Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Presidential Election Process => Topic started by: zorkpolitics on February 25, 2006, 12:00:57 PM



Title: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on February 25, 2006, 12:00:57 PM
In what is probably the most serious challenge to the way the Electoral College functions in 200 years, a collection of former officials have banded together to make the Electoral College state by state system irrelevant.  They are campaigning to get enough states to award their electoral votes to the National Popular vote winner, rather than their state winner. Thus guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner will win.
Clearly this would shift focus from campaigns in battleground states, to campaigns to maximizing turnout in each parties safe states. 
It would not be surprising if that kind of a campaign was even more polarized than current campaigns, with candidates pandering to their base and ignoring swing voters.

see:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on February 25, 2006, 01:06:31 PM
And what State politician in his right mind is going to pass this?  No safe State is going to give the opposing party the chance to claim its electoral votes, and no swing State is going to want Presidential attention diffused away from it.  Possibly this might sneak in via a referendum in a few states, but not enough to reach the 270 electoral vote margin to make this work.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: J. J. on February 25, 2006, 05:44:51 PM
Notice the "former" in their titles.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: MasterJedi on February 25, 2006, 06:03:10 PM
Hopefully this will fail so it doesn't screw up the system. And it looks like it will fail as well.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Kevin on February 25, 2006, 10:51:18 PM
I really hope this does fail because to get rid of something so importent to our political process and history is bull sh!t!   


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: dazzleman on February 26, 2006, 08:56:30 AM
What state in their right mind would agree to this?  Does a state like NY want to be forced to give its electoral votes to George Bush, whatever their voters say?

I wonder if this is even constitutional.  It seems a back-door way to change the constitution without an amendment.  I give it the thumbs down.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Beet on February 26, 2006, 02:57:25 PM
Oh fun, game theory.

Let O = {A, B, C, D} be a set of possible policy outcomes, S = {set of states}, and Di = {0, 1} be a decision set, where i represents state i.

Let F(x)i = Ui, where

(1) U is the total benefit gained by state i, measured in terms of the attention that it receives from presidential campaigns, and, by extension, from first-term presidents and political parties.

(2) F(x)i is a function with a domain as the set of possibly policy outcomes O.

Define
A = Republican candidate is the winner, and the Republican candidate is highly attuned to the needs of the battleground states
B = Republican candidate is the winner, and the Republican candidate is highly attuned to the needs of all the states
C = Democratic candidate is the winner, and the Democratic candidate is highly attuned to the needs of all the states
D = Democratic candidate is the winner, and the Democratic candidate is highly attuned to the needs of the battleground states

Suppose that there are 20 states i=1...5 have a function defined such that
F(A) > F(B) > F(D) > F(C)

i=6...10 have F(x)i defined such that
F(B) > F(A) > F(C) > F(D)

i=11...15 have F(x)i defined such that
F(D) > F(C) > F(A) > F(B)

i=16...20 have F(x)i defined such that
F(C) > F(D) > F(B) > F(A)

Now define
Di = 0: state i DOES NOT award its votes to the popular vote winner.
Di = 1: state i DOES award its votes to the popular vote winner.

Now define an aggregate state decision function

Sum(i=1...n=20) {G(X)i} = O{P(A),P(B),P(C),P(D)}

Where G(X)'s domain is defined over D {0, 1} and its range is a probability distribution of the set of outcomes.
Since F(X)i takes domain of O, we can simply substitute F(X)i on the right-hand-side to obtain the aggregate state
decision-->utility function

Sum(i=1...n=20) {G(X)i} = Ui

It is easy to see that P(A) and P(B) are increasing functions in Sum(i=11...n=20) {G(X)i}, in the sense that, if the Democratic
candidate were to lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote, outcomes may be shifted from P(C) to P(B).

On the other hand, the Republican candidate's popular vote basis becomes evenly spread across the country, so Democratic states still prefer P(B) over P(A). The same goes
for Republican states with Democratic Presidents for Sum(i=1...n=10) {G(X)i}.

Furthermore,the likelihood of the popular vote and electoral vote going in different directions, while
possible (and strong in our current memory from 2000) is extremely small, it having occured only once in 112 years, and then under heavy dispute. There
are well documented theoretic reasons for this that apply irrespective of how close an election is.

It is also easy to see that P(B) and P(C) are increasing functions in Sum(i=1...n=20) {G(X)i}, and they take on significant values as
states that have more electoral votes choose D = 1. For example, if CALIFORNIA were to adopt D = 1, the Democratic candidate's
guarantee-victory threshold under the criteria of winning the electoral vote but not the popular vote increases from 270 EVs to 325 EVs,
causing a substantial shift in the Democratic candidate's calculus towards F(C) over F(D). The same goes with TEXAS on the Republican
side, shifting his calculus from F(A) toward F(B). The probabilities here are NOT extremely small.

Since battleground states have a strict preference F(A) > F(B) and F(D) > F(C) and Sum(i) {G(X)i} is nonincreasing in utility otherwise,
they have a clear preference for D = 0.

Safe states on the other hand are confronted with a conflicting set of factors. They strictly prefer F(B) > F(A) and F(C) > F(D), but D = 1 is nonincreasing
over the partisan probabilities. If any safe state chooses D = 0 or D = 1, therefore, they are not maximizing their potential utility. The safe states'
ideal would be all-states > battleground-states, yet at the same time without punishing their party relative to the other party.

I argue this is a classic collective action problem easily solved by contract theory. Suppose that New York and Texas, for example, both have roughly an equivalent
number of electoral votes. The legislature of New York can then act unilaterally and pass a bill awarding its votes to the popular vote winner on the condition
that Texas does the same, or on the condition that a list of named states does the same, or on the condition that states satisfying certain characteristics do the same.
Texas then faces a strict preference with no risk to reciprocate by passing a similiar bill of its own, establishing a collective benefit for both states without
sacrificing partisan preferences.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on March 01, 2006, 11:28:37 PM
I ran across a relevant article (http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm) from Discover magazine in 1996. I'll have to look up the actual paper its based on, but the theory is interesting. It suggests that given that there are more uneven elections than there are even elections, voter power is maximized in an electoral college system compared to direct voting. Baseball fans will particularly appreciate the case study in the article.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 02, 2006, 02:43:45 PM
Yeah, I hope all the Blue (Dem) states sign onto this.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: dazzleman on March 25, 2006, 08:37:31 AM
This is a ridiculous scheme.  We should stick with the current system.

And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on March 26, 2006, 08:54:36 AM
Add David Broder, the senior columnist for the Washington Post to those opposed to this idea. His column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032401714.html) today explains why.

Quote
...

So, they argue, let's move to a system in which all votes count equally, because that will force the candidates to campaign and advertise everywhere.

That argument is a bit curious. It seems to assume that voters in New York and Texas are somehow excluded from awareness of everything that happens in the campaign -- as if the newspapers and TV stations in their states were not covering it every day.

Meanwhile, it ignores the implications of a direct election plan for two of the fundamental characteristics of the American scheme of government: the federal system and the two-party system.

It is no accident that the Founders chose to elect the president by counting votes in the states, since they wanted to emphasize that this is a federal republic with sovereignty shared between the states and Washington. Past efforts to abolish the electoral college have foundered on the objections of small states, which worry that they would be ignored in the pursuit of giant voting blocs in big population centers. Have their claims no merit?

As for the party system, past proposals for direct election have snagged on the question of allowing a simple plurality to win or requiring a runoff if no candidate receives more than, say, 40 percent of the vote. Richie conceded in an interview that no runoff provision would be possible under this scheme unless all 50 states agreed -- an unlikely eventuality.
...

That is why a change of this scale requires careful consideration -- something the amendment process provides and this mechanism is designed to circumvent. A change of this sort should not be created by 11 of the 50 state legislatures.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ?????????? on April 02, 2006, 08:21:29 AM
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Bugs on April 03, 2006, 09:14:37 PM
If only the eleven largest states joined this pact, the required 270 electoral votes would be in their control.  It should be struck down by the Supreme Court.  If the Electoral College is to be abolished, it should be done Constitutionally.  But it shouldn't be changed.  The founding fathers knew what they were doing.  The president is chosen by the states, not by the people directly.   


