CONYERS: Ahead Of Constitution Day, Conyers Introduces Resolution Urging Congress And The States To Reform The Electoral College

Washington, D.C. – In advance of Sunday’s Constitution Day, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) introduced H. Con. Res. 79, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that it and the States should consider a constitutional amendment to reform the Electoral College and to establish a process for electing the President and Vice President by a national popular vote.  The resolution also encourages the states to further their efforts to form an interstate compact to award their Electoral College votes to the national popular vote winner.  Rep. Conyers released the following statement upon the bill’s introduction: 

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, jr.

“This Sunday, September 17 is Constitution Day, which marks the 230th anniversary of the Philadelphia Convention’s approval of the Constitution.  We should rightly celebrate the day that the Framers endorsed the basic framework of our democratic system of government enshrined in our Nation’s governing charter.  Yet, we should also use this day as an opportunity to reflect on the fact that the Constitution still retains the Electoral College, a fundamentally anti-democratic process for electing our Nation’s highest federal officeholders.

“On five occasions in our history, the Electoral College has permitted the national popular vote winner to lose the presidential election, including the most recent election, where Hillary Clinton won nearly 3 million more votes than Electoral College winner Donald Trump. This occurs because a presidential candidate needs only 270 electoral votes and 48 states award their electoral votes on a “winner-take-all” basis.  As a result, the Electoral College creates perverse incentives for candidates that further distort the presidential campaign process in undemocratic ways.

“For example, the Electoral College encourages candidates to focus their campaign efforts on only a handful of so-called swing states.  During the last presidential campaign, for example, both major party candidates largely bypassed three of the four states with the largest populations and skipped campaigning in 12 of the 13 smallest states as well.  

“Additionally, the Electoral College is an anachronistic institution intended, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. According to Yale Law School Professor Akhil Reed Amar, who participated in a forum on Electoral College reform sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Democrats last year, the Electoral College was established, in part, to preserve the political influence of slaveholding states. Although enslaved populations were not allowed to vote, slave states insisted that three-fifths of enslaved persons be counted when determining a state’s representation in the House, which in turn affected the number of Electoral College votes allotted to the state.

           

“Given its history and undemocratic nature, it is clear that the Electoral College system must be replaced with a process that determines the election of the president and vice president by a national popular vote.  As such, Congress and the States should consider a constitutional amendment to reform the Electoral College.

“And, Congress should also encourage the States to reform the Electoral College through the formation of an interstate compact. Eleven states representing 165 electoral votes have already entered into an interstate compact to cast their electoral votes for the national popular vote winner.  When enough states – representing 270 electoral votes – join the compact, the presidential election will essentially be determined by national popular vote, obviating the need for a constitutional amendment.

               

“In a democracy, no person’s vote should be worth more than any other person’s vote.  Congress should affirm its commitment to this essential principle and definitively declare that the American people, not state-based Electors, should have the power to directly select the President and Vice President of the United States.”

Original cosponsors include,  Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Rep. Al Green (D-TX).

Reform the Electoral College Bill by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Electoral College belongs in 1787

Under the right circumstances, the political will for reform can exist.

By John Conyers. Jr.

Dean of the U.S. House
'of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

With the Electoral College meeting Monday to formally elect Donald Trump as our 45th president, it is time that we reconsider whether a political compromise approved in 1787 bears any principled or practical reason for being today.

Several serious concerns were raised at a forum I organized earlier this month featuring leading experts in history, constitutional law and political science. Most obviously, we learned that the Electoral College is anti-democratic. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has so far received over 2.8 million more votes nationwide than Trump — the largest divergence between the popular and electoral votes in history. This is the second time there has been a divergence between the popular vote and the Electoral College in the last five elections, and the fifth time that a popular-vote loser won the White House.

We also learned that the Electoral College is rooted in slavery. At our forum, Yale law professor Akhil Amar explained that slave states opposed direct elections for president because “in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves . . . could not vote. But the Electoral College . . . instead let each Southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.”

