After much public debate, Maine's law moves the country closer to determining the winner of the national presidential election by popular vote, but it's unlikely that will happen before November, or at all. Unlikely.
Earlier this week, Maine Gov. Janet Mills announced that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could collect pledges of at least 270 electors (the number of delegate votes needed to elect an elector). allowed legislation to take effect without a signature. president.
The campaign currently has pledges from 17 states and Washington, D.C., totaling 209 electoral votes.
The movement seeks to change the way presidents are elected without amending the constitution, but experts say it's unclear what would happen if enough states sign on. This is unlikely to happen before the 2024 election.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact aims to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia wins the presidency.
If there are at least 270 states that have pledged their votes to the popular vote, all votes from those states will be combined for a national tally to determine the winner of the election. According to NPVIC, the winner of the election determines the winner of the election. Where voters live.
Five of the 46 presidents who have taken office lost the popular vote. The agreement argues that not all votes are equal under the current system.
“Under the current system, the presidency is usually decided by a minority of votes in a small number of states. Hair-splitting, post-election litigation, and fear-mongering,” Compact says on its website.
“In 2020, if 21,461 voters had changed their minds, Joe Biden would have lost despite leading the nation by more than 7 million votes. Those 21,461 voters ( 5,229 voters in Arizona, 5,890 voters in Georgia, and 10,342 voters in Wisconsin were each 329 times more important than the 7 million voters in other areas,'' the compact states.
One expert says everything to do with the electoral system has become controversial these days, with partisan divisions on the issue. Many Democrats want to abolish the electoral college system, while many Republicans say they support it.
“If you look at all presidential elections from 1992 to 2020, there was only one time when the Republican Party won the presidential popular vote, and that was in 2004 when Bush defeated John Kerry in the popular vote. In every other election in the last 30 years, Democrats won the popular vote, but thanks to the electoral system, Republicans have won the presidency several times despite losing the popular vote. '' West said.
“Republicans right now feel that the Electoral College is in their favor and they don't want to get rid of it,” West said.
West said that because of the electoral system, there are currently only a few battleground states in the country, and candidates spend most of their money in those few states.
“Abolishing the Electoral College would actually force candidates to campaign more widely and visit more states, because a vote in Illinois would be a vote in California. Because it's the same as voting,” West said.
Will this work?
Experts say the most direct way to change how presidents are elected is to amend the U.S. Constitution, but that doesn't seem possible without agreement from both parties at this point.
“Ultimately, a constitutional amendment would be needed to eliminate the Electoral College, but we all know that is not possible right now for political reasons. We need a huge majority, not just in Congress, but in the states.'So what the states are trying to come up with is not a constitutional amendment, but is there a way to improve the Electoral College?'' Douglas Dillon of the Brookings Institution Gov. Director of Research Darnell West told ABC News. interview.
But it remains unclear what will happen if enough states commit to sending delegates.
“There are a lot of deep legal disputes about what happens next. So, in my judgment, I think it will require Congressional consent,” Derek Mueller, a professor at the University of Notre Dame School of Law, told ABC News. Told.
“If Congress fails to do that, there will definitely be lawsuits,” Mueller said.
Mueller said there are other legal issues, such as whether it violates equal protection if different states in the U.S. have different election rules, and whether states have the authority to do so. He said there is.
“There are many unanswered questions…If the national popular vote reaches 270 points, we expect it to immediately face a series of legal challenges,” Mueller said.
West agreed that the legal situation is unclear.
“It's not clear what status these laws have. States have the power to make election laws, but according to the Constitution, electors in the Electoral College can actually do whatever they want. They are free to vote,” West said.
“So states can pass laws, but there haven't been many cases testing these provisions, so it's not clear what the Supreme Court will rule on this issue,” West said.
Mueller said if a state sues another state, the case would go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“It's completely unclear who will challenge it and where they will challenge it. One of the more interesting issues is that when dealing with agreements, there is a possibility that the challenge could go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, I think there are a lot of potential litigation strategies if that happens. [pledges]'' Muller said.
Has something like this happened to you before?
About 100 years ago, before the passage of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which allowed direct election of senators, each state conducted a “preference poll” of its citizens, rather than having Congress choose its representatives to the U.S. Senate. ”. There they would let them know who they wanted to represent the country.
“Some states – I think Oregon was one of the top states – are going to survey their people about their senatorial preferences, so they're going to have non-binding elections. But that would just be asking, “Who's going to run the elections?'' Do you want us to vote? ’ Then the sentiment from the people will be heard, and Congress will either be able to follow it or not,” Mueller said.
Those states, including Oregon, then began to be bound by the results of the preference polls, Mueller said. He points to this as an analogy to states trying to “convert congressional elections to popular votes, even though there was no formal mechanism to do so.”
The Constitution was eventually amended, and the Senate helped pass an amendment that would make Senate seats electable by popular vote.
Mr. West argues that direct election of senators required a constitutional amendment to take effect.
“And that was 100 years ago, when politics were less polarized than they are today,” West said.
Mueller said some states tried and failed to implement term limits for legislators about 20 to 30 years ago. The Supreme Court declared this unconstitutional in 1995.
“So Missouri tried something a little more creative, which was, “Okay, we're going to ask all candidates to submit a term limits pledge, and if they violate their pledge, we'll print it. We're going to put that on the ballot, or if we refuse to support the term limits pledge, we're going to print that on the ballot,'' Mueller said.
“The goal was to say we're not trying to keep you from voting. We're just telling you whether you're following term limits. And the Supreme Court said you can't do that either. '' Muller said.
