Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[Simfan34]

I don't see a multi-party system developing any time soon.

[muon2]

I don't see a multi-party system developing any time soon.

Three-way races are not uncommon, and this type of proposal would encourage multiple presidential candidates. There's nothing wrong with that if there's a mechanism to provide a runoff. The EC does that in a pre-modern-technology way. Any modern proposal should be able to address an outcome with a small minority plurality, and relying on the fact that it hasn't happened recently does not provide me with comfort when it come to the presidency.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

How come I haven't seen this thread before?!

[Franzl]

This continues to be one of these uniquely American debates, creating problems that don't exist and not looking at any other countries and learning from them.

There is no possible, legitimate argument in favor of the Electoral College. I'm aware of the difficulty associated with changing the Constitution, but that doesn't make this issue any less absurd.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is no possible, legitimate argument in favor of the Electoral College.

Wrong.

First off, while nowhere near as diverse as they were when the Constitution is adopted, the States have varying voter registration requirements. Secondly, voter participation rates vary as well. The EC serves as a mechanism to balance those out, though the added EVs from the Senate should probably go.  In an idealized EC system for the United States, the voters of each state and territory would select 1 elector per 50,000 resident citizens with the electors being proportionately elected based on who they pledged to support.

Not that I think we'll ever get that system for much the same reasons why we won't get rid of the EC until and unless we rewrite the Constitution from scratch.

[Mr. Morden]

So there's talk now about how Obama is doing better in statewide polls than he is in national polls.  While it's quite a longshot, what do you think would be the impact on the NPV's prospects if Obama ends up winning reelection via the electoral college despite losing the national popular vote?  Would enough Republicans suddenly become supporters that it would start passing in heavily GOP states, and actually manage to reach 270 EV and be enacted by the end of the decade?

I don't see small GOP-controlled states going that way. The EC gives them more voice than NPVIC. It would be interesting to watch a state like TX, however. They could suddenly be on the radar for presidential campaigns with NPVIC in place.

It doesn't have to be the small GOP-controlled states, large/medium ones will do as well.  The NPVIC just needs something beyond the present band of Democratic-leaning states where it's been passed.  If it passes in NY, then that group will be mostly tapped out.  It needs to pass in some Republican or swing states, which means that it needs more GOP support.  If Romney wins the popular vote but loses the presidency because of the electoral college, then maybe it'll pick up some of that needed GOP support.

[greenforest32]

There really hasn't been any action on this since 2011 and the Oregon state house just passed it 38-21: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ore-House-backs-popular-vote-to-elect-president-4445731.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see the compact hitting 270 EVs in 2016 if it's only Democrats pushing it. There's too many Republican state legislatures or Republican Governors that would veto it like in NV/NM/etc (Arnold vetoed it twice in California) for that to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Currently_active_bills

[Antonio the Sixth]

What we need is a Republican winning the popular vote and losing in the EC. With 2012 being closer, it could have happened. And it's even more likely to happen during the two elections before the next reapportionment.

[Stranger in a strange land]

What we need is a Republican winning the popular vote and losing in the EC. With 2012 being closer, it could have happened. And it's even more likely to happen during the two elections before the next reapportionment.

More likely, they would just try to allot EVs by congressional districts in swing states where they control the legislature, while making sure that solid Republican states continue to use WTA.

[politicallefty]

The NPVIC has now passed both Houses of the Rhode Island Legislature. It has the support of Governor Chafee.

The New York Assembly also recently passed the NPVIC 100-40. The NY Senate has overwhelmingly voted in favour of it in previous sessions. If it takes up the bill again, I have a hard time not seeing it become law in New York.

If you add Rhode Island and New York, the compact will be up to 165 electoral votes. However, I think if it's ever to actually take effect, it's going to need to be passed in some Republican states.

[greenforest32]

Doesn't look like it's going to pass in Oregon this year: http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2013/06/national_popular_vote_founder.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[muon2]

What we need is a Republican winning the popular vote and losing in the EC. With 2012 being closer, it could have happened. And it's even more likely to happen during the two elections before the next reapportionment.

In 2012 Obama built a structural majority in the EC. A look at the polling showed him running ahead in the EV even when losing the PV. Nationally the parties see things like the EC as they do gerrymandering - as a highly political tool. If the situation reverses 2000 in a future election, I expect you will see some Dem states push to withdraw from the compact.

