Mississippi house provisions note

[gespb19]

No action now, but sounds like they might throw it out should Hood win the popular vote but not the electoral college.

https://mississippitoday.org/2019/11/01/judge-refuses-to-toss-provision-that-could-throw-governors-election-to-house-but-leaves-door-open-to-revisit/

[lfromnj]

Doesn't Vermont have a similarish system?

[Skill and Chance]

Doesn't Vermont have a similarish system?

Yes, but there are some major differences.

The MS rule is you must win a majority of the statewide vote and a majority of the state house districts or the State House  picks the governor by majority vote.  This language was added to the Mississippi state constitution in 1890 with the explicit, well-documented intent of preventing black candidates from being elected to statewide office.  It is literally a Jim Crow law.  The primary reason it has flown under the radar until now is that it has never changed the outcome of a general election for governor.  It was last invoked in 1999, but the state house elected the candidate who won the most votes anyway.  It continues to be a strong disadvantage for a candidate with disproportionate black support because ~1/3rd of the legislature is VRA-mandated majority black seats, meaning the median state legislative seat has a much lower black population than the state as a whole.

VT is a normal governors election by statewide popular vote if someone wins a majority.  If no candidate receives a majority, the state legislature steps in as the "runoff" election.  A majority vote of the whole legislature (State House and State Senate voting together by secret ballot) is needed to elect the governor.  Vermont does have strong 3rd parties, so this rule does get invoked fairly frequently.  It was used in 2014, 2010, and 2002.  So far the legislature has never gone against the popular vote winner.  Importantly, the Vermont constitutional provision was not racially motivated.  As far as I know, Vermont has no VRA districts at all in its state legislature.  It has been at least 90% white since it has been a state.

[Frenchrepublican]

Hood will likely lose the PV by a large margin so the electoral college provision won't be a issue

[lfromnj]

Doesn't Vermont have a similarish system?

Yes, but there are some major differences.

The MS rule is you must win a majority of the statewide vote and a majority of the state house districts or the State House  picks the governor by majority vote.  This language was added to the Mississippi state constitution in 1890 with the explicit, well-documented intent of preventing black candidates from being elected to statewide office.  It is literally a Jim Crow law.  The primary reason it has flown under the radar until now is that it has never changed the outcome of a general election for governor.  It was last invoked in 1999, but the state house elected the candidate who won the most votes anyway.  It continues to be a strong disadvantage for a candidate with disproportionate black support because ~1/3rd of the legislature is VRA-mandated majority black seats, meaning the median state legislative seat has a much lower black population than the state as a whole.

VT is a normal governors election by statewide popular vote if someone wins a majority.  If no candidate receives a majority, the state legislature steps in as the "runoff" election.  A majority vote of the whole legislature (State House and State Senate voting together by secret ballot) is needed to elect the governor.  Vermont does have strong 3rd parties, so this rule does get invoked fairly frequently.  It was used in 2014, 2010, and 2002.  So far the legislature has never gone against the popular vote winner.  Importantly, the Vermont constitutional provision was not racially motivated.  As far as I know, Vermont has no VRA districts at all in its state legislature.  It has been at least 90% white since it has been a state.

No you dont . If you win a majority of the vote the statehouse districts dont apply. It's only if you win a plurality.

[Skill and Chance]

Doesn't Vermont have a similarish system?

Yes, but there are some major differences.

The MS rule is you must win a majority of the statewide vote and a majority of the state house districts or the State House  picks the governor by majority vote.  This language was added to the Mississippi state constitution in 1890 with the explicit, well-documented intent of preventing black candidates from being elected to statewide office.  It is literally a Jim Crow law.  The primary reason it has flown under the radar until now is that it has never changed the outcome of a general election for governor.  It was last invoked in 1999, but the state house elected the candidate who won the most votes anyway.  It continues to be a strong disadvantage for a candidate with disproportionate black support because ~1/3rd of the legislature is VRA-mandated majority black seats, meaning the median state legislative seat has a much lower black population than the state as a whole.

VT is a normal governors election by statewide popular vote if someone wins a majority.  If no candidate receives a majority, the state legislature steps in as the "runoff" election.  A majority vote of the whole legislature (State House and State Senate voting together by secret ballot) is needed to elect the governor.  Vermont does have strong 3rd parties, so this rule does get invoked fairly frequently.  It was used in 2014, 2010, and 2002.  So far the legislature has never gone against the popular vote winner.  Importantly, the Vermont constitutional provision was not racially motivated.  As far as I know, Vermont has no VRA districts at all in its state legislature.  It has been at least 90% white since it has been a state.

No you dont . If you win a majority of the vote the statehouse districts dont apply. It's only if you win a plurality.

For a long time, I thought that was true as well, but it isn't.  Under current MS law, you have to win a majority of the state house seats and a majority of the statewide PV to win outright.  If you fail to do either of those, the state house steps in to decide the winner.  The 1999 MS-GOV election was decided by a plurality statewide, which has led to this confusion, but it doesn't matter if the winner has 60% of the statewide PV in MS if they fail to win a majority of the state house districts.

[Skill and Chance]

Hood will likely lose the PV by a large margin so the electoral college provision won't be a issue

BTW I agree with this. 

I still think the constitutional language needs to be thrown out for clear racist intent when it was passed. 

[lfromnj]

Doesn't Vermont have a similarish system?

Yes, but there are some major differences.

