[Vision2020] Hillary Won by 2 Million Votes! More than Gore, Nixon, Kennedy

[Ted Moffett]

This issue can become very complicated.  But the article below explores a
path to a presidential election decided by the popular vote, bypassing the
usual electoral college process, without a constitutional amendment, the
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.  This does not require all states
to participate in this compact, if I understand correctly.  The author of
the article indicates why this is so hard:

*"The issue, then, is not one of abstract law, but of simple politics.
Small states like Wyoming are not going to voluntarily relinquish their
outsized influence over presidential elections, while red states like Texas
are not going to risk sending their electoral votes to a Democrat. That
leaves swing states as the NPVIC’s only hope."*

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/10/the_electoral_college_could_be_abolished_without_an_amendment.html
----------------------------------
*A proportional allocation of electoral votes at the state level already
exists in two states: *
*https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#changes
<https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#changes>*
*"Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all
rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among
candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of
votes."*
-----------------------------------

*For numerous other states to change the manner they appoint electors
independently in each state, to a proportional system, is a lot to ask!*

*But consider this summary below, "Past Attempts at Reform" to modify the
electoral college.  It demonstrates why it is so hard to accomplish.  I
searched for more information on the most recent example, HJR 109
introduced by Rep. Jesse Jackson in 2004.  and found the following
website.  The info on HJR 109 is about two thirds down the webpage.  Time
for the speed reading button...*
http://congressionalresearch.com/RL32612/document.php?study=The+Electoral+College+Reform+Proposals+in+the+108th+Congress
---------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

http://www.fairvote.org/the_electoral_college#past_attempts_at_reform

Past Attempts at Reform

The rules of the Electoral College are not set in stone. While
Constitutional amendments are rare, they do happen. Twenty-seven proposals
have survived the difficult amendment process, and with much less popular
approval than the movement for direct election. Over the history of our
country, there have been at least 700 proposed amendments to modify or
abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of
Constitutional reform.

Here are just a few examples of past reform attempts:

*1950: The Lodge-Gossett Amendment*, named for its co-sponsors Senator
Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA) and Rep. Ed Gossett (D-TX), was a classic example
of a reform plan known as proportional allocation. The plan was introduced
in the 81st Congress (1949-1950) as an amendment proposal that would
abolish the Electoral College as it was known, replacing it with a
proportional electoral vote.

In this case, electors and the college would remain in place, but electoral
votes would be allocated to presidential tickets in a manner directly
proportional to the popular votes each ticket received in the states. The
proposal was amended in the Senate to also require a 40% threshold of
electoral votes for a ticket to be elected to the Presidency and Vice
Presidency. If no one received such a threshold, the Senate and the House
of Representatives, in a joint session, would then choose among the top two
presidential candidates and their running mates.

The Lodge-Gossett Amendment passed the Senate with a super majority by a
vote of 64-27, but died a bitter death in the House.

*1956: Hubert Humphrey's (D-MN) S. J. 152* was a new, unique proposal of
reform introduced in the 84th Congress. In this plan, the Electoral College
would be abolished as known, but the then 531 electoral votes would still
be put to use. Two electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate
winning the overall popular vote in each of the then 48 states. The
remaining 435 would then be divided nationally in proportion to the
nationwide popular vote. The proposal passed the House of Representatives,
but later died in the Senate.

*1966: Delaware filed a lawsuit against New York*, arguing that its
"winner-take-all" system for awarding electoral college votes effectively
disenfranchised small states in the presidential election process. The
Supreme Court, under whose original jurisdiction the case was filed,
refused to hear it. However, Delaware's action generated support from
several other states and 11 more joined in the lawsuit: Arkansas, Florida,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Utah, and Wyoming.