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on April 10, 2006, 01:41:07 PM
And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

You don't seem to understand how it would work.  Each state law would only go into effect once a sufficient number of other states have passed similar laws as well.

Let's say that the 11 biggest states (which collectively have 271 electoral votes) all decide that they are being screwed by the small states in the electoral college.  If those 11 states all decide to vote as a block for the popular vote winner in every election, then the popular vote winner will always win.  So I don't think it's as simple as "handing your voting power to other people".  You're also taking away voting power from other states.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Gabu on April 10, 2006, 06:22:54 PM
If only the eleven largest states joined this pact, the required 270 electoral votes would be in their control.

You're also taking away voting power from other states.

Not exactly.  Rather, you're ceding it to the nation as a whole, because the result in those top 11 states depends on the result in the national popular vote.  It's not as if the national popular vote is some disembodied entity that exists external to any statewide result.

Also, the required 270 votes are already in the control of the top 11 states.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: dazzleman on April 10, 2006, 08:06:12 PM
And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

You don't seem to understand how it would work.  Each state law would only go into effect once a sufficient number of other states have passed similar laws as well.

Let's say that the 11 biggest states (which collectively have 271 electoral votes) all decide that they are being screwed by the small states in the electoral college.  If those 11 states all decide to vote as a block for the popular vote winner in every election, then the popular vote winner will always win.  So I don't think it's as simple as "handing your voting power to other people".  You're also taking away voting power from other states.


I understand the proposal perfectly well.  It's a crazy and unconstitutional scheme to subvert the voting process without getting a constitutional amendment.

It's certainly far worse than the present system, whatever its shortcomings.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on April 11, 2006, 09:10:01 PM
One could make a case that this kind of alliance among the states violates Article I, section 10 of the constitution:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation;


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on April 21, 2006, 06:40:34 PM
This idea won't go away and is even starting to gain a little momentum:
National Popular Vote plan cleared the Colorado Senate on April 17th.

Bills have been introduced in California, Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri. California and Missouri have scheduled hearings for April 25, and the senate and house bills in Illinois have 25 sponsors, including leading Republicans, Democrats and independents.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on April 21, 2006, 10:56:04 PM
This idea won't go away and is even starting to gain a little momentum:
National Popular Vote plan cleared the Colorado Senate on April 17th.

Bills have been introduced in California, Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri. California and Missouri have scheduled hearings for April 25, and the senate and house bills in Illinois have 25 sponsors, including leading Republicans, Democrats and independents.


The House bill (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=5777&GAID=8&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=25606&SessionID=50&GA=94) in IL has 18 sponsors (16 D, 2 R) and has not been scheduled for any hearing by committee. It would seem unlikely to move this late in the session.

The Senate bill (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2724&GAID=8&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=23676&SessionID=50&GA=94) has seven sponsors (5 D, 1 R, 1 I) and also has been left to die in Rules since it was filed.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Nym90 on April 24, 2006, 02:26:07 PM
And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

You don't seem to understand how it would work.  Each state law would only go into effect once a sufficient number of other states have passed similar laws as well.

Let's say that the 11 biggest states (which collectively have 271 electoral votes) all decide that they are being screwed by the small states in the electoral college.  If those 11 states all decide to vote as a block for the popular vote winner in every election, then the popular vote winner will always win.  So I don't think it's as simple as "handing your voting power to other people".  You're also taking away voting power from other states.


I understand the proposal perfectly well.  It's a crazy and unconstitutional scheme to subvert the voting process without getting a constitutional amendment.

It's certainly far worse than the present system, whatever its shortcomings.

I don't see why it would be unconstitutional. Each state can award its electors on any basis it chooses to. They are not at all bound by the popular vote within the state.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on May 04, 2006, 05:45:21 PM
May Update:
April 25-The California Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee today approved National Popular Vote's bill (AB 2948) to enact the “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote” in California.  Would Arnold veto a CA bill?

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/

Still, no state has yet passed a bill for the national poplar vote


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Harry Hayfield on May 17, 2006, 01:51:04 AM
Can I ask what people think of this idea then?

Each state holds an election for the president, but instead of awarding electoral college votes en masse to the winning candidate across the state, each congressional district is allocated one electoral college vote (435), each states senators (50 x 2) account for another two votes with are allocated on votes cast across the state in the conventional manner.

District of Columbia having no congressional represenation would elect it's three electoral votes using a system of d'Hondt PR.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Erc on May 17, 2006, 03:03:19 PM
Can I ask what people think of this idea then?

Each state holds an election for the president, but instead of awarding electoral college votes en masse to the winning candidate across the state, each congressional district is allocated one electoral college vote (435), each states senators (50 x 2) account for another two votes with are allocated on votes cast across the state in the conventional manner.

District of Columbia having no congressional represenation would elect it's three electoral votes using a system of d'Hondt PR.

Sounds nice, but horrid in practice.  Gerrymandering then starts affecting Presidential, not just House races, too.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on May 17, 2006, 05:51:40 PM
The electoral college should have been thrown out with the slaves are 3/5th of a person part.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: A18 on May 17, 2006, 06:06:36 PM
That part never existed.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Undisguised Sockpuppet on May 25, 2006, 07:43:17 PM
Yes it did. The 3/5 compromise. Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for elections.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: 12th Doctor on May 26, 2006, 01:03:00 AM
Has anyone ever heard of the "Iron Law of Unanticipated Concequences"?


Now, has anyone noticed how every major electoral reform passed in the last 30 years has backfired terribly?


That's all I have to say.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: 12th Doctor on May 26, 2006, 01:21:37 AM
No, acctually, on second though, I do have more to say.  Let me give you three easily anticipated consquences of this change.

1) It would destroy all political organization and the current political party system.  Parties and the political system are organized on a state by state basis, running stste by state campaigns.  You take away the electoral college, you remove state-by-state campaigns and thus leave the system in utter confusion.

2) Candidates aren't gonna reach out more.  If anything thaey are gonna turn even more to superchargin their bases because there is less incentive to reach out to moderates in Ohio or Michigan... they aren't needed to win.  All you have to do is keep pumping out people in Texas and New York.  Hit those population centers of your party hard.  Screw the rest of the country.  It will create more allienation, not more inclusion.

3) There will be more "manufacturing" of votes.  At this point, we can be pretty sure that there is not much need to stuff the boxes in Delaware or Mississippi, because we can be pretty sure who they are going to, and their electoral votes aren't gonna create that much of a ripple in the system.  However, if one vote can decide the election, than you are gonna have massive voter fraud everywhere and it will be so wide spread all over the country, that there aren't gonna be enough people to monitor it.

This isn't top mention the fact that going to a purely popular vote system is against the very foundation of the republican principles of this country.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: 7,052,770 on May 26, 2006, 10:07:28 AM
3) There will be more "manufacturing" of votes.  At this point, we can be pretty sure that there is not much need to stuff the boxes in Delaware or Mississippi, because we can be pretty sure who they are going to, and their electoral votes aren't gonna create that much of a ripple in the system.  However, if one vote can decide the election, than you are gonna have massive voter fraud everywhere and it will be so wide spread all over the country, that there aren't gonna be enough people to monitor it.
We're already a useless state...in a nationwide popular vote, a candidate might actually come here...


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on June 06, 2006, 07:11:25 PM
If the states do not sign a treaty and simply make legislation then it isn't unconstitutional and the Supreme Court cannot strike it down.  I oppose this system, however, for a reason many will probably think to be immature or pathetic or whatever.

Let's face it, election night would never be exciting again if all we did was watch the pop vote counter change.  I mean come on, BORING.  The system I personally like was proposed in Colorado, but defeated in the 2004 vote.  It was that the state would allocate its electoral votes based on the pop vote perecentage in that state.  So like in Texas where Bush won 61% and Kerry 38%, Bush would have won 21 electors and Kerry 13 electors.  This is like the pop vote system being talked about, but more exciting.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Bacon King on August 03, 2006, 07:27:01 PM
Eh, I kinda like the electoral college.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: NewFederalist on August 03, 2006, 07:32:56 PM
I hope this effort fails big time!


