As my Pasta Origins posts showed you I definitely have a political junkie streak in me. I've decided to move away from being an entirely political blogger. I've grown much more cynical with the process and really don't want to have to worry about writing about it unless it's something that really piques my interest.
Electoral Politics is the area of politics that I find most interesting and what I know the most about. I mean, I basically had the electoral map for 2001-2010 memorized. I'm still working on the new maps from the new Census. I know my state along with the rest of the Rust Belt is where the bulk of the electoral vote losses are, which has hurt the Democrats. Much like John Kerry in 2004 who was already behind where Al Gore was; Obama will behind where he was in 2008 simply by votes shifting to red states. Also there is absolutely no way Obama will be able to achieve the electoral landslide he got in 2008 again.
Obama will lose 6 electoral votes (-7 from rust belt/New England states and +1 from Washington State) off the top and I'm sure the more traditional red states will return to whoever the Republican nominee will be (such as Indiana and North Carolina.) Not to fret though, if you support Obama's reelection, because he can lose a lot from 2008 and still win comfortably.
There is a lot of sentiment in this country, especially following the shenanigans of the 2000 election, to use the popular vote to decide Presidential elections. I do not share that view. It is tricky to have a nationwide elections in a nation the size and the population of ours. It is almost impossible to have an election where geography and population are fairly represented. I think the Electoral College is a more fair system in regards to geography and gives fair(ish) consideration to population.
We all know the origin of the Electoral College. How the founders put it in largely as a safe guard against the perceived idiocy of the public. The elitist origins of the Electoral College give it a bad wrap, but it also had another function; to give representation to smaller States. While small states like Wyoming are grossly over-represented, it gives them some power in Presidential politics. Therefore, a candidate and eventual President does has to give greater consideration to the smaller states. A low population State would have virtually no electoral recourse in a popular vote system.
A complaint against the Electoral College is that large parts of the Country are ignored during the campaign. I think that problem would be worse in a Popular Vote system. I think campaigns would change from competing for the so-called "Battleground States" to trying to run up margins in large cities. I know that if I were running a campaign for a Democrat that was only worried about the popular vote, my focus would be on getting out the vote in the few biggest cities. I wouldn't bother with a lot of the States that are considered important now.
I'll address specifically the potential difference between the results of the Popular Vote and the Electoral College. It has happened three times in the history of our nation that those results have differed*. It is a rare occurrence and it's never like there's someone who runs away with the popular vote and loses the Electoral College. It is and unfortunate possibility, but I think it's worth it for the advantages of the Electoral College.
A change I would make to the system would be to take free will away from the Electors themselves. It is highly unlikely that any electors will flip in modern times, but still the electorates decision should be compulsory for the elector with one exception. That exception would be in the potential incapacitation of the President-elect. There really isn't a way to deal with that scenario in the Constitution** and the Electors could help the Nation have a smooth transition.
A further reform, I've thought about would be to give the Popular Vote an electoral value. My idea for this would be to take one electoral vote from each state with 11 or more Electoral votes and have those votes be counted in the Electoral College based on the National Popular Vote. In 2012, that would make the National Popular Vote worth 17 Electoral Votes.
Of course there are selfish reasons why I like the Electoral College as well. I live in the most important*** Battleground State of them all, Ohio. The Democratic and Republican nominee are in my state frequently campaigning for the General Election. I mean who doesn't like being Courted. I also I have a lot of knowledge about the way the Electoral College works and I don't want it to be a waste.
So, what do you guys think? How should we elect the President? The Electoral College? Popular Vote? Draw Straws? Anarchy?
Thanks for reading and please comment
-Michael
*It's really only happened once. Two of those three were the two most crooked elections in our history.
**The way that scenario would likely be dealt with would be the Electoral College would elect the Vice President-elect as President. Then the new President-elect would select a Vice-President once sworn in to be confirmed by the Senate.
***This isn't going to last much longer. Ohio is getting bluer and losing Electoral Votes.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
ReplyDeletePresidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters ignored.
Voter turnout in the "battleground" states has been 67%, while turnout in the "spectator" states was 61%.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. Some insider Republicans believe under the current system in 2012, President Obama could win the electoral vote without winning the popular vote.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.
ReplyDeleteThe current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.
ReplyDeleteUnder National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, because states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), would award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning states.
Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine -- 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island -- 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont -- 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states.
Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections-- NH NM, and NV. These three states contain only 14 of the 22 (8%) medium-lowest population states' total 166 electoral votes.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. A “big city” only campaign would not win.
ReplyDeleteSuburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run can be found by examining the way presidential candidates currently campaign inside battleground states. Inside Ohio or Florida, the big cities do not receive all the attention. And, the cities of Ohio and Florida certainly do not control the outcome in those states. Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in Ohio and Florida already knows–namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.
Even in blue states with the biggest cities, urban voters don’t control statewide elections, so they can hardly control a national election. In California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and there have recently been Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger. Just as with a national vote, a vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.
The main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteThe National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections, and included in the national count that determines the candidate with the most popular votes, who then is guaranteed the majority of electoral votes needed to win the presidency. It gives a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the exclusive power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO - 68%, FL - 78%, IA 75%, MI - 73%, MO - 70%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM-- 76%, NC - 74%, OH - 70%, PA - 78%, VA - 74%, and WI - 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK - 70%, DC - 76%, DE - 75%, ID - 77%, ME - 77%, MT - 72%, NE 74%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM - 76%, OK - 81%, RI - 74%, SD - 71%, UT - 70%, VT - 75%, WV - 81%, and WY - 69%; in Southern and border states: AR - 80%,, KY- 80%, MS - 77%, MO - 70%, NC - 74%, OK - 81%, SC - 71%, TN - 83%, VA - 74%, and WV - 81%; and in other states polled: CA - 70%, CT - 74%, MA - 73%, MN - 75%, NY - 79%, OR - 76%, and WA - 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should get elected.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes -- 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
I think the shift to deciding Presidential Elections by National Popular Vote would merely shift where Candidates focus their attention. It isn't practical to run a truly national campaign.