[Space7]

This would make elections much, much fairer. I can sum it up in a couple points.

-Whoever gets the most votes, wins. (Does this not make sense to anyone? Is it fair that someone who got less votes than an opponent should win?)

-Every vote will have an impact in the election, not just the swing states. (cough, Ohio, cough.)

-It will almost entirely eliminate the practice of "pork barreling" e.g. giving undue attention to swing states in order to better your political party's standing.

-Every person's vote weighs the same, so Californians don't have to have barely a quarter of the voting power of a person from Wyoming.

When most people's votes don't matter at all (just look at all the states where the political parties didn't spend any money), you no longer live in a democracy, where every person's voice should count.

If you think a proportionally representational system doesn't work, all you have to do is look at, say, Sweden. Why would people want to stick with an Industrial revolution aged voting system like the Electoral College?
 

[Smid]

This would make elections much, much fairer. I can sum it up in a couple points.

-Whoever gets the most votes, wins. (Does this not make sense to anyone? Is it fair that someone who got less votes than an opponent should win?)

-Every vote will have an impact in the election, not just the swing states. (cough, Ohio, cough.)

-It will almost entirely eliminate the practice of "pork barreling" e.g. giving undue attention to swing states in order to better your political party's standing.

-Every person's vote weighs the same, so Californians don't have to have barely a quarter of the voting power of a person from Wyoming.

When most people's votes don't matter at all (just look at all the states where the political parties didn't spend any money), you no longer live in a democracy, where every person's voice should count.

If you think a proportionally representational system doesn't work, all you have to do is look at, say, Sweden. Why would people want to stick with an Industrial revolution aged voting system like the Electoral College?
 

How would you proportionally elect someone to the Presidency? Perhaps each candidate holds it for a certain number of months, based on the proportion of the vote?

[muon2]

This would make elections much, much fairer. I can sum it up in a couple points.

-Whoever gets the most votes, wins. (Does this not make sense to anyone? Is it fair that someone who got less votes than an opponent should win?)

-Every vote will have an impact in the election, not just the swing states. (cough, Ohio, cough.)

-It will almost entirely eliminate the practice of "pork barreling" e.g. giving undue attention to swing states in order to better your political party's standing.

-Every person's vote weighs the same, so Californians don't have to have barely a quarter of the voting power of a person from Wyoming.

When most people's votes don't matter at all (just look at all the states where the political parties didn't spend any money), you no longer live in a democracy, where every person's voice should count.

If you think a proportionally representational system doesn't work, all you have to do is look at, say, Sweden. Why would people want to stick with an Industrial revolution aged voting system like the Electoral College?
 

I presume that you are also then in favor of going to direct elections for PM of Canada (or Governor General?) based on your avatar.

If not, then wouldn't US electors elected by district, who then select a president based on the majority party, be equivalent to MPs determining who the prime minister should be based on the majority party? Certainly it's possible that the PM's party could have fewer total votes than the runner-up party as long as they win a majority of seats.

[Space7]

This would make elections much, much fairer. I can sum it up in a couple points.

-Whoever gets the most votes, wins. (Does this not make sense to anyone? Is it fair that someone who got less votes than an opponent should win?)

-Every vote will have an impact in the election, not just the swing states. (cough, Ohio, cough.)

-It will almost entirely eliminate the practice of "pork barreling" e.g. giving undue attention to swing states in order to better your political party's standing.

-Every person's vote weighs the same, so Californians don't have to have barely a quarter of the voting power of a person from Wyoming.

When most people's votes don't matter at all (just look at all the states where the political parties didn't spend any money), you no longer live in a democracy, where every person's voice should count.

If you think a proportionally representational system doesn't work, all you have to do is look at, say, Sweden. Why would people want to stick with an Industrial revolution aged voting system like the Electoral College?
 

I presume that you are also then in favor of going to direct elections for PM of Canada (or Governor General?) based on your avatar.

If not, then wouldn't US electors elected by district, who then select a president based on the majority party, be equivalent to MPs determining who the prime minister should be based on the majority party? Certainly it's possible that the PM's party could have fewer total votes than the runner-up party as long as they win a majority of seats.

No, I don't think the US should adopt Canada's system (I never said that, and really, Canada's system isn't much better than the American system)

This campaign isn't designed to switch the American system to the Canadian system anyways. It is simply designed to make American elections more fair and sensible (Whoever gets the most votes of any party wins, every vote has an impact,  no more pork barreling , votes weigh the same).