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on August 30, 2006, 10:19:01 PM
The CA Senate and House, voting alone party lines, have passed the so called National Popular Vote Plan.  It is now expected to go to Schwarzenegger for signing before the Nov.

http://www.sacunion.com/pages/state_capitol/articles/8399/

This would make CA the first state to join the compact.  Additonal states are expected to pass it in 2007.
There is only a very slim chance it could go into effect for the 2008 election, but if it did the election campaign would change dramatically.  No more swing states, all campaigning would be focused on the largest states, and the largest media markets.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Kevin on January 30, 2007, 05:37:32 PM
 I hate how these people talk about the electoral college not being democratic. without it American democracy would be thrown out of wack and would go into a downward tailspin.   


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 04, 2007, 05:58:33 PM
The CA Senate and House, voting alone party lines, have passed the so called National Popular Vote Plan.  It is now expected to go to Schwarzenegger for signing before the Nov.

http://www.sacunion.com/pages/state_capitol/articles/8399/

This would make CA the first state to join the compact.  Additonal states are expected to pass it in 2007.
There is only a very slim chance it could go into effect for the 2008 election, but if it did the election campaign would change dramatically.  No more swing states, all campaigning would be focused on the largest states, and the largest media markets.

Arnold vetoed it. He likes California getting screwed by the electoral college.

I had an argument with some Arnold supporter who just didn't get it. She was anti electoral college, but thought it could be easily appealed by amendment. Ummm, no. She just voted for the electoral college when she voted for Arnold.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Kevin on February 04, 2007, 06:36:11 PM
The CA Senate and House, voting alone party lines, have passed the so called National Popular Vote Plan.  It is now expected to go to Schwarzenegger for signing before the Nov.

http://www.sacunion.com/pages/state_capitol/articles/8399/

This would make CA the first state to join the compact.  Additonal states are expected to pass it in 2007.
There is only a very slim chance it could go into effect for the 2008 election, but if it did the election campaign would change dramatically.  No more swing states, all campaigning would be focused on the largest states, and the largest media markets.

Arnold vetoed it. He likes California getting screwed by the electoral college.

I had an argument with some Arnold supporter who just didn't get it. She was anti electoral college, but thought it could be easily appealed by amendment. Ummm, no. She just voted for the electoral college when she voted for Arnold.

Don't you realize that your vote would have been tossed away had this gone through. For example in 08 lets say the Republican canidate gets 51% of the vote he is the winner of the populer vote however under the electoral plan that was propsed your state would have gone to the winner regardless of who the majority of the voters in the state voted for.       


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 04, 2007, 06:38:23 PM
The CA Senate and House, voting alone party lines, have passed the so called National Popular Vote Plan.  It is now expected to go to Schwarzenegger for signing before the Nov.

http://www.sacunion.com/pages/state_capitol/articles/8399/

This would make CA the first state to join the compact.  Additonal states are expected to pass it in 2007.
There is only a very slim chance it could go into effect for the 2008 election, but if it did the election campaign would change dramatically.  No more swing states, all campaigning would be focused on the largest states, and the largest media markets.

Arnold vetoed it. He likes California getting screwed by the electoral college.

I had an argument with some Arnold supporter who just didn't get it. She was anti electoral college, but thought it could be easily appealed by amendment. Ummm, no. She just voted for the electoral college when she voted for Arnold.

Don't you realize that your vote would have been tossed away had this gone through. For example in 08 lets say the Republican canidate gets 51% of the vote he is the winner of the populer vote however under the electoral plan that was propsed your state would have gone to the winner regardless of who the majority of the voters in the state voted for.       

So? At least the candidates would be forced to spent time campaining in California.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Hash on February 05, 2007, 12:02:24 PM
I don't get it, there'd still be the EV but states would give it to the national winner? I bet Washington DC will love to have its EV go Republican...


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: °Leprechaun on February 05, 2007, 12:10:11 PM
This is a very bad idea. It sounds good, because it is better than the current system, but it leave FPTP in tact. The person who wins a majority of the popular vote *should* be president, but there are many times when nobody wins a majority. Allocating the electors proportionally based on the popular vote would make more sense and be much more democratic.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Undisguised Sockpuppet on February 06, 2007, 09:35:14 AM
Abolish the electoral vote and aoblsih all role that states have in elections. Make there be 100 districts with 10 reps elected by proportional representation. Also the districts would be formed using registered voters s the numbers. Also state bounderies wouldn't matter.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on February 13, 2007, 07:44:02 PM
Abolish the electoral vote and aoblsih all role that states have in elections. Make there be 100 districts with 10 reps elected by proportional representation. Also the districts would be formed using registered voters s the numbers. Also state bounderies wouldn't matter.

I would support it.

But change comes slowly.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Gabu on February 14, 2007, 01:30:32 AM
I don't get it, there'd still be the EV but states would give it to the national winner? I bet Washington DC will love to have its EV go Republican...

The electoral college system is basically set in stone, but the way each state apportions its electoral votes is left up to each state (I believe).  Essentially, this would make the winner of the popular vote win the election - effectively changing the election of the president to a national popular vote - but it would do so in a roundabout manner using the electoral college.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on February 24, 2007, 07:25:23 PM
The state Senates in HI and CO have passed national popular vote bills.  Legislation has been intoduced in nearly all 50 states, so it looks like this has a good chance of success.

I will miss the fun of tracking EV state by state,,,,,



Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Sam Spade on February 25, 2007, 07:25:05 PM
The problem is this clause, not the Treaty clause:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Unless the interstate compact is approved "with the Consent of Congress", the law is invalid, unconstitutional, or however you wish to describe it.  The internet site mentions this fact, but hides it quite well.  It is still a fact, however.  :)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on February 26, 2007, 12:49:52 AM
I wouldn't say that it is unconstitutional Sam.  More like it is unenforceable if a State decides to not choose its electors based on the national vote after having committed to do so.  There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a State from choosing its electors on the basis of the national vote or any other mechanism that the State chooses.  Heck, they could randomly select electors from among the eligible registered voters, or make being an elector a lottery prize and it would be acceptable.  Certainly would give a whole new meaning to Powerball.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Undisguised Sockpuppet on February 27, 2007, 02:51:06 AM
THe electoral college is insane and we should get rid of it.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on April 02, 2007, 04:10:31 PM
Today, Maryland became the second state to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in both houses of the legislature. (California had done so previously.) Unlike in California, however, Gov. O'Malley has said that he will sign the bill, so Maryland is the first state in which it will become law. Of course, Maryland's electors will not be bound to the national popular vote until a majority of the electoral votes nationwide are, so it is highly unlikely to impact the 2008 election.

Arkansas and Hawai'i have passed the bill in one house with it pending in the other. Govs. Beebe and Lingle support the Compact. Colorado had passed it in the Senate, but it failed in the House; Gov. Ritter supports the Compact. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the Compact in California after it passed both houses of the legislature, but has said that he may reconsider his position in the future.

The Compact has been introduced or is currently being drafted in every state/district but Nebraska, Idaho, Michigan and DC.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Kevin on April 05, 2007, 06:05:31 PM
The electoral vote is what makes democracy work in this nation. Without it there would be massive recounts in state elections ,and smaller states would also be ignored on the campagin trail, Combined with the fact that alot more people would most likely be disadvantaged at the polls, Also in a realy close election the canidate who didn't win the majority of the vote could wrongfully win. America is alot better off with the electoral vote in place.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on April 05, 2007, 11:00:17 PM
In IL bills were filed in both the House and Senate. The Senate bill was never moved from the Rules Committee. The House bill was initially dead when it was not referred to any committee by the Mar 23 deadline. However, the Rules Committee acted on Mar 29 to extend the deadline to Apr 30 and it was assigned to the Elections and Campaign Reform committee. If it's heard and acted on by that date it has life and can move to the Senate.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ?????????? on April 07, 2007, 09:57:06 PM
Today, Maryland became the second state to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in both houses of the legislature. (California had done so previously.) Unlike in California, however, Gov. O'Malley has said that he will sign the bill, so Maryland is the first state in which it will become law. Of course, Maryland's electors will not be bound to the national popular vote until a majority of the electoral votes nationwide are, so it is highly unlikely to impact the 2008 election.

