Earlier this year, the Virginia House of Delegates voted to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It then went to the Virginia Senate where it was tabled in the Senate Privileges and Elections committee where it now remains. Unlike most tabled legislation, we have it on good authority the Senate P&E will vote on it in early December. If we win there and then in then, assuming we get at least Twenty of the Twenty-One Democrats and—worst case—no Republicans, we can pass the Senate and the General Assembly with the Lieutenant Governor breaking the tie. Governor Northam has promised to sign the bill when and if we do!
But then what?
Minnesota!
Starting now begins our #PopularVote2024 strategy where we look to shore up the last five or six states to get us to 270. One of those states will almost certainly be Minnesota, land of 10,000 lakes! I’ve been to Minnesota, it’s absolutely gorgeous, and the Mall of America is a sight to be seen, as is the Mary Tyler Moore house.
Today, I worked with some fellow NPVIC advocates to find some likely soft Republican districts we could target to get voters to call their State Representative and ask them to support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Of the 134 House Districts, we selected 4 that were battleground districts and one that was a hail-mary pass for any Republican challenger.
The 134 paired legislative districts of Minnesota; we hope voters in these districts can help Minnesota to be the next state after Virginia to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
We don’t know how well this will go but nothing ventured, nothing gained, eh? And we must try anything that gets us to #PopularVote2024!
Amelia Showalter, who was the data analytics director for former President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, found in deeply reported studies of all-mail elections in Colorado in 2014 and Utah in 2016 that there were very slight partisan advantages in each race.
As found in states like Utah and Colorado, the effect is small and tends to balance out. My friend and fellow cosplayerAmelia Showalter (she cosplays an incredible StarbucksMermaid!) points out that there may be some benefits to Democrats, but there are indeed advantages to Republicans.
The truth is that for folks in Rural communities, where polling places are few and far between, Vote-By-Mail is a huge advantage as it doesn’t require a long drive to the perhaps one polling place in the county. If anything, the most disadvantaged by Vote-By-Mail is with some minorities, who don’t necessarily trust the postal system. This is why, at least in urban areas with greater ethnic diversity, having some traditional polling places is still a good idea. Alas, many states like to close the urban polling places making it all that much harder for poor minorities to vote.
This issue doesn’t manifest as sharply in the Western states which have Vote-By-Mail because their ethnic diversity is much lower than in states like Virginia. While Utah has a mere 1% African-American population, and Oregon and Washington merely 3%, Virginia’s population is about 20%. Even Colorado at 10% isn’t quite the best proxy for the average Southern State. This is why it’s important even with Vote-By-Mail to allow in-person voting for anyone wishing to do so, at least in those more ethnically diverse states farther East.
The biggest argument, however, is when we see that Utah is a generally Republican state and yet remains so, even with Vote-By-Mail. Clearly, postal voting works for Republicans. Otherwise we wouldn’t see the Republican majorities in Utah that we do.
Showalter found the biggest turnout difference in all-mail elections came among people who were the least likely to vote. These voters tend to pay the least attention to politics and are the most ideologically flexible.
The greatest advantage, however, is to enfranchise the forty to fifty percent in non-battleground states and the thirty to forty percent in battleground states. Too many Americans are non-voters so anything we can do, like make it as easy as getting an SASE from the State and posting back your ballot, will make this nation a better Democratic Republic.
Vote-By-Mail is as easy as sticking a sealed ballot into an envelope.
The best way to ensure that every vote equal is to have one person, one letter, one vote.
UPDATE 11 May 2020: Updated to better reflect that Vote-By-Mail helps both parties for the most part equally thanks to input from Amelia.
Thank you both for a great conversation! Every vote equal, one person, one vote, it’s for conservatives, it’s for progressives, it’s for every American!
The truth, though, is that the President has no power to cancel the election. That power rests purly in the hands of the Congress.
Congress, not the president, has the power to move Election Day. And even if Congress did postpone the vote, the Constitution would terminate Trump’s term on Jan. 20, 2021.
