About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (April 25, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govzly0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional Research Service Informing the legislative debate since 1914 April 25, 2019 NPV-The National Popular Vote Initiative: Proposing Direct Election of the President Through an Interstate Compact Ori gns The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative is a nongovernmental advocacy campaign that promotes direct popular election of the President and Vice President through an agreement among states, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (for additional information, see CRS Report R43823, The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact). NPV's origins can be traced to the 2000 presidential election. In that contest, Republican nominee George W. Bush won the presidency with a majority of 271 electoral votes to his Democratic opponent Al Gore Jr.'s 266, but Gore received 537,209 more popular votes nationwide than his opponent. This outcome, sometimes referred to as an electoral college misfire, particularly by opponents of the system, occurred because (1) the Constitution requires a majority of electoral votes, not popular votes, to win; and (2) most states award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis-the popular vote winner takes all the state's electoral votes, while none are allocated to the runner-up. It is therefore possible to win the presidency by winning in states that control an electoral vote majority, while the opposing candidate wins more popular votes nationwide, but fewer votes in the electoral college. While the potential for a candidate to be elected with a majority of electoral votes but fewer popular votes than his or her opponent is an inherent characteristic of the electoral college system as it exists today, the 2000 presidential election result was the first such occurrence since 1888. Combined with a contentious legal struggle over results in the electorally decisive state of Florida, the process revived criticism of, and concerns about, the existing procedures. Critics argued the electoral college system was fundamentally undemocratic because it could elect a President who won fewer popular votes than his or her opponent (for additional information, see CRS Report RL3261 1, The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections). It should, they asserted, be replaced by direct popular election, which they claim guarantees the candidate who wins the most popular votes also wins the presidency. Defenders countered with arguments based on tradition, federalism, and the moderating influence of the electoral college system. In the late 20th century, Congress considered constitutional amendments to establish direct election or reform the electoral college, but none of the proposals met the first constitutional requirement for an amendment, approval by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, which must precede submission of an amendment to the states for ratification (for additional information, see CRS Report https://crsreport R43824, Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress). Dissatisfaction with the 2000 election prompted exploration by public interest groups and nongovernmental organizations into potential alternative procedures that could establish effective direct popular election without having to meet the rigorous constitutional requirements for an amendment. These efforts ultimately led to the NPV, which its supporters introduced in 2006. How the NPV Would ork The NPV Initiative proposes an interstate compact, an agreement among the states that would effectively achieve direct popular election of the President and Vice President without a constitutional amendment. Each state that joins the NPV agrees to appoint electors pledged to the candidates who won the nationwide popular vote. Election authorities in the member states would count and certify the vote, which would be aggregated and certified as the nationwide popular vote. Member state legislatures would then appoint the slate of electors pledged to the nationwide popular vote winner. They would do this regardless of who won the popular vote in their state. The compact would come into effect only if its success were assured-that is, only after states controlling a majority of electoral votes (270 or more) had joined the compact. States could withdraw from the compact, but if they did so within six months of a presidential election, the withdrawal would not take effect until after that election. The NPV Initiative relies on the Constitution's grant of broad authority over presidential electors to the states. Article II, Section 1, authorizes them to appoint presidential electors in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.... Although presidential electors in every state have been chosen by popular vote since 1864, this practice is not expressly required by Article II. As a result, NPV advocates maintain that changing the mode of election from the voters to the state legislatures, based on the national popular vote, complies with the Constitution. National Popular Vote Inc., a California-based nonprofit corporation established in 2006, publicizes the NPV and promotes and manages a nationwide campaign to gain state participation. Debate Over the NPV In addition to guaranteeing that the candidates winning the most popular votes would always win the presidency, proponents claim that under NPV, candidates would campaign more widely, instead of focusing resources and candidate time on battleground states, and would direct greater attention to issues relevant to other parts of the country. Opponents assert that NPV would diminish the ;.congressgov S