I think this new and improved system proposed by the campaign is simply a stepping stone to a "true" rep-by-pop system (e.g. Sweden) in which pretty much everything is as good as it can possibly get, as far as I'm concerned.

Incidentally, does everyone know how Nordic elections work? Read the full article to find out what we're missing over here (no skimming!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_sweden

[greenforest32]

This would make elections much, much fairer. I can sum it up in a couple points.

-Whoever gets the most votes, wins. (Does this not make sense to anyone? Is it fair that someone who got less votes than an opponent should win?)

-Every vote will have an impact in the election, not just the swing states. (cough, Ohio, cough.)

-It will almost entirely eliminate the practice of "pork barreling" e.g. giving undue attention to swing states in order to better your political party's standing.

-Every person's vote weighs the same, so Californians don't have to have barely a quarter of the voting power of a person from Wyoming.

When most people's votes don't matter at all (just look at all the states where the political parties didn't spend any money), you no longer live in a democracy, where every person's voice should count.

If you think a proportionally representational system doesn't work, all you have to do is look at, say, Sweden. Why would people want to stick with an Industrial revolution aged voting system like the Electoral College?

Not to mention it reduces the hidden incentive to suppress the vote by greatly reducing the relative power of said tactic. By placing the electoral vote above the popular vote there is no drawback to winning a state's electoral votes with a turn-out of 30% vs 50% vs 70% where as if there's a national popular vote, it's the raw winning margin of total votes that decides the election so winning Texas 57%-41% with the state having a voting-eligible population turn-out of 54% won't be as good/important as winning Texas 57%-41% with turn-out of 70%+.

Consider that in 2012 Democrats had a winning vote margin of 3m in California, ~2m in New York, and ~880k in Illinois while Republicans had a winning vote margin of 1.26m in Texas, ~500k in Tennessee, and ~490k in Utah. Of course I recognize that there's population differences but the point is that with the national popular vote, you have to win the votes of people as opposed to the "votes of states" and that means votes in one state are worth as much as votes in any other state irrespective of said states' population.

That's different than how it is currently with the Electoral College because the relative "worth" of a state's population is automatically tied to its electoral votes, regardless of how many people actually turn-out. So Texas is worth 7% in an election (38/538 EC votes) regardless of how many people vote. By going to the popular vote you eliminate that disconnect and then have an incentive to expand the electorate with things like automatic/same-day voter registration and early voting because candidates won't be chasing arbitrary geographic-based votes (Electoral votes), they will be trying to win more universal votes (the popular vote).

In a 50/50-ish state that could easily decide the election because of its relative position, Florida Republicans are far more concerned with maintaining the state's felony disenfranchisement that blocks 10% of the state's electorate (and 23% of the state's blacks) from the polls than they are of expanding the electorate with increased voting rights.

edit: clearer wording

I presume that you are also then in favor of going to direct elections for PM of Canada (or Governor General?) based on your avatar.

If not, then wouldn't US electors elected by district, who then select a president based on the majority party, be equivalent to MPs determining who the prime minister should be based on the majority party? Certainly it's possible that the PM's party could have fewer total votes than the runner-up party as long as they win a majority of seats.

It's more likely the US abolishes/nullifies the Electoral College than it is that we adopt a parliamentary system and I doubt people who favor the US adopting the national popular vote would favor switching to a PM appointed by a party elected under first-past-the-post.

[muon2]

This would make elections much, much fairer. I can sum it up in a couple points.

-Whoever gets the most votes, wins. (Does this not make sense to anyone? Is it fair that someone who got less votes than an opponent should win?)

-Every vote will have an impact in the election, not just the swing states. (cough, Ohio, cough.)

-It will almost entirely eliminate the practice of "pork barreling" e.g. giving undue attention to swing states in order to better your political party's standing.

-Every person's vote weighs the same, so Californians don't have to have barely a quarter of the voting power of a person from Wyoming.

When most people's votes don't matter at all (just look at all the states where the political parties didn't spend any money), you no longer live in a democracy, where every person's voice should count.

If you think a proportionally representational system doesn't work, all you have to do is look at, say, Sweden. Why would people want to stick with an Industrial revolution aged voting system like the Electoral College?
 