Arkansas and Hawai'i have passed the bill in one house with it pending in the other. Govs. Beebe and Lingle support the Compact. Colorado had passed it in the Senate, but it failed in the House; Gov. Ritter supports the Compact. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the Compact in California after it passed both houses of the legislature, but has said that he may reconsider his position in the future.

The Compact has been introduced or is currently being drafted in every state/district but Nebraska, Idaho, Michigan and DC.

Such a movement will never gain enough energy to change the constitution.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: NewFederalist on April 08, 2007, 01:31:51 PM
The electoral vote is what makes democracy work in this nation.

Well, not quite. The Electoral College has nothing to do with democracy. It has everything to do with the U.S. being a constitutional republic. I view the Electoral College as a very good institution. I hope the U.S.never becomes a democracy.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on April 10, 2007, 05:42:06 PM
Today, Maryland became the second state to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in both houses of the legislature. (California had done so previously.) Unlike in California, however, Gov. O'Malley has said that he will sign the bill, so Maryland is the first state in which it will become law. Of course, Maryland's electors will not be bound to the national popular vote until a majority of the electoral votes nationwide are, so it is highly unlikely to impact the 2008 election.

Arkansas and Hawai'i have passed the bill in one house with it pending in the other. Govs. Beebe and Lingle support the Compact. Colorado had passed it in the Senate, but it failed in the House; Gov. Ritter supports the Compact. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the Compact in California after it passed both houses of the legislature, but has said that he may reconsider his position in the future.

The Compact has been introduced or is currently being drafted in every state/district but Nebraska, Idaho, Michigan and DC.

Such a movement will never gain enough energy to change the constitution.

That's not what they're trying to do.  This proposal wouldn't change the constitution.  It would just award a majority of the electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, thus making the electoral vote little more than a formality.  The constitution doesn't have to be changed for that to happen.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on April 14, 2007, 11:01:39 PM
Update: O'Malley has signed the law in Maryland. It's passed both houses now in Hawaii, and Lingle looks to be going to sign it, though I'm not certain she will. Passing in Maryland seems to have given the movement some momentum. Also, the Hawaiian legislature gave the bill a veto-proof majority (35-12 and 19-4), so they may override Lingle's veto even if she refuses to sign.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on April 16, 2007, 04:15:46 PM
I forget if this has already been mentioned, but does this thing have any sort of time limit?  That is, if a bunch of states passed it now but then it ran out of steam, and then, 20 years from now the final states necessary for it to be enacted pass it as well, would it go into effect at that time?  Or is there a time limit that would force the initial states to pass it again?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on April 17, 2007, 02:56:17 PM
I forget if this has already been mentioned, but does this thing have any sort of time limit?  That is, if a bunch of states passed it now but then it ran out of steam, and then, 20 years from now the final states necessary for it to be enacted pass it as well, would it go into effect at that time?  Or is there a time limit that would force the initial states to pass it again?


It depends on the laws passed by the states. This isn't an Amendment to the Constitution, so there's no inherent time limit. Maryland's law contains no time limit, either, and nor does Hawaii's. Those, at least, won't go defunct if enough other states don't pass the law, so someone could conceivably pull the concept out from "the depths of the past" some time far in the future, and Maryland wouldn't need to pass the law again.

The Maryland law:

http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/bills/hb/hb0148t.pdf

Note that, in the exceedingly unlikely event of a national popular vote tie, the Electoral College would function as it currently does, on a state-by-state basis.

In order for the law to affect 2008, it must have been passed in enough states by July 20, 2008.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on April 18, 2007, 10:17:38 AM
Interesting how this almost seems to be a partisan issue, whereas one might have expected it to be a "states screwed by the electoral college" vs. "states that benefit from the electoral college" issue.

The one state where it's been passed, MD, has both houses of the legislature controlled by Democrats, and a Democratic governor.  Two other states where there's been movement on it, AR and IL, also have both houses of the legislature controlled by Democrats, and a Democratic governor.  It was passed in both houses of the CA legislature (both controlled by Democrats), but vetoed by the Republican governor.  CO is an exception, as it also has both houses controlled by Dems, but it only passed in one house (but the fact that this was even considered in a swing state like CO is stunning).  And HI is another exception, as the GOP governor supports it.

Despite those exceptions, it does appear that this is getting more support from Democrats than Republicans.  So maybe the strategy should just be to pass it any state with Democratic legislatures and Democratic governors, then wait around a few years until party control in a sufficiently large number of the other states flips....and hope that states that flip the other way (to the GOP) don't bother to repeal it.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on April 18, 2007, 03:53:51 PM
Interesting how this almost seems to be a partisan issue, whereas one might have expected it to be a "states screwed by the electoral college" vs. "states that benefit from the electoral college" issue.

The one state where it's been passed, MD, has both houses of the legislature controlled by Democrats, and a Democratic governor.  Two other states where there's been movement on it, AR and IL, also have both houses of the legislature controlled by Democrats, and a Democratic governor.  It was passed in both houses of the CA legislature (both controlled by Democrats), but vetoed by the Republican governor.  CO is an exception, as it also has both houses controlled by Dems, but it only passed in one house (but the fact that this was even considered in a swing state like CO is stunning).  And HI is another exception, as the GOP governor supports it.

Despite those exceptions, it does appear that this is getting more support from Democrats than Republicans.  So maybe the strategy should just be to pass it any state with Democratic legislatures and Democratic governors, then wait around a few years until party control in a sufficiently large number of the other states flips....and hope that states that flip the other way (to the GOP) don't bother to repeal it.


This is not strictly true - in New York the bill is being supported by all of the Republicans and opposed by around 2/3 of the Democrats, and I'm pretty sure the Arkansas House passed the bill unanimously.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact's advisory board consists of 5 Republicans (John Anderson, John Buchanan, Tom Campbell, David Durenberger and Jake Garn) and only 2 Democrats (Birch Bayh and Tom Downey).


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Undisguised Sockpuppet on April 21, 2007, 12:24:41 PM
Let us nullify the concept of states when it comes to district boundaries for congress(for both houses).


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on April 28, 2007, 10:54:42 AM
Lingle has vetoed the bill, but the legislature could easily override her veto. We shall see.

Let us nullify the concept of states when it comes to district boundaries for congress(for both houses).

Agreed.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on April 29, 2007, 06:41:39 PM
The MD law has some nice opportunities for controversy.

The MD law requires each state election official to send out a count, but does not require that it be the official Certified State total that is sent to the National Archives.  Thus, a partisan Election Official could send the compact one total while the Governor certifies a different total.  Then what happens?

What happens if a state has not completed its count (Hawaii finished a recount in 1960 2 weeks after the Electoral college met), does the law again allow the election official to choose what ever count he feels like?  What happens if an election is close and recounts occur in all 50 states (Kennedy won in 1960 by less than 1 vote per precinct)? 

Furthermore, all the provisions only apply to “member states”, what happens if a non-member state delays finalizing its states’ total?   

What happens if a state decides to award 100,000 (or 100,000,000) bonus popular votes to that state’s official winner?  Doesn’t this mean any single state could select the President?

The MD law prohibits any other member state from withdrawing within 6 months of the election, can one state prohibit another state from passing a law? 


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on April 29, 2007, 10:12:51 PM
The MD law requires each state election official to send out a count, but does not require that it be the official Certified State total that is sent to the National Archives.  Thus, a partisan Election Official could send the compact one total while the Governor certifies a different total.  Then what happens?

I cannot imagine that the intent was to be anything but the certified total. The courts would rule against any official who tried to send out a different count.

Quote
What happens if a state has not completed its count (Hawaii finished a recount in 1960 2 weeks after the Electoral college met), does the law again allow the election official to choose what ever count he feels like?