Our forum also made clear that many of the arguments in defense of the Electoral College are anachronistic. Electoral College defenders argue that it serves to check the passions of ordinary voters, pointing to Alexander Hamilton’s view in The Federalist Papers that the Electoral College would help ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

However, the Electoral College does not meet to deliberate about who should be president. The general public does not even know the electors’ identities, and the Electoral College’s choice for president has largely been reduced to mere formality. Members of the Electoral College are party loyalists who are subject to various state laws, some of which prohibit them from even exercising independent judgment. This is why over time there have been very few faithless electors, and none that have decided an election’s outcome.

Rather than protect small-population states and rural areas from domination by large-population states and urban areas, the current system encourages candidates to overlook a majority of states and focus nearly all their campaign efforts on the small number of so-called swing states. In 2016, for instance, both major party candidates largely bypassed three of the four largest states by population during the campaign. They also skipped 12 of the 13 smallest states, from “Blue” Rhode Island to “Red” Wyoming.

Finally, some Electoral College defenders argue that direct elections for president could lead to messy nationwide vote recounts. Our experience in Florida in 2000, and Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin this year, have taught us that statewide recounts under differing and confusing rules bring neither clarity nor finality to our electoral process. By contrast, a national popular vote is historically far more likely to establish a clear winner, avoiding the necessity of recounts altogether.

Many voters have told me that the political obstacles to reform are insurmountable, with a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the states. Yet in 1969 I was one of 338 members of the House of Representatives who voted on a bipartisan basis to amend the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College. As that shows, under the right circumstances the political will for reform can exist.

However, other options are available, with 11 states accounting for 165 electoral votes having already entered an interstate compact to cast their electoral votes for the national popular vote winner. Legislation to enter the compact has been recently passed by at least one legislative chamber in four more states, potentially bringing us even closer to the 270-vote threshold needed for the interstate agreement to kick in.

The Supreme Court has long held that the “conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, to the 15th, 17th, and 19th Amendments can only mean one thing — one person, one vote.”

It is time that the election of our nation’s president and vice president reflect those principles as well. The greatest democracy on Earth deserves no less.