I presume that you are also then in favor of going to direct elections for PM of Canada (or Governor General?) based on your avatar.

If not, then wouldn't US electors elected by district, who then select a president based on the majority party, be equivalent to MPs determining who the prime minister should be based on the majority party? Certainly it's possible that the PM's party could have fewer total votes than the runner-up party as long as they win a majority of seats.

No, I don't think the US should adopt Canada's system (I never said that, and really, Canada's system isn't much better than the American system)

This campaign isn't designed to switch the American system to the Canadian system anyways. It is simply designed to make American elections more fair and sensible (Whoever gets the most votes of any party wins, every vote has an impact,  no more pork barreling , votes weigh the same).

I think this new and improved system proposed by the campaign is simply a stepping stone to a "true" rep-by-pop system (e.g. Sweden) in which pretty much everything is as good as it can possibly get, as far as I'm concerned.

Incidentally, does everyone know how Nordic elections work? Read the full article to find out what we're missing over here (no skimming!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_sweden

I did not suggest that you think the US should adopt Canada's system. I'm suggesting that if you are consistent you should advocate direct election of the PM of Canada as well as that of the US.

[muon2]

This would make elections much, much fairer. I can sum it up in a couple points.

-Whoever gets the most votes, wins. (Does this not make sense to anyone? Is it fair that someone who got less votes than an opponent should win?)

-Every vote will have an impact in the election, not just the swing states. (cough, Ohio, cough.)

-It will almost entirely eliminate the practice of "pork barreling" e.g. giving undue attention to swing states in order to better your political party's standing.

-Every person's vote weighs the same, so Californians don't have to have barely a quarter of the voting power of a person from Wyoming.

When most people's votes don't matter at all (just look at all the states where the political parties didn't spend any money), you no longer live in a democracy, where every person's voice should count.

If you think a proportionally representational system doesn't work, all you have to do is look at, say, Sweden. Why would people want to stick with an Industrial revolution aged voting system like the Electoral College?
 

I presume that you are also then in favor of going to direct elections for PM of Canada (or Governor General?) based on your avatar.

If not, then wouldn't US electors elected by district, who then select a president based on the majority party, be equivalent to MPs determining who the prime minister should be based on the majority party? Certainly it's possible that the PM's party could have fewer total votes than the runner-up party as long as they win a majority of seats.

No, I don't think the US should adopt Canada's system (I never said that, and really, Canada's system isn't much better than the American system)

This campaign isn't designed to switch the American system to the Canadian system anyways. It is simply designed to make American elections more fair and sensible (Whoever gets the most votes of any party wins, every vote has an impact,  no more pork barreling , votes weigh the same).

I think this new and improved system proposed by the campaign is simply a stepping stone to a "true" rep-by-pop system (e.g. Sweden) in which pretty much everything is as good as it can possibly get, as far as I'm concerned.

Incidentally, does everyone know how Nordic elections work? Read the full article to find out what we're missing over here (no skimming!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_sweden

I did not suggest that you think the US should adopt Canada's system. I'm suggesting that if you are consistent you should advocate direct election of the PM of Canada as well as that of the US.

[Space7]

This would make elections much, much fairer. I can sum it up in a couple points.

-Whoever gets the most votes, wins. (Does this not make sense to anyone? Is it fair that someone who got less votes than an opponent should win?)

-Every vote will have an impact in the election, not just the swing states. (cough, Ohio, cough.)

-It will almost entirely eliminate the practice of "pork barreling" e.g. giving undue attention to swing states in order to better your political party's standing.

-Every person's vote weighs the same, so Californians don't have to have barely a quarter of the voting power of a person from Wyoming.

When most people's votes don't matter at all (just look at all the states where the political parties didn't spend any money), you no longer live in a democracy, where every person's voice should count.

If you think a proportionally representational system doesn't work, all you have to do is look at, say, Sweden. Why would people want to stick with an Industrial revolution aged voting system like the Electoral College?
 

I presume that you are also then in favor of going to direct elections for PM of Canada (or Governor General?) based on your avatar.

If not, then wouldn't US electors elected by district, who then select a president based on the majority party, be equivalent to MPs determining who the prime minister should be based on the majority party? Certainly it's possible that the PM's party could have fewer total votes than the runner-up party as long as they win a majority of seats.

