A.G. Gancarski
Timing is everything. And it’s no coincidence that a bill pushing a popular election of the U.S. President was filed by a Florida House Democrat just hours before the runner up in the popular vote was to be inaugurated Friday.
House Bill 311, filed by Broward County Democrat Joe Geller, seeks to enact the Agreement Among the States to Elect President by National Popular Vote.
This agreement has been enacted already by 10 states and the District of Columbia.
The rationale: “shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes (i.e., state laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate state).”
Buttressing the argument: the disproportionate amount of attention paid to national campaigns, as we saw in Florida down the stretch in 2016.
Abiding by that agreement, via Geller’s bill, requires a statewide popular election for President & Vice President of United States, and establishes procedure for appointing presidential electors in member states.
The bill would be repealed if the electoral college were abolished.
Geller offered an extended statement, printed in full below.
“Today, Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as our next president.
“For the second time since 2000, the winner of the Popular Vote (or as it is called everywhere else in the world, the Vote), will not be sworn in as President. I think that is a problem. My bill will allow Florida to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The bill, if signed into law, would allow the people of Florida to award Florida’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote. Florida would be joining 11 other states, along with the District of Columbia, in deciding to award our Electoral College Votes in this manner. The compact would not take effect until a sufficient number of states (including the District of Columbia), possessing a majority of the 270 electoral votes necessary to be elected President, have signed onto the compact.
“The current Electoral College system weakens the effect of each citizen’s voting power in Florida. Florida has 447,202 potential votes for each of its 29 electoral votes, while the state of Wyoming has 70,155 potential votes for each of its 3 electoral votes. As you can see, a vote in Wyoming has more weight and influence than one in Florida.
“The results of the 2016 Presidential Election showed that the Electoral College system is outdated and antiquated, and is anti-democratic, being contrary to the rule of one person, one vote. We do not use a similar system for any other election. Joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would assure that all votes are counted and that they all have the same impact in the election of our most important office.”
9 comments
Walt Peterson
January 21, 2017 at 5:15 pm
A better reform would be for Florida to adopt Instant Runoff Voting for President. Given that Florida is a swing state in which the winning Presidential candidate often gets less than 50% of the vote, Florida can increase its impact on the outcome by adopting a transferable vote system that assures that Florida’s electoral votes go to a candidate that gets a majority of the vote there. A great feature of the Instant Runoff Vote method is that any state can adopt it at any time without any federal constitutional amendment of interstate compact.
john g
January 23, 2017 at 7:27 pm
This requires a Constitutional ammendment. If they are actually serious, that is what they need to do.
kohler
January 24, 2017 at 12:48 pm
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.
States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
Rob
January 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm
Here’s an idea: how about we leave it the way it is?
The existing system was designed so that each state would be represented in the election. If you go by national popular vote, it would not represent Florida. It would represent only the major population hubs. You would have only one of the two parties voted into office for decades.
We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional representative republic.
If you want Florida to be like California, move to California.
kohler
January 24, 2017 at 12:51 pm
Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.
Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers.
The National Popular Vote bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.
Walt Peterson
January 24, 2017 at 4:14 pm
Instant Runoff Voting for Presidential electors in each state would assure that a candidate gets a majority – not merely a plurality – in any state that adopts it. Under this system, no vote is wasted, because votes for independent and third party candidates would be transferred to the 2nd place choices of those voters.
kohler
January 24, 2017 at 12:51 pm
California Democratic votes in 2016 were 6.4% of the total national popular vote.
The 4.3 million vote difference in California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.
California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton
In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
About 62% Democratic
California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
Baronscarpia
January 26, 2017 at 4:40 pm
Please tell us why you think “rural” votes should count more than “urban” votes. Are “rural” voters smarter? Do they pay more in taxes? Does the worth of a “rural” voter’s vote automatically diminish if he or she moves to a population center? Please tell us why “rural” voters should have more say, on a vote by vote basis, in who wins the White House.
Baronscarpia
January 26, 2017 at 4:41 pm
My questions are directed to Rob.
Comments are closed.