2016 National Popular Vote Tracker
Compiled from official sources by: David Wasserman @Redistrict, Cook Political Report @CookPolitical
*Denotes Official/Certified Results; "Swing State" defined as state that flipped from '12 or was decided by less than 5%.
State	Clinton (D)	Trump (R)	Others	Clinton %	Trump %	Others %	Dem '12 Margin	Dem '16 Margin	Margin Shift	Total '12 Votes	Total '16 Votes	Raw Votes vs. '12
U.S. Total	65,844,594	62,979,616	7,804,203	48.2%	46.1%	5.7%	3.9%	2.1%	-1.8%	129,075,630	136,628,413	5.9%
13 Swing States	21,433,214	22,249,342	2,348,069	46.6%	48.3%	5.1%	3.6%	-1.8%	-5.4%	43,939,918	46,030,625	4.8%
Non-Swing States	44,411,380	40,730,274	5,456,134	49.0%	45.0%	6.0%	4.0%	4.1%	0.1%	85,135,712	90,597,788	6.4%
13 Swing States
Arizona*	1,161,167	1,252,401	159,597	45.1%	48.7%	6.2%	-9.1%	-3.5%	5.5%	2,299,254	2,573,165	11.9%
Colorado*	1,338,870	1,202,484	238,866	48.2%	43.3%	8.6%	5.4%	4.9%	-0.5%	2,569,521	2,780,220	8.2%
Florida*	4,504,975	4,617,886	297,178	47.8%	49.0%	3.2%	0.9%	-1.2%	-2.1%	8,474,179	9,420,039	11.2%
Iowa*	653,669	800,983	111,379	41.7%	51.1%	7.1%	5.8%	-9.4%	-15.2%	1,582,180	1,566,031	-1.0%
Maine*	357,735	335,593	54,599	47.8%	44.9%	7.3%	15.3%	3.0%	-12.3%	713,180	747,927	4.9%
Michigan*	2,268,839	2,279,543	250,902	47.3%	47.5%	5.2%	9.5%	-0.2%	-9.7%	4,730,961	4,799,284	1.4%
Minnesota*	1,367,716	1,322,951	254,146	46.4%	44.9%	8.6%	7.7%	1.5%	-6.2%	2,936,561	2,944,813	0.3%
Nevada*	539,260	512,058	74,067	47.9%	45.5%	6.6%	6.7%	2.4%	-4.3%	1,014,918	1,125,385	10.9%
New Hampshire*	348,526	345,790	49,842	46.8%	46.5%	6.7%	5.6%	0.4%	-5.2%	710,972	744,158	4.7%
North Carolina*	2,189,316	2,362,631	189,617	46.2%	49.8%	4.0%	-2.0%	-3.7%	-1.6%	4,505,372	4,741,564	5.2%
Ohio*	2,394,164	2,841,005	261,318	43.6%	51.7%	4.8%	3.0%	-8.1%	-11.1%	5,580,840	5,496,487	-1.5%
Pennsylvania*	2,926,441	2,970,733	218,228	47.9%	48.6%	3.6%	5.4%	-0.7%	-6.1%	5,753,546	6,115,402	6.3%
Wisconsin*	1,382,536	1,405,284	188,330	46.5%	47.2%	6.3%	6.9%	-0.8%	-7.7%	3,068,434	2,976,150	-3.0%
Non-Swing States
Alabama*	729,547	1,318,255	75,570	34.4%	62.1%	3.6%	-22.2%	-27.7%	-5.5%	2,074,338	2,123,372	2.4%
Alaska*	116,454	163,387	38,767	36.6%	51.3%	12.2%	-14.0%	-14.7%	-0.7%	300,495	318,608	6.0%
Arkansas*	380,494	684,872	65,269	33.7%	60.6%	5.8%	-23.7%	-26.9%	-3.2%	1,069,468	1,130,635	5.7%
California*	8,753,788	4,483,810	943,997	61.7%	31.6%	6.7%	23.1%	30.1%	7.0%	13,038,547	14,181,595	8.8%
Connecticut*	897,572	673,215	74,133	54.6%	40.9%	4.5%	17.3%	13.6%	-3.7%	1,558,114	1,644,920	5.6%
Delaware*	235,603	185,127	20,860	53.4%	41.9%	4.7%	18.6%	11.4%	-7.2%	413,890	441,590	6.7%
District of Columbia*	282,830	12,723	15,715	90.9%	4.1%	5.0%	83.6%	86.8%	3.1%	293,764	311,268	6.0%
Georgia*	1,877,963	2,089,104	125,306	45.9%	51.0%	3.1%	-7.8%	-5.2%	2.7%	3,900,050	4,092,373	4.9%
Hawaii*	266,891	128,847	33,199	62.2%	30.0%	7.7%	42.7%	32.2%	-10.5%	434,697	428,937	-1.3%