Stern, Mark Joseph. “Trump Can’t Cancel the Election. But States Could Do It for Him.” Slate 13 March 2020.
Further, having spend over a decade working for the U.S. Military, I can guarantee the loyalty of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are to the Republic, and not to any individual President. Should any President, Democrat or Republican, refuse to leave office were someone new duly appointed on, be it 20 January 2021, 20 January 2025, or any appropriate day of power transition in the future, then the U.S. Military would remove the obstinate President from office, with force, if necessary. Such a military Coup d’État would be unheard of in American history, but would doubtlessly just be a bump in the smooth transition of power as the Military is expected to immediately cede power to the duly elected next President. Indeed, if a President refuses to leave office, it behooves the winner of the most recent election to beseech the Joint Chiefs of Staff to aid in the removal of the incalcitrant, losing President, to make sure he or she leaves office and that the newly elected President is installed.
All that said, it seems to me insane to consider any President, including the current occupant of our highest office wouldn’t leave come 20 January upon losing the prior election by the Electoral College. And I hope my readers know I stand firmly on the side of Republican Democracy. It’s not a question of party for me, it’s a question of whoever wins the election should take office.
the Constitution does not require states to assign their electors on the basis of the statewide vote. It does not even require a statewide vote. Rather, it explains that each state “shall appoint” its electors “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” In other words, each state legislature gets to decide how electors are appointed—and, by extension, who gets their votes.
Stern, Mark Joseph. “Trump Can’t Cancel the Election. But States Could Do It for Him.” Slate 13 March 2020.
The rub comes if states exercise their option, under Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2—as amended—state legislatures are allowed to appoint electors by any means they see fit. They can vote to select electors, as some states did originally, not having the infrastructure to hold an election. They can hold an election and assign electors proportionally, as they did in the early in the Republic. They can have winner-take-all (plurality) elections. They can have direct election of electors, as Alabama did in 1960. They can even allow two electors to be chosen by state-wide Plurality and the rest chosen by potentially Gerrymandered Congressional District plurality, such as in Maine and Nebraska. The Constitution says nothing about how Electors are selected, it only says states legislatures get to chose their own method.
[The President] himself could not cancel the entire presidential election. But he could ask these GOP-dominated legislatures to cancel their statewide presidential elections and assign their electors to him. It’s doubtful that we will face this situation in November. But imagine a worst-case scenario: The election is approaching, and the coronavirus remains rampant in our communities. States are unsure whether they have the personnel and resources to hold an election. Congress has failed to mandate no-excuse absentee balloting, and many states have declined to implement it. Or the postal service is so hard hit that it cannot reliably carry ballots to and from voters’ residences. It’s not difficult to envision [The President]’s allies in state legislatures assigning their states’ electoral votes to the president, insisting that these dire circumstances justify pulling a constitutional fire alarm.
Stern, Mark Joseph. “Trump Can’t Cancel the Election. But States Could Do It for Him.” Slate 13 March 2020.
What the article fails to mention is that each state’s legislature operates under different rules. In Maryland and Virginia, for instance, their General Assemblies have strict deadlines before 1 July to finish conducting all legislative business. The only way new legislation can be adopted is from a direct order of the Governor, meaning for a state to cancel its election after 1 July, it would have to do so with the consent of its Governor and its Legislature. And while there are a number of state legislatures in single-party hands through Gerrymandering, the Governors are elected by popular vote and thus is not prone to Gerrymandering.
So while SARS-CoV-2 may cause difficult for voting, it’s doubtful any major legislature is going to cancel the election in 2020 due to the virus. However, let’s entertain that possibility for a moment.
state legislatures can appoint electors—the human beings themselves—but cannot then require them to vote for a particular candidate, or punish them if they do not. It seems unlikely that the court will grant “faithless electors” the ability to buck state legislatures and cast rogue votes.
Stern, Mark Joseph. “Trump Can’t Cancel the Election. But States Could Do It for Him.” Slate 13 March 2020.