See these documents from the case:

   - Delaware's Petition (Part 1)
   <http://archive3.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/npv/DelawarePleadingPart1.pdf>
(pdf,
   1.38mb)
   - Delaware's Petition (Part 2)
   <http://archive3.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/npv/DelawarePleadingPart2.pdf>
(pdf,
   2.28mb)
   - New York's Response
   <http://archive3.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/npv/NewYorkResponse.pdf> (pdf,
   1.48mb)
   - Delaware's Petition for Rehearing
   <http://archive3.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/npv/DelawareRehearing.pdf>
(pdf,
   140kb)

*1969: This proposal came to be after the 1968 Presidential election*, in
which American Independent candidate George Wallace managed to obtain 46
electoral votes, generating concern over the possibilities of contingent
elections and electoral vote-trading for political concessions. In the 91st
Congress, Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY) introduced the proposal, which would
abolish the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular election with a
40% threshold and a runoff if no threshold was achieved. The bill was
wildly popular in the House, passing 338-70, yet failed to pass in the
Senate due to a filibuster.

*1979: After the close election between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in
1976*, Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN) introduced a proposal in the 96th Congress
to abolish the Electoral College and replace it with direct election. The
measure failed the Senate by a vote of 51-48 in 1979. Because of its
failure in that chamber, the House decided not to vote on its version of
the proposal.

See floor speech from Kansas Senator, Bob Dole from January 1979
<http://archive3.fairvote.org/speeches-advocating-direct-election-for-president/#dole>
.

*1992 & 1997: Hearings were conducted to consider reform possibilities*,
but no proposal left the committee chamber.

*2004: Colorado proposes, by ballot measure 36, to amend the way it
allocates its electoral votes*. Instead of remaining a winner-take-all
state, the proposal, if passed, would have changed the state to
proportional allocation.

See related editorials on the Colorado attempt:

   - "Coloradans to Consider Splitting Electoral College Votes
   <http://archive3.fairvote.org/coloradans-to-consider-splitting-electoral-college-votes/>"
-
   New York Times - September 19, 2004
   - "The Colorado Solution
   <http://archive3.fairvote.org/the-colorado-solution/>" - The Boston
   Globe - September 27, 2004

*2004: Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) introduces a proposal for Electoral
College reform*. HJR 109 proposes a majority direct election of president,
and is currently residing in the House Judiciary Committee.

*Only two proposals involving the Electoral College have ever reached the
ratification stage, and both passed (the 12th and 23rd Amendments
<http://fvo.stage.wellfireinteractive.com/the-twelfth-and-twenty-third-amendments/>
).

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Moscow Cares <moscowcares at moscow.com>
wrote:

Yes.  Each, and every, state should adopt a system that awards their
> electoral votes in accordance with, and reflecting that state's popular
> vote . . . even the predominantly-left and left-leaning ones.
>
> This way we can enforce the value of each vote.
>
> Are you with me, Mr. Crabtree?
>
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
> http://www.MoscowCares.com <http://www.moscowcares.com/>
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still.
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
> On Nov 13, 2016, at 5:14 PM, g crabtree <direoutcome at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And what is a republican vote in California, New York, Washington, or
> Illinois worth? A serious beating perhaps? With the EC rules as they stand
> the democrats went into this election with better than a hundred point
> advantage and whiffed it because of a bad campaign and a worse candidate.
> (not that the winners have anything much to brag about)
>
> With the current political climate being what it is, I very much doubt
> that a call for a constitutional convention to amend or abolish the
> electoral collage will result in anything good for the snivelling party. I
> imagine that it could well turn into a cautionary tale of being careful
> what you wish for.
>
> g
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>> Under an electoral college system, the vote of a Democrat in a
>> predominantly-Republican state is virtually worthless.
>>
>> That same vote possesses value in an election where the winner is
>> determined strictly by the popular vote.
>>
>> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>
>> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>> http://www.MoscowCares.com <http://www.moscowcares.com/>
>>
>> Tom Hansen
>> Moscow, Idaho
>>
>> "There's room at the top they are telling you still.
>> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
>> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>>
>> - John Lennon
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20161113/a786f23f/attachment-0001.html>