Idaho*	189,765	409,055	91,435	27.5%	59.3%	13.2%	-31.9%	-31.8%	0.1%	652,274	690,255	5.8%
Illinois*	3,090,729	2,146,015	299,680	55.8%	38.8%	5.4%	16.9%	17.1%	0.2%	5,242,014	5,536,424	5.6%
Indiana*	1,033,126	1,557,286	144,546	37.8%	56.9%	5.3%	-10.2%	-19.2%	-9.0%	2,624,534	2,734,958	4.2%
Kansas*	427,005	671,018	86,379	36.1%	56.7%	7.3%	-21.7%	-20.6%	1.1%	1,159,971	1,184,402	2.1%
Kentucky*	628,854	1,202,971	92,324	32.7%	62.5%	4.8%	-22.7%	-29.8%	-7.1%	1,797,212	1,924,149	7.1%
Louisiana*	780,154	1,178,638	70,240	38.4%	58.1%	3.5%	-17.2%	-19.6%	-2.4%	1,994,065	2,029,032	1.8%
Maryland*	1,677,928	943,169	160,349	60.3%	33.9%	5.8%	26.1%	26.4%	0.3%	2,707,327	2,781,446	2.7%
Massachusetts*	1,995,196	1,090,893	238,957	60.0%	32.8%	7.2%	23.1%	27.2%	4.1%	3,167,767	3,325,046	5.0%
Mississippi*	485,131	700,714	23,512	40.1%	57.9%	1.9%	-11.5%	-17.8%	-6.3%	1,285,584	1,209,357	-5.9%
Missouri*	1,071,068	1,594,511	143,026	38.1%	56.8%	5.1%	-9.4%	-18.6%	-9.3%	2,757,323	2,808,605	1.9%
Montana*	177,709	279,240	40,198	35.7%	56.2%	8.1%	-13.7%	-20.4%	-6.8%	484,048	497,147	2.7%
Nebraska*	284,494	495,961	63,772	33.7%	58.7%	7.6%	-21.8%	-25.0%	-3.3%	794,379	844,227	6.3%
New Jersey*	2,148,278	1,601,933	123,835	55.5%	41.4%	3.2%	17.8%	14.1%	-3.7%	3,640,292	3,874,046	6.4%
New Mexico*	385,234	319,666	93,418	48.3%	40.0%	11.7%	10.1%	8.2%	-1.9%	783,758	798,318	1.9%
New York*	4,547,218	2,814,346	348,562	59.0%	36.5%	4.5%	28.2%	22.5%	-5.7%	7,072,083	7,710,126	9.0%
North Dakota*	93,758	216,794	33,808	27.2%	63.0%	9.8%	-19.6%	-35.7%	-16.1%	322,932	344,360	6.6%
Oklahoma*	420,375	949,136	83,481	28.9%	65.3%	5.7%	-33.5%	-36.4%	-2.8%	1,334,872	1,452,992	8.8%
Oregon*	1,002,106	782,403	216,827	50.1%	39.1%	10.8%	12.1%	11.0%	-1.1%	1,789,270	2,001,336	11.9%
Rhode Island*	252,525	180,543	31,076	54.4%	38.9%	6.7%	27.5%	15.5%	-11.9%	446,049	464,144	4.1%
South Carolina*	855,373	1,155,389	92,265	40.7%	54.9%	4.4%	-10.5%	-14.3%	-3.8%	1,964,118	2,103,027	7.1%
South Dakota	117,442	227,701	24,904	31.7%	61.5%	6.7%	-18.0%	-29.8%	-11.8%	363,815	370,047	1.7%
Tennessee*	870,695	1,522,925	114,407	34.7%	60.7%	4.6%	-20.4%	-26.0%	-5.6%	2,458,577	2,508,027	2.0%
Texas*	3,877,868	4,685,047	406,311	43.2%	52.2%	4.5%	-15.8%	-9.0%	6.8%	7,993,851	8,969,226	12.2%
Utah*	310,676	515,231	305,523	27.5%	45.5%	27.0%	-48.0%	-18.1%	30.0%	1,017,440	1,131,430	11.2%
Vermont*	178,573	95,369	41,125	56.7%	30.3%	13.1%	35.6%	26.4%	-9.2%	299,290	315,067	5.3%
Virginia*	1,981,473	1,769,443	231,836	49.8%	44.4%	5.8%	3.9%	5.3%	1.5%	3,854,489	3,982,752	3.3%
Washington*	1,742,718	1,221,747	401,179	51.8%	36.3%	11.9%	14.9%	15.5%	0.6%	3,125,516	3,365,644	7.7%
West Virginia*	188,794	489,371	34,886	26.5%	68.6%	4.9%	-26.8%	-42.2%	-15.4%	670,438	713,051	6.4%
Wyoming*	55,973	174,419	25,457	21.9%	68.2%	10.0%	-40.8%	-46.3%	-5.5%	249,061	255,849	2.7%

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©