ReplyDeleteElections are all about running up the margins. Campaigns focus on where they can win a lot of votes as well as areas will the vote will be closely contested. For example, a Democrat running in Ohio is looking to get as large of a margin as he or she can out of the Cleveland Area and is hoping to roughly break even in the Columbus Metro Area. Nationally it would be similar Candidates would focus on getting out the vote in areas where he or she can win big and keeping margins relatively even in areas that are close. Candidates would still have to focus only on certain areas if it were decided by the National Popular Vote.
It's also important to note that the Electoral College isn't just about the elections it also has ramifications when it comes to governing. Small States cannot be trampled on by the President, because they are so overrepresented by the Electoral College. If the Presidency were decided by the National Popular Vote a small state like Wyoming would just be a few hundred thousand votes. However, a Republican losing Wyoming's three Electoral Votes actually hurts his or her chances at election.
Also, the warning of Obama winning the Electoral College and losing the popular vote from 'Republican Insiders' is such a red herring. Going into every election that is actually competitive people from both parties warn that scenario would play out to their detriment. In fact in 2000, going into the Election it was believed by a lot of Political insiders that Bush would win the Popular vote and lose the election.
The reality NOW UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, is
ReplyDeletea shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes, and 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections Despite the fact that these 12 lowest population states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
Using your state example, a survey of 1,039 Wyoming voters conducted on January 4–5, 2011 showed 69% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?"
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 66% among Republicans, 77% among Democrats, and 72% among others. By gender, support was 76% among women and 62% among men. By age, support was 70% among 18-29 year olds, 68% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 70% for those older than 65.
NOW, 2/3rds of states and voters are ignored, and policies important to more than 85 million voters are not as highly prioritized as those of a handful of battleground states.
There should be no incentive, as there is now, for Ohio to continue to get 10%, Pennsylvania to get 15%, Florida to get 18%, and 36 states each get 0-1% of total national peak-season candidate advertising expenditures.
The 12 smallest states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York's use of winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming--both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.
In a 1979 Senate speech, Senator Henry Bellmon (R–Oklahoma) described how his views on the Electoral College had changed as a result of serving as national campaign director for Richard Nixon and a member of the American Bar Association’s commission studying electoral reform.
“While the consideration of the electoral college began--and I am a little embarrassed to admit this--I was convinced, as are many residents of smaller States, that the present system is a considerable advantage to less populous States such as Oklahoma. … As the deliberations of the American Bar Association Commission proceeded and as more facts became known, I came to the realization that the present electoral system does not give an advantage to the voters from the less populous States. Rather, it works to the disadvantage of small State voters who are largely ignored in the general election for President.
Senator Robert E. Dole of Kansas, the Republican nominee for President in 1996 and Republican nominee for Vice President in 1976, stated in a 1979 floor speech:
“Many persons have the impression that the electoral college benefits those persons living in small states. I feel that this is somewhat of a misconception. Through my experience with the Republican National Committee and as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1976, it became very clear that the populous states with their large blocks of electoral votes were the crucial states. It was in these states that we focused our efforts.
“Were we to switch to a system of direct election, I think we would see a resulting change in the nature of campaigning. While urban areas will still be important campaigning centers, there will be a new emphasis given to smaller states. Candidates will soon realize that all votes are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as votes from large states. That to me is one of the major attractions of direct election. Each vote carries equal importance.
“Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in States that are perceived to be single party states.
The Electoral College isn't the reason a lot of the Country is ignored. Small uncompetitive States would be ignored no matter the system. A Democrat wouldn't waste time and money in Rhode Island in either system. A Democrat knows he's going to get 4 Electoral Votes out of Rhode Island whether he spends time there or not just like he'd know he's going to get a certain margin out that State whether he goes there or not. The smaller states are over-represented in the Electoral College, which works to their benefit whether they are competitive or not.
ReplyDeleteTry to understand it, again. Elections wouldn't be about winning states under National Popular Vote.
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections, and included in the national count that determines the candidate with the most popular votes, who then is guaranteed the majority of electoral votes needed to win the presidency. It gives a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives THE MOST POPULAR VOTES IN ALL 50 STATES and DC. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
A survey of 800 Ohio voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 70% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 81% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 65% among Republicans, and 61% among Others.
By age, support for a national popular vote was 73% among 18-29 year olds, 60% among 30-45 year olds, 67% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
By gender, support for a national popular vote was 84% among women and 54% among men.
Here's the big problem I see with that particular plan. First, there really isn't a national popular vote tally kept anywhere. It is entirely a media creation. If that is going to determine who the President will be, I'd like to feel certain about the numbers. Second, I doubt the pact would last very long. Either a state would defect because it could determine the outcome of the election on it's own or a particularly partisan state that is in the pact will one out of it to avoid giving it's votes to the opposing political party's candidate. I mean there is almost no way to keep that agreement compulsory. I mean states could sue each other in Federal Courts, but the President needs to be sworn in on January 20th and it's doubtful things could be resolved by then.
ReplyDeleteI've spoken my piece about why I think the Electoral College is the preferable way to elect the President. It's not the perfect system, but I truly believe it works better for this nation that the Popular Vote would.
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each. The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.
ReplyDeleteThe common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.
Neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Existing federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).
The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action
The bill says: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."
The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.
There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.