Here is where the article puts a bit too much faith in faithless electors. The truth is, the way electors are chosen in all states in 2020 is through a party-line slate. What happens is the election happens (or the state legislature directs), the states Secretaries of State (where such office exists) then contact the party of the winning candidate who then provide the state with a slate of electors. If the Democrat wins, the state selects the slate of electors provided by the Democratic Party, if the Republican wins, the state selects the slate of electors provided by the Republican Party. It’s very unlikely parties would select from amongst their party faithful someone who was not loyal to the candidate. And sticking pipedream hopes that even if Faithless Electors are preserved—as the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to rule—it’s unlikely any elector will be voting against their party or candidate.
Regardless of any SCOTUS decision, Faithless Electors will continue to be rare. If a bunch of state legislatures do decide the cancel the election of 3 November, it’s unlikely that you can count of faithlessness to give you any surprise outcome. While that may be a fear in terms of legislatures reverting to the original party appointment of electors without election, which would be a tragedy to our Democratic Republic, there is another way that would, in fact, increase our Democratic Reublican ideals.
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement between the signatory state such that, if the combined electoral college count of signatory states is 270, then these states will tabulate their popular votes, and combine those popular votes with the votes of all the other states in our American Union, and, based on the winner nationally, the Secretaries of State then select the slate of electors provided by the party of the candidate who won the National Popular Vote. Effectively, the person with the most votes nationally will become the next President of the United States.
Just as legislatures could cancel elections, they can also join the NPVIC and ensure that the winner of the popular vote is the winner of the national election, making this nation a more Democratic Republic, not less.
This isn’t a partisan issue. In 2004, a Republican almost lost the Electoral College despite winning the Popular Vote. This isn’t an issue of the Popular Vote advantaging one party over the other. Unfortunately, 2016 has blinded people to that fact. In truth, when it’s known long before the election how most states will vote, it concentrates all the power in a number of battleground states which are so close one could literally flip a coin to determine their outcome. Such concentrated power is against the will of the Framers. It disadvantages both big and small states alike, both rural and urban states alike. It helps no-one unless you happen to live in a Battleground. It’s not advantaging any party, it’s just the coin flipped heads a number of times. It will flip tails. We don’t know when, but it will. It could indeed be as soon as 2020.
Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2 is a double-edged sword. It allows legislatures to take the power from the people, and it also allows them to grant it to all Americans, leveling out the playing field so that, no matter where you live, your vote will count as much as any other American.
We should have One Person, One Vote where Every Vote is Equal. Ask your state governments to pass the NPVIC today.
It’s that time of year again. Time for the world’s second largest Democracy by population, and richest Democracy by overall GDP to vote to select who is the best to represent their party on the Presidential stage.
Voting through most of American history has been difficult. Our nation, like almost every Democracy, has political parties and every election it always comes down to just two choices: Conservatism or Progressivism. Progressives believe in progress, a government that is strong and protects its citizens from business. Conservatives believe in small government, state’s rights, and traditional values.
In 2020, Americans call Conservatives Republicans, and call Progressives Democrats. In 1888, Americans called Conservatives Democrats, and Progressives Republicans. In 1860, we called Progressive Abolitionists Republicans and Progressives who weren’t were Whigs, and Conservatives were Democrats. In 1796, Progressives were Federalists and Conservatives were Democratic-Republicans.
While all these elections were interesting, there’s one even more interesting. One more interesting than the 1888 election, where Grover Cleveland the Conservative won the Popular Vote but lost the Electoral College to Progressive Benjamin Harrison. One more interesting than the election of 1860, where Abolitionist Progressive Abraham Lincoln won the election with only 40% of the Popular Vote in a Three-Party Race. One even more interesting than the election of 1796, where the electoral college appointed the highest ballot winner to the Progressive John Adams, thus making him President, while the Conservative Thomas Jefferson had the second most votes, making him Vice President.
