President should be the person winning the most votes. ‌ ‌ ‌ Uninformed opponents of the National Popular Vote Compact have claimed that the “Federal Appeals Court Torpedoes the National Popular Vote Movement” because the compact “is predicated on the notion that state governments can bind [presidential electors] in how they vote.” Red State blog A quick read of the 888 words of the National Popular Vote Compact would reveal that the compact does not try to tell -- much less force -- presidential electors to vote a certain way. And, if the Red State writer had read the actual court decision, they would know that this decision would not affect the operation of the National Popular Vote Compact. Here are the facts. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver on August 20 ruled, “states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the President and Vice President candidates of their choice.” Page 93. Read the ruling at CNN The court decision resulted from a lawsuit filed after 3 Democratic presidential electors from Colorado refused to vote for Hillary Clinton when the Electoral College met on December 19, 2016. New York Times article The decision (if upheld after appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court) would negate existing laws in all 26 states that purport to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s nominee for President. However, the decision does not affect the operation of the National Popular Vote interstate compact, because the compact does not rely on the state laws that purport to require presidential electors to vote a certain way. The compact does not try to tell presidential electors to vote a certain way. Instead, the National Popular Vote Compact would operate in a manner identical to the system that has been used for over 200 years in the 24 or so states that do not have laws requiring presidential electors to vote a certain way. In these 24 states (which currently use the state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes), the presidential electors are the persons nominated by the political party whose presidential candidate receives the most popular votes inside the state. The National Popular Vote Compact would operate in an almost identical way, namely the presidential electors would be the persons nominated by the political party whose presidential candidate receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This system has worked very reliably over the years. After 23,529 electoral votes in 58 presidential elections between 1789 and 2016, the vote of Samuel Miles in 1796 was the only case when an electoral vote was cast in an unfaithful way by a presidential elector who might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the outcome. See section 2.12 of Every Vote Equal book The 7 faithless presidential electors in 2016 were among the 22 grandstanding presidential electors between 1789 and 2016. These are electors who have cast a deviant vote for President knowing, at the time they voted, that their vote would not affect the outcome of the election in the Electoral College. Given the amount of publicity received by the 7 grandstanding faithless electors in 2016, both parties can be expected to be extremely careful in 2020 about vetting the people they nominate for the position of presidential elector. If the political parties do their job of vetting their nominees for the position of presidential electors, faithless electors cannot have any effect on the outcome -- under either the current system or the National Popular Vote compact. In any case, the 10th Circuit decision is likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court because the Washington State Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion concerning faithless electors. It remains to be seen whether the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold the decision. As the 10th Circuit decision itself noted on page 67 of its decision, “The Supreme Court, however, has considered a closely analogous question -- whether a primary candidate for party elector can be required to pledge to support the party’s candidate.” The Supreme Court concluded in that case that the state could require the pledge. If there is any remaining concern, states that currently have laws purporting to require presidential electors to vote a certain way could enact Pennsylvania’s law in which the presidential candidate directly chooses the people to serve as his or her presidential electors (25 P.S. §2878). Finally, keep in mind that this court decision was not about the National Popular Vote Compact. It was about the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. Meanwhile, former Michigan Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis recently talked to NBC about National Popular Vote and faithless electors. In summary, the recent court decision was not about the National Popular Vote Compact, and it had nothing to do with whether the statewide or national popular vote are used to determine a state's presidential electors. ‌ BACKGROUND INFORMATION The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It would make every vote equal throughout the United States. It would guarantee that every voter in every state matters in every presidential election. The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from "winner-take-all" laws that have been enacted at the state level. These laws award 100% of a state's electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state. Because of these state winner-take-all laws, five of our 45 Presidents (including two of the last three) have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide. Another problem occurs in every presidential election, namely that presidential candidates have no reason to campaign in, or pay attention to, voters in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. In 2012, 100% of the general-election campaign events (and virtually all campaign expenditures) were concentrated in the 12 closely divided "battleground" states where Romney's support was 45%-51%. Thirty-eight states were totally ignored, including almost all small states, medium-sized states, rural states, western states, southern states, and northeastern states. Two-thirds of the events (176 of 253) were concentrated in just 4 states (OH, FL, VA, IA). Similarly, in 2016, almost all (94%) general-election campaign events were in the 12 battleground states where Trump's support was in the narrow range of 43%-51%. Two-thirds of the campaign events (273 of 399) were in just 6 states (OH, FL, VA, NC, PA, MI). It does not take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to change existing state winner-take-all laws. State winner-take-all laws were enacted by state legislatures under their authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...." These state laws may be changed in the same way as they were originally enacted -- namely by action of the state legislature. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes was not the Founding Fathers' choice. It was used by only three states in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (and repealed by all three by 1800). Winner-take-all was never debated at the Constitutional Convention or mentioned in the Federalist Papers. The National Popular Vote interstate compact will go into effect when enacted by states with a majority of the presidential electors—that is, 270 of 538. After the compact comes into effect, each individual voter in all 50 states and DC will acquire a direct vote in the choice of all of the presidential electors from all of the states that enacted the compact. The presidential candidate supported by the most voters in all 50 states and DC will thereby win a majority of the presidential electors in the Electoral College (at least 270), and therefore become President. The National Popular Vote bill is an achievable political goal. A record 4 states enacted the National Popular Vote bill in 2019. The bill is now law in 16 states. These states have 196 electoral votes. This is only 74 short of the 270 needed to activate the bill. The bill has been enacted into law by 5 small jurisdictions (Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia), 8 medium-sized states (Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington state), and 3 big states (California, Illinois, and New York). It has also passed one house in 8 additional states with 75 electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK). A total of 3,408 state legislators among all 50 states have endorsed it. Learn more at the National Popular Vote web site which has 14 explanatory videos and answers to 131 myths about the National Popular Vote bill NPR debate between Dr. John Koza, National Popular Vote Chair and Tara Ross, a leading opponent of the National Popular Vote bill Watch C-SPAN interview with Dr. John Koza Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Colorado National Popular Vote web site Colorado National Popular Vote Facebook page For additional information, see our book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote (downloadable for free). Chapter 9 provides short and long answers to 131 myths about the National Popular Vote bill. Let other people know your opinion. Write a letter-to-the-editor or op-ed for a newspaper. How to submit a letter to newspapers in any state. Also, please take a moment and use our convenient email system to send emails to your state legislators to support the National Popular Vote bill in your state. Your donation to National Popular Vote enables our traveling and local representatives to meet with state legislators around the country on a year-round basis. We meet with virtually every state legislator and the numerous people and organizations that influence them. We also do extensive public relations and educational efforts. The National Popular Vote organization is a non-profit corporation. We can't do these things without supporters like you. ActBlue Express using credit card or PayPal National Popular Vote | Box 1441, Los Altos, CA 94023 Unsubscribe [email protected] Update Profile | About Constant Contact Sent by [email protected] in collaboration with Try email marketing for free today!