debate? Is one method more or less susceptible to fraud?

15 COMMENTS

  1. I may be wrong but all the states listed seem to lean left politically ! The reason there is an Electorial college is that middle America (red states) doesn’t get ignored. Wasn’t this one of the supposed cures for the dissatisfied 2000 election results? It may not affect the 2016 elections but if I remember right the Clintons were the big proponents for this back then.

  2. NY, my old home state is and has been a split vote state for years. Which means, NYC is libtardish and the rest is more conservative . This is the problem of NY and why they, as well as California,should be allowed to separate the taxpayers from the system takers. Partition socialist/communistas from the conservative people and then put a chain-link fence around the divide !!

  3. I am someone who is innovative about revising our electoral processes, but I disagree with this innovation. The Electoral College ensures the concerns of those states whose ratio of acreage to people favors acreage will be accounted for. That said, the Electoral College is a bad deal for red voters living in blue states and vice versa. They have little motivation to vote. What I propose instead is that Electors in all 50 states be allocated based on the percentage of the popular vote within the state. If a state has 5 electors, then a candidate must get 20% of the vote to get an elector. Rounding rules would be developed and applied to resolve the inevitability of something like a 53-47% split. This transforms the attitudes of the electoral minority in a state from “What’s the use?” to “We may generate the elector who makes the difference in the end..”

    • Larry R. Bradley — interesting premise.

      It shows merit for consideration.

      Just unclear what you meant by: “Rounding rules would be developed and applied to resolve the inevitability of something like a 53-47% split.”

      Please, explain this.

  4. The whole idea of the Electoral College is to be sure that smaller states are not ignored.

    As it is now, the GOP largely ignores some LARGE states–New York and California, for instance, so that they can collect more electoral votes from smaller states. That’s how Bush stayed in the White House, even though he LOST the national popular vote.

    Ironically, these large states are really saying that they want their large populations to be courted by both parties–that is, get huge increases in campaign spending. And if it passes, why would a candidate ever bother to spend any money in the “empty states” again??

  5. “Popular” Vote = Majority RULES over Minority = unqualified democracy = Mob rule, period.
    European nations have that, and they are dying slowly, because the ignorant many (majority) rule over the intelligent few (minority).

    This is the antitheses of what our Republic is all about — USA is The SINGULAR Nation in this World, whose Original Constitution was designed TO GUARANTEE that THE FEW have no lesser say than THE MANY!

    Thus the Electoral College!

    What scumbags like Cuamo & Ultra-liberal American-hating-trash-like-him-and-his-ilk want to do is DISFRANCHISE Real American Voters — nothing else!

    Americans — WAKE UP, and vote such scumbags as Cuamo out of office, before more of his ilk infest our nation!

  6. Except for a state dividing their electoral college vote between inner-city vs suburban/rural there is never a reason to court a state. CO decided to totally vote partyline ticket on bills and as a result had two state Congress people recalled and voted out of office. And this will probably turn CO red again but the Senators and Pres may still be blue because of inner city density. The 47% who pay $0 tax are 90% inner city.

  7. off topic — but in response to Tess Liehard’s dig on Rand Paul’s Class A lawsuit against Obama’s NSA spying on ALL AMERICANS (my take is also that this will be the Most crucial test of The Supreme Court in US History… if they have any INTEGRITY left, to properly defend (or falsely deny) the Validity of the US Constitution):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mPJBgGsmQ4

    MAKE THIS VIDEO VIRAL — Judge Napolitano’s statement I predict will be the final ruling in the Supreme Court (about 2 years from now): “Obama’s NSA found guilty, thus criminal charges against Obama and his underlings may be filed!”

  8. since still off topic — a bonus video:

    Rand Paul destroys Kerry (and by proxy Obama) on Constitutional Law!

    Plus, mops the floor with this scumbag; leads him by the nose; and makes him look the Court Jester that Kerry is, by having him cavort at the feet of Obama’s Throne!

    Priceless!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mUvHXM3IIc

    P.S. Who cares about Israel — It is the US we are TO BE concerned about!!!

  9. Amending the US Constitution?

    Of course — it is a Living Document that strives from Day One to GUARANTEE that Our Government has the LEAST Power while The Citizens enjoy the MOST Freedoms! Period.

    It has seen many amendments to this end. So, I propose the following Amendment #28

    (stated poorly and in short — someone else, improve on this):

    “Since the writers of the US Constitution did not envision US becoming the Ultimate Bureaucratic State where Gov Employees would nearly equal EVENTUALLY, and THAN SURPASS if UNCHECKED, the free Citizens that work for an actual living (WORK is deemed as doing something quantitatively productive, while TO BE EMPLOYED by the Gov means to have a position that pays you money, regardless of your TOTAL LACK of PRODUCTION). Thus, let this 28th Amendment be approved and forever remain in the US Constitution, as follows:

    1) Only those that work for a living in the private sector shall be allowed to vote.

    2) The only exception will be those that are in the US Military, for they also work for their living (by risking their lives to protect us).

    3) No one person that is employed in any way, by any and all, Local, State or Federal Governmental Agencies is to be allowed to vote — since it is self evident that they’ll vote for a Bigger Government, which the antithesis of our US Constitution!”
    ————————————————————————

    Please, feel free to improve on this!

    Thanks.

  10. Surfisher asked me to further explain what I meant by the 53-47% split in my proposal above. In my example, you have a state with 5 Electors. For a candidate to get an Elector, they must get 20% of the vote. Must be 20.000 or better, not 19.99998. So, for simplicity of illustration, let’s say there are only two Presidential candidates on the ballot. One gets 53% of the vote and the other gets 47%. Each has legitimately earned two electors. The question is which one gets the remaining elector. I suggest doing the rounding rule this way. Which candidate has 50% or better of the final 20%. In this case, one candidate has 13% and the other 7%, so the Elector would go to the candidate with 13% of the popular vote within the state. If all 50 states did it this way then we would have a true national contest.

Comments are closed.