The idea of a state not finishing its count is absurd; even Florida managed to finish its count in 2000 by the deadline. Hawaii 1960 occurred in extremely exceptional circumstances that are highly unlikely to happen again, especially not with computerized counting.

Quote
What happens if an election is close and recounts occur in all 50 states (Kennedy won in 1960 by less than 1 vote per precinct)?

0.2% is far more than can, statistically, be overturned by a national recount. The odds of an election so close that a national recount would be merited (within 0.01%) are miniscule to the point of being irrelevant.

Quote
Furthermore, all the provisions only apply to “member states”, what happens if a non-member state delays finalizing its states’ total?

Again, there's no reason to expect that this would occur.

Quote
What happens if a state decides to award 100,000 (or 100,000,000) bonus popular votes to that state’s official winner?  Doesn’t this mean any single state could select the President?

This is what is called "stuffing the ballot box". It's illegal; states can't just add votes to their popular vote, and the courts would call them on it.

Quote
The MD law prohibits any other member state from withdrawing within 6 months of the election, can one state prohibit another state from passing a law?

The Maryland law only prohibits Maryland from withdrawing within 6 months of an election.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 04, 2007, 12:14:24 AM
and smaller states would also be ignored on the campagin trail

yeah, it's a shame candidates will no longer try for places like North Dakota and Wyoming.

Seriously, the Electoral College doesn't force candidates to campaign in the whole country, just swing states. The entire election basically comes down to Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Well over half the country in safe states is completely ignored, including some strong swing regions (upstate New York and downstate Illinois being the two classic examples.) Time to abolish it. No reason the election should be done any differently than state elections, you don't see states using some sort of county electoral college.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on May 04, 2007, 10:49:00 AM
The IL House passed the electoral college compact act (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=0858&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=28263&SessionID=51&GA=95) earlier this week. In the end the voting was strictly along party lines with one exception. If that pattern continues then it should easily be approved by the Senate and Governor as well. However, the original Senate version was never released from Rules Committee, so the House version may or may not see the same fate.

I found it interesting that the debate had no effect, and few seemed to care at all about the ramifications in the decades to come when there might be three or four strong candidates in a race. The proponents didn't really want to consider any what-ifs. It was clear that in IL it was a purely partisan issue and Dems saw it as an advantage in the next one or two cycles and that was all that mattered.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on May 06, 2007, 09:24:28 PM
The Hawaii Senate has overridden Lingle's veto. The House has adjourned and will consider overriding the veto in July.

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/03/hawaii-legislature-will-decide-on-national-popular-vote-plan-in-july/

The IL House passed the electoral college compact act (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=0858&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=28263&SessionID=51&GA=95) earlier this week. In the end the voting was strictly along party lines with one exception. If that pattern continues then it should easily be approved by the Senate and Governor as well. However, the original Senate version was never released from Rules Committee, so the House version may or may not see the same fate.

I found it interesting that the debate had no effect, and few seemed to care at all about the ramifications in the decades to come when there might be three or four strong candidates in a race. The proponents didn't really want to consider any what-ifs. It was clear that in IL it was a purely partisan issue and Dems saw it as an advantage in the next one or two cycles and that was all that mattered.

Sen. Kirk Dillard (R) is supporting the Compact in Illinois, so it clearly isn't strictly partisan. Rep. Jim Durkin (R) cosponsored the compact in 2006; I assume he was the one not voting along partisan lines in the House this time.

One could of course argue that it was the Republicans who were opposing it because they saw partisan disadvantage, a position strengthened by the fact that some few Republicans supported it but no Democrats opposed it. Unfortunately, the immediate assumption is that the opposition, whoever they are, is seeking partisan advantage, so debate rarely achieves changes in votes anyway.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on May 06, 2007, 09:39:48 PM
The Hawaii Senate has overridden Lingle's veto. The House has adjourned and will consider overriding the veto in July.

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/03/hawaii-legislature-will-decide-on-national-popular-vote-plan-in-july/

The IL House passed the electoral college compact act (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=0858&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=28263&SessionID=51&GA=95) earlier this week. In the end the voting was strictly along party lines with one exception. If that pattern continues then it should easily be approved by the Senate and Governor as well. However, the original Senate version was never released from Rules Committee, so the House version may or may not see the same fate.

I found it interesting that the debate had no effect, and few seemed to care at all about the ramifications in the decades to come when there might be three or four strong candidates in a race. The proponents didn't really want to consider any what-ifs. It was clear that in IL it was a purely partisan issue and Dems saw it as an advantage in the next one or two cycles and that was all that mattered.

Sen. Kirk Dillard (R) is supporting the Compact in Illinois, so it clearly isn't strictly partisan. Rep. Jim Durkin (R) cosponsored the compact in 2006; I assume he was the one not voting along partisan lines in the House this time.

One could of course argue that it was the Republicans who were opposing it because they saw partisan disadvantage, a position strengthened by the fact that some few Republicans supported it but no Democrats opposed it. Unfortunately, the immediate assumption is that the opposition, whoever they are, is seeking partisan advantage, so debate rarely achieves changes in votes anyway.

Durkin voted against it in the House this year. Rep. Froehlich was the only crossover.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on May 16, 2007, 09:30:58 AM
The North Carolina and California Senates have passed the Compact. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the Compact in 2006 but has said that he may be receptive to it in the future. Gov. Easley has said that he will sign the bill if it passes the General Assembly.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on May 25, 2007, 10:13:13 AM
Some news form my home state. The Compact has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Codey (State Senate President) himself, meaning the odds of it not passing are practically nil.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: TommyC1776 on May 25, 2007, 10:55:41 PM
They are campaigning to get enough states to award their electoral votes to the National Popular vote winner, rather than their state winner.
see:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/

This part confused me.  so wait.......are u saying that the popular vote winner would win all 50 states and DC?  Because u say that the ppl want their states EV's to go to the National Winner.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on May 26, 2007, 11:55:36 AM
They are campaigning to get enough states to award their electoral votes to the National Popular vote winner, rather than their state winner.
see:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/

This part confused me.  so wait.......are u saying that the popular vote winner would win all 50 states and DC?  Because u say that the ppl want their states EV's to go to the National Winner.

Each state passes the law individually. When enough states have passed the law that 270 electoral votes (over half) fall under the law, it comes into effect. Then, the winner of the national popular vote wins the electoral votes of every state that passed the law no matter which candidate that state voted for.

This ensures that the national popular vote winner will always win the electoral vote also. Until there are enough electoral votes bound by the law, it doesn't take effect, so, while Maryland has already passed the law, its electoral votes will not be bound to the national popular vote winner until 260 other electoral votes are as well.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on June 01, 2007, 10:35:25 PM
They say that no idea is ever dead in the legislature. The IL bills with the electoral compact language had both been killed in Senate Rules before the constitutional deadline. In a common trick, another election bill (http://"http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1685&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=30508&SessionID=51&GA=95") was gutted and amended to have the compact language. Rules released it the day before the deadline and it was approved. The Senate vote was not quite as partisan with three R's voting in favor and 3 D's opposed. Since this was an amended House bill it now must return to the House for a vote to concur with the amendment. The House will likely take it up sometime next week.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on June 09, 2007, 11:51:07 AM
Seems unlikely that the Illinois House will not re-pass the bill.

It's also been rejected by a couple of committees in some states. Texas, Kansas and Florida have recently shot it down for 2007.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on January 26, 2008, 02:29:52 AM
Thought I'd bump this to mention that New Jersey passed the Compact a couple of weeks ago. Since the campaign seems to be dying down, I haven't been paying much attention.

Illinois is waiting on Blagojevich's signature, which I believe he has stated he will provide.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 26, 2008, 12:19:34 PM
:)

Since Arnold doesn't seem to get the idea, we can pass it once he's gone in a couple of years, which will mean a lot of EV's in the Compact's corner.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on February 09, 2008, 04:58:32 AM
Thought I'd bump this to mention that New Jersey passed the Compact a couple of weeks ago. Since the campaign seems to be dying down, I haven't been paying much attention.

Illinois is waiting on Blagojevich's signature, which I believe he has stated he will provide.