No, I don't think the US should adopt Canada's system (I never said that, and really, Canada's system isn't much better than the American system)

This campaign isn't designed to switch the American system to the Canadian system anyways. It is simply designed to make American elections more fair and sensible (Whoever gets the most votes of any party wins, every vote has an impact,  no more pork barreling , votes weigh the same).

I think this new and improved system proposed by the campaign is simply a stepping stone to a "true" rep-by-pop system (e.g. Sweden) in which pretty much everything is as good as it can possibly get, as far as I'm concerned.

Incidentally, does everyone know how Nordic elections work? Read the full article to find out what we're missing over here (no skimming!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_sweden

I did not suggest that you think the US should adopt Canada's system. I'm suggesting that if you are consistent you should advocate direct election of the PM of Canada as well as that of the US.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes, electoral reform in Canada would be great, but it doesn't look like it's likely going to happen any time soon (because Constitutional reform would be needed).

I'm happy that this American campaign found this constitutional loophole partially because I hope our nearest neighbor adopting rep-by-pop will cataput Canadian politicians into action.

[Citizen Hats]

I did not suggest that you think the US should adopt Canada's system. I'm suggesting that if you are consistent you should advocate direct election of the PM of Canada as well as that of the US.

I for one wouldn't mind if the EV were distributed by congressional district, with the caveat that Americans simply can't be trusted to take the politics out of redistricting. The rest of the English Speaking world does it fine, but the political atmosphere in the US is so poisonous as to make that impossible outside of super-majority states

[barfbag]

There is no possible, legitimate argument in favor of the Electoral College.

Wrong.

First off, while nowhere near as diverse as they were when the Constitution is adopted, the States have varying voter registration requirements. Secondly, voter participation rates vary as well. The EC serves as a mechanism to balance those out, though the added EVs from the Senate should probably go.  In an idealized EC system for the United States, the voters of each state and territory would select 1 elector per 50,000 resident citizens with the electors being proportionately elected based on who they pledged to support.

Not that I think we'll ever get that system for much the same reasons why we won't get rid of the EC until and unless we rewrite the Constitution from scratch.

Very true. I would like to see a federal law requiring fingerprinting at the polls. The EC is what protects us from the majority and keeps our system in check. It must be kept in check in a similar matter that the 3 branches of government keep each other in check. Government is not to be trusted and that's why our founding fathers created the system they did, to keep government and the majority in check.

[greenforest32]

The NPVIC has now passed both Houses of the Rhode Island Legislature. It has the support of Governor Chafee.

The New York Assembly also recently passed the NPVIC 100-40. The NY Senate has overwhelmingly voted in favour of it in previous sessions. If it takes up the bill again, I have a hard time not seeing it become law in New York.

If you add Rhode Island and New York, the compact will be up to 165 electoral votes. However, I think if it's ever to actually take effect, it's going to need to be passed in some Republican states.

Rhode Island officially joins the compact as Gov. Chafee signs the bill: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52462434/ns/local_news-providence_ri/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The aforementioned Oregon bill died in the state senate (think the same happened in NY). Kitzhaber supports it and Democrats may net a state senate seat or two in 2014 so it could be back in 2015.

The compact definitely isn't happening by 2016 at this pace.

[Space7]

The NPVIC has now passed both Houses of the Rhode Island Legislature. It has the support of Governor Chafee.

The New York Assembly also recently passed the NPVIC 100-40. The NY Senate has overwhelmingly voted in favour of it in previous sessions. If it takes up the bill again, I have a hard time not seeing it become law in New York.

If you add Rhode Island and New York, the compact will be up to 165 electoral votes. However, I think if it's ever to actually take effect, it's going to need to be passed in some Republican states.

Rhode Island officially joins the compact as Gov. Chafee signs the bill: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52462434/ns/local_news-providence_ri/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The aforementioned Oregon bill died in the state senate (think the same happened in NY). Kitzhaber supports it and Democrats may net a state senate seat or two in 2014 so it could be back in 2015.

The compact definitely isn't happening by 2016 at this pace.

And as little Rhode Island chips in it's four electoral votes the compact passes the half way mark, reaching 136, just past 135.

[politicallefty]

I didn't see this posted anywhere, but the Oklahoma Senate has passed the NPVIC:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if it passes the Oklahoma House, I'd be quite surprised if Governor Fallin signs it into law (though I don't believe she has made her position known as of yet).