The MS rule is you must win a majority of the statewide vote and a majority of the state house districts or the State House  picks the governor by majority vote.  This language was added to the Mississippi state constitution in 1890 with the explicit, well-documented intent of preventing black candidates from being elected to statewide office.  It is literally a Jim Crow law.  The primary reason it has flown under the radar until now is that it has never changed the outcome of a general election for governor.  It was last invoked in 1999, but the state house elected the candidate who won the most votes anyway.  It continues to be a strong disadvantage for a candidate with disproportionate black support because ~1/3rd of the legislature is VRA-mandated majority black seats, meaning the median state legislative seat has a much lower black population than the state as a whole.

VT is a normal governors election by statewide popular vote if someone wins a majority.  If no candidate receives a majority, the state legislature steps in as the "runoff" election.  A majority vote of the whole legislature (State House and State Senate voting together by secret ballot) is needed to elect the governor.  Vermont does have strong 3rd parties, so this rule does get invoked fairly frequently.  It was used in 2014, 2010, and 2002.  So far the legislature has never gone against the popular vote winner.  Importantly, the Vermont constitutional provision was not racially motivated.  As far as I know, Vermont has no VRA districts at all in its state legislature.  It has been at least 90% white since it has been a state.

No you dont . If you win a majority of the vote the statehouse districts dont apply. It's only if you win a plurality.

For a long time, I thought that was true as well, but it isn't.  Under current MS law, you have to win a majority of the state house seats and a majority of the statewide PV to win outright.  If you fail to do either of those, the state house steps in to decide the winner.  The 1999 MS-GOV election was decided by a plurality statewide, which has led to this confusion, but it doesn't matter if the winner has 60% of the statewide PV in MS if they fail to win a majority of the state house districts.

Damn it really was confusing, anyway I think the district thing should thrown out but not the majority requirement.

[Skill and Chance]

Doesn't Vermont have a similarish system?

Yes, but there are some major differences.

The MS rule is you must win a majority of the statewide vote and a majority of the state house districts or the State House  picks the governor by majority vote.  This language was added to the Mississippi state constitution in 1890 with the explicit, well-documented intent of preventing black candidates from being elected to statewide office.  It is literally a Jim Crow law.  The primary reason it has flown under the radar until now is that it has never changed the outcome of a general election for governor.  It was last invoked in 1999, but the state house elected the candidate who won the most votes anyway.  It continues to be a strong disadvantage for a candidate with disproportionate black support because ~1/3rd of the legislature is VRA-mandated majority black seats, meaning the median state legislative seat has a much lower black population than the state as a whole.

VT is a normal governors election by statewide popular vote if someone wins a majority.  If no candidate receives a majority, the state legislature steps in as the "runoff" election.  A majority vote of the whole legislature (State House and State Senate voting together by secret ballot) is needed to elect the governor.  Vermont does have strong 3rd parties, so this rule does get invoked fairly frequently.  It was used in 2014, 2010, and 2002.  So far the legislature has never gone against the popular vote winner.  Importantly, the Vermont constitutional provision was not racially motivated.  As far as I know, Vermont has no VRA districts at all in its state legislature.  It has been at least 90% white since it has been a state.

No you dont . If you win a majority of the vote the statehouse districts dont apply. It's only if you win a plurality.

For a long time, I thought that was true as well, but it isn't.  Under current MS law, you have to win a majority of the state house seats and a majority of the statewide PV to win outright.  If you fail to do either of those, the state house steps in to decide the winner.  The 1999 MS-GOV election was decided by a plurality statewide, which has led to this confusion, but it doesn't matter if the winner has 60% of the statewide PV in MS if they fail to win a majority of the state house districts.

Damn it really was confusing, anyway I think the district thing should thrown out but not the majority requirement.

Hmmm... having the state house be the runoff if no one gets a majority is basically the federal presidential system after the 12th Amendment.  It's certainly less objectionable than denying a statewide majority winner the governorship in a state house vote, but in a state with a minority group entitled to VRA majority districts, it still seems objectionable because it limits their influence on the "runoff" round in the state legislature vs. their influence on the statewide vote because they will be concentrated into a lower percentatge of districts than their percentage of the statewide vote.

Why not just have a statewide PV runoff if plurality wins are the concern?  I think it would be best if every state had the Georgia system: runoff if no majority in the party primary and then a runoff if no majority in the GE. 

[Mr. Matt]

Doesn't Vermont have a similarish system?

Yes, but there are some major differences.

The MS rule is you must win a majority of the statewide vote and a majority of the state house districts or the State House  picks the governor by majority vote.  This language was added to the Mississippi state constitution in 1890 with the explicit, well-documented intent of preventing black candidates from being elected to statewide office.  It is literally a Jim Crow law.  The primary reason it has flown under the radar until now is that it has never changed the outcome of a general election for governor.  It was last invoked in 1999, but the state house elected the candidate who won the most votes anyway.  It continues to be a strong disadvantage for a candidate with disproportionate black support because ~1/3rd of the legislature is VRA-mandated majority black seats, meaning the median state legislative seat has a much lower black population than the state as a whole.

VT is a normal governors election by statewide popular vote if someone wins a majority.  If no candidate receives a majority, the state legislature steps in as the "runoff" election.  A majority vote of the whole legislature (State House and State Senate voting together by secret ballot) is needed to elect the governor.  Vermont does have strong 3rd parties, so this rule does get invoked fairly frequently.  It was used in 2014, 2010, and 2002.  So far the legislature has never gone against the popular vote winner.  Importantly, the Vermont constitutional provision was not racially motivated.  As far as I know, Vermont has no VRA districts at all in its state legislature.  It has been at least 90% white since it has been a state.

NC I think has a EC-like system as well, or at least a system where the state legislature chooses a governor if no majority, since it was almost invoked in the Cooper-McCrory 2016 race.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Irrelevent, Reeves win win easily.