Technically it only arrived at the Governor's desk on Feb 7, as the Speaker held the bill the maximum number of days after its passage on Jan 9. The bill was called that day since there was a nearly full complement of legislators prepared to pass a major and somewhat controversial mass transit bill. The bill was passed on partisan lines with three votes to spare.

The Gov has up to 60 days to act on the bill from the day it arrived. Since the action on this bill is rooted in part on Obama's candidacy, there may be some timing on the Gov's part before signing.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 10, 2008, 12:46:50 AM
it was a purely partisan issue and Dems saw it as an advantage in the next one or two cycles and that was all that mattered.

Come on, you know that this is trivializing this whole issue. If there had been a uniform 2.2% swing to Kerry in the 2004 election, he would have won Ohio and the election while losing the popular vote. Nixon tried to get rid of the popular vote. This current Interstate Compact campaign has former Senator Garn R-UT,  former Senator Durenberger R-MN, former Rep. John Buchanan R-AL, former Rep. Tom Campbell R-CA, and Republican and then Independent John Anderson for it.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on February 10, 2008, 01:07:47 AM
it was a purely partisan issue and Dems saw it as an advantage in the next one or two cycles and that was all that mattered.

Come on, you know that this is trivializing this whole issue. If there had been a uniform 2.2% swing to Kerry in the 2004 election, he would have won Ohio and the election while losing the popular vote. Nixon tried to get rid of the popular vote. This current Interstate Compact campaign has former Senator Garn R-UT,  former Senator Durenberger R-MN, former Rep. John Buchanan R-AL, former Rep. Tom Campbell R-CA, and Republican and then Independent John Anderson for it.


I understand the national interest in the plan that often brings bipartisan groups together. If there was a threshold for success, like the 40% level originally proposed for the amendment, I could view this idea favorably.

However, I can tell you that in the IL legislature it was a partisan vote seen as one with partisan advantage. There are only a handful of votes each year that split the House exactly along partisan lines. When it does you can be certain that it was viewed in terms of partisan advantage, not based on national policy.

A cynic might also note that a legislature could rescind participation. If the polls showed a year like 2004 in the offing, with the possibility of a D win in the EC while losing the popular vote, it wouldn't be surprising if IL backed out of the compact.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on April 07, 2008, 09:18:45 PM
He waited until the last possible day, but Gov Blagojevich signed the NPV bill (http://www.wthitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8128851&nav=menu593_2) today. That adds IL to MD and NJ for a total of 46 committed EV to the compact.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on May 09, 2008, 09:46:23 PM
Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 10, 2008, 03:10:21 AM
Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

"Scheme"? It seems that rejection of this is a "scheme" to preserve the unfair influence of small states.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on May 11, 2008, 11:31:19 PM
It's passed both houses in Vermont as well, just waiting on the governor. I've no idea what Jim Douglas's stance is, but it passed with veto-proof majorities.

By the way, polls have generally indicated overwhelming support for abolishing the EC, around 60-70% in favor, so calling this a "partisan scheme," especially when it's clear that it wouldn't benefit any party, is remarkably moronic.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 12, 2008, 12:06:29 AM
Oh, Verily, was that you who commented numerous times on the talk page of the Wikipedia article?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on May 12, 2008, 03:57:38 AM
Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 12, 2008, 11:04:40 AM
Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

Actually, it was a veto override.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Joe Republic on May 12, 2008, 11:28:42 AM
Forgive me if I've missed this, but is there a time limit for this compact to take effect?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 12, 2008, 11:37:02 AM
Forgive me if I've missed this, but is there a time limit for this compact to take effect?

Not that I know of.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on May 12, 2008, 12:16:56 PM
Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

Actually, it was a veto override.

Ahh..sorry then.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 12, 2008, 01:13:51 PM
Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

Actually, it was a veto override.

Ahh..sorry then.

:D

Her reason was the same stupid one Arnold gave, though.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on May 16, 2008, 10:37:28 PM
Vermont's governor vetoed the NPV today. The legislature has adjourned so no override is possible.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Kevinstat on May 20, 2008, 08:21:05 PM
I wonder if that pocket veto (especially if he could have vetoed the bill when the Legislature was still in session to sustain or override it) could affect Douglas's reelection chances?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 20, 2008, 10:33:04 PM
I wonder if that pocket veto (especially if he could have vetoed the bill when the Legislature was still in session to sustain or override it) could affect Douglas's reelection chances?

Not likely. IMO, he's too popular in Vermot to let a little thing like this affect him.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on July 16, 2008, 04:21:46 PM
It's passed both houses in Vermont as well, just waiting on the governor. I've no idea what Jim Douglas's stance is, but it passed with veto-proof majorities.

By the way, polls have generally indicated overwhelming support for abolishing the EC, around 60-70% in favor, so calling this a "partisan scheme," especially when it's clear that it wouldn't benefit any party, is remarkably moronic.

     It's a shame that 60-70% of the public opposes interesting Presidential elections. When this thing reaches 270 EVs, I'll consider moving to Canada, France, or the UK, whichever one has the most interesting elections. ;)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on July 24, 2008, 05:24:50 PM
Why is it more interesting in Canada, France, or the UK? America is ineresting but a rip off.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on July 24, 2008, 07:18:11 PM
Why is it more interesting in Canada, France, or the UK? America is ineresting but a rip off.

     I was joking. If you must know though, I named those three countries because I already can speak English & French, which would allow me to get around those places without too much trouble.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on July 24, 2008, 08:19:21 PM
My bad you might want to write lol at the end.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on July 25, 2008, 07:37:41 AM
     Except I wasn't laughing out loud. I did however use this: ;). I use that when I'm joking, along with this one: :P.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: bhouston79 on January 30, 2009, 11:57:20 PM
This is a ridiculous scheme.  We should stick with the current system.

And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

So you really think that states have more "voting power" under our current scheme.  People in Utah, Vermont, Idaho, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Massachussets, California, ect. ect. really have a lot of say in our Presidential election these days.  They get a lot of attention from the candidates don't they?  How many times did Obama and McCain visit California, the most populous state in the union during the general election.  Probably a fraction of the number of times that they visited the Nevada, which is a state that is a fraction of the size of California in terms of population.  But I guess that that makes sense to you.  It's OK for all of our voting power in Presidential elections to be concentrated in the hands of only a handful of "swing states."  It's alright by you if the votes of the people of Utah or Massachussets are virtually meaningless while the votes of the people of the state of Florida or Ohio are each of crucial importance.  Why not have a system where every vote in every state counts equally, period.  Candidates couldn't simply focus all of their time on only a handful of swing states.  They would need to visit every state because even if they weren't competitive in a state, it would still be important for that candidate to cut down on the size of their defeat in that state.  Similarly, even if a candidate was sure to win a state, it would still be crucially important for that candidate to visit the state in order to maximize their margin of victory in the state. 


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: justfollowingtheelections on January 31, 2009, 12:31:08 AM
Republicans who oppose this because "Democrats came up with the idea first, so it must be a partisan-scheme" are as ridiculous as those who deny the human factor's negative influence on the environment because Al Gore was the first to talk about it.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on January 31, 2009, 12:35:32 AM
Republicans who oppose this because "Democrats came up with the idea first, so it must be a partisan-scheme" are as ridiculous as those who deny the human factor's negative influence on the environment because Al Gore was the first to talk about it.

That's funny becuase in the last 2 Presidential elections, the Democrat did better in the critical swing state than the nation-wide popular vote


2008: Obama wins nationwide by 7.25%, Iowa by 9.53%
2004: Kerry loses nationwide by 2.46%, Ohio by 2.10%.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: dead0man on March 28, 2009, 06:04:21 AM
This is a ridiculous scheme.  We should stick with the current system.

