The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Comes to Minnesota
February 8, 2023
The Minnesota legislature has been very active as of late, introducing bills on a wide range of topics including cannabis legalization, finance and lending regulations, and election reform.
The election reform bill proposed in the Minnesota House of Representatives is named House File 642. House File 642 is described as an agreement among the states to elect the president by national popular vote and it is backed by authors Freiberg, Bahner, Long, Kraft, Greenman, Curran, Brand, Frazier, Garofalo, Hollins, Hemmingsen-Jaeger.
House File 642 was introduced on January 23 of this year and has been read in two committees throughout the last month. Most recently, it was read in the Elections, Finance, and Policy Committee.
Minnesota would join 15 other states and the District of Columbia as jurisdictions which have passed the interstate compact if the bill is successful. A successful passage of the bill would take the proposal one step closer to electing the president by a national popular vote, shifting the method of election away from the traditional method of using the electoral college.
The states which have already passed the bill vary in both population and geographic region; they include states such as Delaware, New York, Hawaii, Colorado, and California. Fellow midwestern state Illonois has already passed the bill as well.
Currently, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact holds 195 electoral votes, and needs a total of 270 electoral votes for the interstate compact to go into effect. This would be a historic change in the way Americans elect the president, and supporters of the compact opine that it is a much needed one.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact’s website offers a thorough explanation of the bill, discusses common misconceptions on the topic, and encourages citizens to contact their legislators in support of the bill. Proponents of the bill focus on the shortcomings of the current winner-take-all system and state that the interstate compact addresses these issues.
Supporters of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact believe it “evens the playing field” so that all states receive equal attention in campaigns from their presidential candidates, and citizens from certain areas of the country are not ostracized by way of not living in a battleground state.
Others support the bill because they believe the interstate compact brings the power back to the people, a power vested in the people by the constitution of the United States.
Objections to the bill include the bill is a straying from tradition and the constitution, Republicans would be ostracized, and cities would be unfairly favored and control the election.
This type of election reform has become the center of a contentious debate among politicians, with opinions varying based on political affiliation.
Generally, Democrats are in favor of a national popular vote, and Republicans are opposed to it, and typical partisan politics will definitely play a part in the passage or failure of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
There are many bills in front of the Minnesota legislature in this new year, and only time will tell when Minnesotans will receive a definite answer on the matter of a national popular vote for president. Government officials will need the time to examine the bill, weigh the pros and cons, and articulate those points to the public and their colleagues. This process could take a while.
Election reform of this magnitude and importance should not be taken lightly, and Minnesota legislators have a significant decision to make and have the ability to influence the course of Minnesotan and American political history with their decision.
The Minnesota Republic will be closely monitoring the status of this bill, and will continue reporting on it throughout the journey of the bill.
To stay up-to-date on the status of this bill and others, you can use the Minnesota House of Representatives’ website.
Loading ...
Andrew Arensburger • Feb 10, 2023 at 10:28 pm
>Republicans would be ostracized,
This doesn’t make sense. This bill doesn’t favor or disfavor any party.
>and cities would be unfairly favored
How so? Under this bill, a city vote would be counted the same way as a country vote, the same way as today. Do cities have an unfair advantage in gubernatorial or Senate elections?
>and control the election.
The top 20 cities in the US have something like 30% of the population. Even if you could somehow convince every city dweller to vote for the same candidate, that candidate still wouldn’t win without a whole lot of suburban and rural votes.
Susan Anthony • Feb 9, 2023 at 12:33 pm
On April 18, 2007, Minnesota State Representative Steve Simon first introduced the National Popular Vote bill into the Minnesota Legislature.
There have been 16 years to examine the bill, weigh the pros and cons, and articulate those points to the public and their colleagues. It’s time to enact the bill.
In 2021, the bill was introduced in the Minnesota Senate. and House. Senators and Representatives introduced the National Popular Vote interstate compact in the form of a constitutional amendment.
In 2019, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed an omnibus bill containing the bill by a 73-58 vote. The House actually passed a different House omnibus bill . The 2019 legislative session ended with no bill being enacted into law.
On April 3, 2019, a hearing was held on an omnibus election bill containing the bill.
In March 2019, a Representative introduced the bill into the Minnesota House.
In January 2019, A Senator introduced the bill into the Minnesota Senate. And, Senators introduced a similar bill.
In January 2019, Representatives introduced the bill.
In 2017, the bill was introduced into the Minnesota Senate.
In 2017, Representatives introduced the bill into the House.
And Senators introduced the bill
In 2013, the Elections Committee of the Minnesota House of Representatives approved the bill
In 2013, the bill was introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives and the Minnesota Senate.
In 2011, the Minnesota house Committee on Government Operations and Elections approved the bill
In 2011, the bill was introduced by Representatives The 18 sponsors include 7 Republicans and 11 Democrats. Senators Ray Vandeveer and Anne (R) and Ann H. Rest (D) introduced the bill in the Senate in 2011.
In 2009, the bill was introduced in Minnesota by Representatives and was introduced in the Minnesota Senate
A survey of 800 Minnesota voters conducted on January 15-16, 2009 showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President. Support was 84% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 68% among others. By age, support was 74% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65. By gender, support was 83% among women and 67% among men. By race, support was 76% among whites (representing 91% of respondents), 60% among African Americans (representing 3% of respondents), and 63% among others (representing 6% of respondents). The survey was conducted on January 15-16, 2009, had a margin or error of plus or minus 3 1/2%.
Susan Anthony • Feb 9, 2023 at 11:57 am
Math and political reality. There aren’t anywhere near enough big city voters nationally. And all big city voters do not vote for the same candidate.
The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) has been only 6% of the population of the United States.
Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.
59,849,899 people have lived in the 100 biggest cities.
59,492,267 in rural America.
In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities.
19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. Beginning in 1992, suburban voters were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined.
Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws in presidential elections, in some states, big city Democratic votes can outnumber all other people not voting Democratic in the state. All of a state’s votes may go to Democrats.
Without state winner-take-all laws, every conservative in a state that now predictably votes Democratic would count. Right now they count for 0
The current system completely ignores conservative presidential voters in states that vote predictably Democratic.
Under a national popular vote, rural voters throughout the country would have their votes matter, rather than being ignored because of state boundaries.
The 2024 race could be reduced to less than 20% of the US, in 4 remaining competitive battleground states, with as few as 43 electoral votes, where virtually all attention will be focused
Susan Anthony • Feb 9, 2023 at 11:21 am
The National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws.
The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.
The bill changes state statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law.
All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
If the 2022 Election Were a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by about 3 million votes (2.8 percentage points).
Nate Silver calculated that “Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points … to be assured of winning the Electoral College.”
“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
Newt Gingrich: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”
Susan Anthony • Feb 9, 2023 at 11:17 am
State-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by 48 states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral vote
National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. 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, before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election, over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current statewide winner-take-all law for awarding electoral votes used in 48 states, is not anywhere 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 1880s after the states adopted it, one-by-one. The Founders had been dead for decades
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.