That last arrangement was so untenable that the Twelfth Amendment was passed. This amendment entrenching the party ticket system with our nation for the past 220 years. It give us the modern interpretation of Article II, Section 1, which in turn grants sole power to state legislatures to determine how that state’s electors are chosen.
But even that election isn’t the one I want to talk about.
The election of 1824 was a cantankerous one. That year, the Federalist Party had dissolved and the nation became a single party state where everyone claimed to be a member of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. Under that backdrop, in the first election for which we have popular voting data, there were a slate of four candidates: John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William H. Cranford.
Candidate
Electoral Votes
Andrew Jackson
99
John Quincy Adams
84
William H. Crawford
41
Henry Clay
37
With four candidates running, for what was so far the only time in history, no-one received a majority of electoral votes, 131. As such, under the Twelfth Amendment (as amended by the Twentieth Amendment), the election is decided by taking the top three or less candidates and having each state’s Representatives voting on which of the candidates they prefer, with the state going to whomever the most Representative for that state voted for. Each state gets one vote, and whoever gets a majority of states becomes President. If no candidate receives that state majority, then the vote is recast until a majority is decided.
In 1824, this is exactly what happened. Of the twenty-four states at the time, thirteen were needed to decide the election. Fortunately, since Henry Clay, having been eliminated as not being in the top three, backed John Quincy Adams, meaning that only a single ballot was required in the House of Representative to elect John Quincy Adams as President.
Candidate
State Votes
John Quincy Adams
13
Andrew Jackson
7
William H. Crawford
4
If this were to happen in 2020 thanks to a third party candidate making it impossible for either the President or the Democratic Challenger to receive at least 270 Electoral Votes, then I personally feel the nation would be aghast. Most Americans don’t know about the Electoral College Voting Majority requirement or the state-based Congressional voting system, and would indeed by shocked to know that’s just what their Constitution says.
Like the election of 1824, the modern Primary system seeks to choose a winner by strict majority among a list of party-faithful Presidential Candidates. If no candidate receives a majority of votes on the first ballot, SuperDelegates in the Democratic Party (Republicans don’t have SuperDelegates) are used to put their fingers on the scale and the required majority changes to reflect this.
Wouldn’t it be easier if we could just pic the majority on the first ballot? If people in 1824 could just say without Clay and Crawford they wanted Jackson?
All these problems could be solved with Ranked Choice Voting. With Ranked Choice Voting, or RCV. Under RCV, you can say you prefer Crawford, but if your second choice is Jackson, then Adams, and finally Clay. Or you could say, like me, your first choice is Elizabeth Warren, because, among other things she supports the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but my second, third, fourth, and fifth choices would be among the various other candidates.
What you do with that is a whole other question. Clearly, you could just ignore all but the first choice and see if anyone gets a majority. But that’s what we have now, and clearly a majority isn’t guaranteed.
Another possibility, very possible is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), where, instantaneously, a mock election is conducted with all the first-place candidates, and if no-one receives a majority, the candidate receiving the least amount of votes is eliminated and anyone voting for him or her will instead vote for their next choice. This algorithm is continued until one candidate receives a pure majority.
The problem with IRV is that it doesn’t guarantee a Condorcet Winner. The reason is easy to see if you have a series of ballots where, in aggregate, a majority prefer A over B, a majority B over C, and a third, unique majority C over A. In the vaguest case, this could produce C as winner even though a majority prefer A over C.
Another alternative, one I prefer, is the Schulze method. It is Condorcet and will match IRV when IRV doesn’t contain, for instance cycles like above. However, Schulze is a rather complicated, geometric voting system. Were it up to tabulations by hand of hundreds of millions of RCV Ballots, this would be impossible. But with modern computers, it’s facile.
Whatever voting system we use, it’s better than the system we have now with throwing the election to the House of Representatives or using SuperDelegates to ensure majorities.
And whoever you vote for this coming Super Tuesday or beyond, vote wisely, be informed, and vote with a free hand because the decision is yours. Just make sure you go out and vote!
Follow my socials!