And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

So you really think that states have more "voting power" under our current scheme.  People in Utah, Vermont, Idaho, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Massachussets, California, ect. ect. really have a lot of say in our Presidential election these days.  They get a lot of attention from the candidates don't they?  How many times did Obama and McCain visit California, the most populous state in the union during the general election.  Probably a fraction of the number of times that they visited the Nevada, which is a state that is a fraction of the size of California in terms of population.  But I guess that that makes sense to you.  It's OK for all of our voting power in Presidential elections to be concentrated in the hands of only a handful of "swing states."  It's alright by you if the votes of the people of Utah or Massachussets are virtually meaningless while the votes of the people of the state of Florida or Ohio are each of crucial importance.  Why not have a system where every vote in every state counts equally, period.  Candidates couldn't simply focus all of their time on only a handful of swing states.  They would need to visit every state because even if they weren't competitive in a state, it would still be important for that candidate to cut down on the size of their defeat in that state.  Similarly, even if a candidate was sure to win a state, it would still be crucially important for that candidate to visit the state in order to maximize their margin of victory in the state. 
And if we went to a popular vote system the candidates would never get away from the coasts at all.  How would that be better?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on March 28, 2009, 06:19:14 AM
This is a ridiculous scheme.  We should stick with the current system.

And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

So you really think that states have more "voting power" under our current scheme.  People in Utah, Vermont, Idaho, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Massachussets, California, ect. ect. really have a lot of say in our Presidential election these days.  They get a lot of attention from the candidates don't they?  How many times did Obama and McCain visit California, the most populous state in the union during the general election.  Probably a fraction of the number of times that they visited the Nevada, which is a state that is a fraction of the size of California in terms of population.  But I guess that that makes sense to you.  It's OK for all of our voting power in Presidential elections to be concentrated in the hands of only a handful of "swing states."  It's alright by you if the votes of the people of Utah or Massachussets are virtually meaningless while the votes of the people of the state of Florida or Ohio are each of crucial importance.  Why not have a system where every vote in every state counts equally, period.  Candidates couldn't simply focus all of their time on only a handful of swing states.  They would need to visit every state because even if they weren't competitive in a state, it would still be important for that candidate to cut down on the size of their defeat in that state.  Similarly, even if a candidate was sure to win a state, it would still be crucially important for that candidate to visit the state in order to maximize their margin of victory in the state. 
And if we went to a popular vote system the candidates would never get away from the coasts at all.  How would that be better?

The problem is....that isn't true. Votes could be gained everywhere in a popular vote system. How about visiting Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix...and sure, the coasts would also be popular to visit (rightly so, as they have more residents)...but the point is that votes could be gained everywhere, and at places that are currently out of play to the Electoral College.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on March 28, 2009, 11:57:03 AM
The fact that David Broder opposes this measure makes me think that it must be a very good idea.

Also, if it is a partisan issue then why the hell the Republican governors of California, Vermont and Rhode Island vetoed it?
Do they seriously expect that their party might lose the popular vote but win their states?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on April 05, 2009, 03:29:00 PM
The pace to nullify the EC is picking up, so far this year:

Colorado House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Oregon House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
New Mexico House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Arkansas House, Washington House, and Vermont Senate Pass National Popular Vote Bill


I think there is a good chance this plan will be in effect by 2012





Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on April 05, 2009, 03:33:45 PM
The pace to nullify the EC is picking up, so far this year:

Colorado House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Oregon House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
New Mexico House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Arkansas House, Washington House, and Vermont Senate Pass National Popular Vote Bill


I think there is a good chance this plan will be in effect by 2012

It has the same chance as I have of getting laid by 2012 :P


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on April 05, 2009, 07:39:28 PM
The pace to nullify the EC is picking up, so far this year:

Colorado House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Oregon House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
New Mexico House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Arkansas House, Washington House, and Vermont Senate Pass National Popular Vote Bill


I think there is a good chance this plan will be in effect by 2012


Even if enough states pass it, don't forget that tthis is done by state statute. Any legislature that doesn't like the way 2012 might turn out can just as easily repeal their state law before the electors would be certified. Only a constitutional amendment can change the system and not leave it open to partisan whim.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Scam of God on April 07, 2009, 12:55:59 PM
Peoples' responses in this thread have been very illuminating. The assumption that the Constitution is inviolate and should not be edited is so deep-seated that people refuse to question it, even when challenged to do so. It's simply taken as an article of faith that the precious, sacred Holy Scripture should not be altered and that addenda are "just as good" even though they would not suffice for any normal document revision process. Imagine how confusing it would be to use a textbook where all manner of changes and mistakes were deliberately left in the text, and corrections were done by notes in the appendix.

Frankly, an actual revised constitution would make more sense. It always seemed absurd to me that they add amendments to it as addenda and not by actually amending the document. It goes to the quasi-religious way Americans treat our Constitution: it is considered sacrosanct and cannot be altered, so they add new books to it, like Christians creating a New Testament.

From now until the day America crumbles as a nation, the Constitution will always have that ridiculous text in it about certain people being worth only 3/5 of a person, thanks to this quasi-religious mentality.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: © tweed on April 08, 2009, 12:40:46 AM
The pace to nullify the EC is picking up, so far this year:

Colorado House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Oregon House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
New Mexico House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Arkansas House, Washington House, and Vermont Senate Pass National Popular Vote Bill


I think there is a good chance this plan will be in effect by 2012

It has the same chance as I have of getting laid by 2012 :P

it can creep up on you, brother


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 08, 2009, 12:44:31 AM
The pace to nullify the EC is picking up, so far this year:

Colorado House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Oregon House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
New Mexico House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Arkansas House, Washington House, and Vermont Senate Pass National Popular Vote Bill


I think there is a good chance this plan will be in effect by 2012


Even if enough states pass it, don't forget that tthis is done by state statute. Any legislature that doesn't like the way 2012 might turn out can just as easily repeal their state law before the electors would be certified. Only a constitutional amendment can change the system and not leave it open to partisan whim.

I'd imagine that if this compact was in effect, there would be less resistance to amending the Constitution. Of course, that's a much tougher hurdle, seeing as 13 low population states can block it. It should be noted that one low population state already passed it, Hawaii.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: emailking on April 12, 2009, 08:20:28 PM
Even if enough states pass it, don't forget that tthis is done by state statute. Any legislature that doesn't like the way 2012 might turn out can just as easily repeal their state law before the electors would be certified. Only a constitutional amendment can change the system and not leave it open to partisan whim.

Not legally they can't. If a state wants to pull out of the compact they have to do so 6 months before the election. Otherwise, they are locked in for that election and would be breaking the compact if they did not allocate use the electors of the popular vote winner.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on April 12, 2009, 08:31:34 PM
Even if enough states pass it, don't forget that tthis is done by state statute. Any legislature that doesn't like the way 2012 might turn out can just as easily repeal their state law before the electors would be certified. Only a constitutional amendment can change the system and not leave it open to partisan whim.

Not legally they can't. If a state wants to pull out of the compact they have to do so 6 months before the election. Otherwise, they are locked in for that election and would be breaking the compact if they did not allocate use the electors of the popular vote winner.

Generally a legislative act cannot bind a future legislature from changing that act. Other states cannot generally bind a legislature from withdrawing from an interstate compact. I'm also not sure how binding the compact is before the nominees are selected and their electors are filed on the ballot.

In IL special legislation was needed in 2004 and 2008 to allow for the GOP electors to be on the ballot since the convention was after Sep 1. Rules that provided for ballot access could not overcome that, so the law was amended.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Meeker on April 13, 2009, 03:04:40 AM
I'm completely in favor of popular vote, but there's two big concerns I have regarding this:

1) I haven't been following this thread closely, but I think this is the same as moun's concern. What if it becomes advantageous for a state to withdraw from the compact between Election Day and the voting of the electors? Let's say one party is entirely in control of the legislative process in a state that has signed on to the compact. Under the compact system a candidate of the other party is about to be elected President. However, should that state withdraw from the compact, the electoral votes turn out in a such a way as to give the Presidency to the other party (the one in control of the legislative process in the state that I mentioned earlier). What do we do if the Legislature convenes and shoves through a law withdrawing that state from the compact? Talk about chaos and division. But the other reason is an even greater concern of mine:

2) Let's say the national margin is extremely close - something like 0.25% or closer. Something that, under normal circumstances, would demand a recount. Would there be a recount conducted? There aren't any laws on the books that say there would be. What if some states stated conducting recounts to verify their results but others didn't? What if some counties started conducting recounts to verify their results but others didn't? The entirety of the motivation would be partisan gain of course, and we'd be potentially talking about hundreds to thousands of court cases in hundreds of jurisdictions and courts around the country simultaneously. Then what if, come December 15th, the outcome is still in doubt? Certain electors think that a certain candidate is ahead, certain candidates think another one is, certain electors think they should ditch the compact, certain electors aren't even a part of a state that's in the compact... I could go on and on about the potential problems that could arise in a situation like this for several more paragraphs but I think you all get the idea.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: emailking on April 13, 2009, 08:05:33 PM
muon2 and VP Meeker, according to national Popular Vote it is unconstitutional for a state to pull out of the compact during the aforementioned 6 month period (which is actually prior to innauguration, not the election like I had said). For sure this would be a court challenge. But presumably many Constitutional lawyers have assured them this is very much binding.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/faqitem.php?f=19

Quote
What Would Happen If a State Withdrew from the Proposed Compact for Partisan Political Reasons between the November Voting and the Meeting of the Electoral College in Mid-December?

The proposed compact has a "blackout" period (of approximately six months) on withdrawals. This "blackout" period starts on July 20 of a presidential election year and continues until a President or Vice President are qualified to serve the next term (normally on January 20 of the following year).

The purpose for the delay in the effective date of a withdrawal is to ensure that a withdrawal will not be undertaken—perhaps for partisan political purposes—in the midst of a presidential campaign or, even more egregiously, in the period between the popular voting in early November and the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December.

An interstate compact has the specific advantage of making the obligations of the participating states into a legally enforceable contractual obligation. Of course, legal enforceability is most relevant in the event that the winner of the nationwide popular vote did not carry states having a majority of the electoral votes (as occurred, say, in 1824, 1876, 1892, and 2000). A state whose legislature and governor are controlled by a political party whose presidential candidate who did not win the nationwide popular vote could, in the absence of an enforceable restriction on withdrawal, abandon its obligations at the precise moment when they would matter. However, once a state enters into an interstate compact, a state is prevented from unilaterally nullifying the compact because the impairments clause of the U.S. Constitution. The impairment clause provides that "No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." Instead, a party to a contract (i.e., an interstate compact) must withdraw from the agreement in accordance with the agreement’s provisions for withdrawal. Most interstate compacts contain provisions that delay the effective date of a state’s withdrawal by a certain amount of time that is appropriate given the nature of the compact. The proposed compact limits withdrawal during the sensitive six-month time window of the presidential election period.

The six-month "blackout" period covers the following six important events relating to presidential elections: (1) the national nominating conventions, (2) the fall general election campaign period, (3) election day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, (4) the meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, (5) the counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and (6) the scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on April 13, 2009, 09:04:57 PM
muon2 and VP Meeker, according to national Popular Vote it is unconstitutional for a state to pull out of the compact during the aforementioned 6 month period (which is actually prior to innauguration, not the election like I had said). For sure this would be a court challenge. But presumably many Constitutional lawyers have assured them this is very much binding.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/faqitem.php?f=19

Quote
What Would Happen If a State Withdrew from the Proposed Compact for Partisan Political Reasons between the November Voting and the Meeting of the Electoral College in Mid-December?

The proposed compact has a "blackout" period (of approximately six months) on withdrawals. This "blackout" period starts on July 20 of a presidential election year and continues until a President or Vice President are qualified to serve the next term (normally on January 20 of the following year).

The purpose for the delay in the effective date of a withdrawal is to ensure that a withdrawal will not be undertaken—perhaps for partisan political purposes—in the midst of a presidential campaign or, even more egregiously, in the period between the popular voting in early November and the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December.

An interstate compact has the specific advantage of making the obligations of the participating states into a legally enforceable contractual obligation. Of course, legal enforceability is most relevant in the event that the winner of the nationwide popular vote did not carry states having a majority of the electoral votes (as occurred, say, in 1824, 1876, 1892, and 2000). A state whose legislature and governor are controlled by a political party whose presidential candidate who did not win the nationwide popular vote could, in the absence of an enforceable restriction on withdrawal, abandon its obligations at the precise moment when they would matter. However, once a state enters into an interstate compact, a state is prevented from unilaterally nullifying the compact because the impairments clause of the U.S. Constitution. The impairment clause provides that "No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." Instead, a party to a contract (i.e., an interstate compact) must withdraw from the agreement in accordance with the agreement’s provisions for withdrawal. Most interstate compacts contain provisions that delay the effective date of a state’s withdrawal by a certain amount of time that is appropriate given the nature of the compact. The proposed compact limits withdrawal during the sensitive six-month time window of the presidential election period.

The six-month "blackout" period covers the following six important events relating to presidential elections: (1) the national nominating conventions, (2) the fall general election campaign period, (3) election day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, (4) the meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, (5) the counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and (6) the scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

I've heard that, but has the impairment clause been shown to trump other constitutional rights? For instance Art 2, Sec1 says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, ..." which gives the state legislature supreme authority over its electors. I'm not convinced that a legislature can give away that right, especially if a future legislature wishes to exercise it in a different manner.

OTOH the specific FAQ referenced a potential change post election. Many if not all states would prohibit a late change in electors through their own state laws and decisions. I would expect it to be difficult to change the method once the electors are selected for the ballot after the convention, since they would be governed by the rules at the time they were filed.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Meeker on April 15, 2009, 11:59:13 PM
FWIW (repost from Washington thread)

Quote
The Washington State House just passed the National Popular Vote Compact 52-42 (it previously passed the Senate 28-21). It appears to have been amended in the House though, so back to the Senate it goes.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on April 16, 2009, 12:56:34 AM
FWIW (repost from Washington thread)

Quote
The Washington State House just passed the National Popular Vote Compact 52-42 (it previously passed the Senate 28-21). It appears to have been amended in the House though, so back to the Senate it goes.

The web page for the bill (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5599&year=2009) shows no amendments that were passed. It should go to the Gov next.

Some of the proposed amendments were quite interesting and might be improvements to the bill. However, a change in one state would render it useless until other states in the compact also accepted the change.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Meeker on April 16, 2009, 04:19:52 PM
FWIW (repost from Washington thread)

Quote
The Washington State House just passed the National Popular Vote Compact 52-42 (it previously passed the Senate 28-21). It appears to have been amended in the House though, so back to the Senate it goes.

The web page for the bill (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5599&year=2009) shows no amendments that were passed. It should go to the Gov next.

Some of the proposed amendments were quite interesting and might be improvements to the bill. However, a change in one state would render it useless until other states in the compact also accepted the change.

Odd... it said last night that there was an amendment adopted.

Anyways, I suspect Gregoire will sign it.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: jimrtex on April 23, 2009, 03:08:47 AM
FWIW (repost from Washington thread)

Quote
The Washington State House just passed the National Popular Vote Compact 52-42 (it previously passed the Senate 28-21). It appears to have been amended in the House though, so back to the Senate it goes.

The web page for the bill (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5599&year=2009) shows no amendments that were passed. It should go to the Gov next.

Some of the proposed amendments were quite interesting and might be improvements to the bill. However, a change in one state would render it useless until other states in the compact also accepted the change.
I liked Amendment 629 best of all.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: emailking on April 28, 2009, 09:23:00 PM
Bill is now passed in Washington. 61 ev under the compact. 23% of the way there.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Lief 🗽 on May 03, 2009, 04:37:30 PM
Hm. To me, it seems that there's a problem with a bare majority of the states deciding to completely change the way we elect a President, especially if the other states have opposed this compact. I really don't want half the states telling the other half of the states that they don't have a say anymore, especially if they have rejected this compact.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on May 10, 2009, 11:06:53 AM
Hm. To me, it seems that there's a problem with a bare majority of the states deciding to completely change the way we elect a President, especially if the other states have opposed this compact. I really don't want half the states telling the other half of the states that they don't have a say anymore, especially if they have rejected this compact.

It strikes me that this is exactly why this plan is against the spirit of the Constitution. As you point out this would create a system where a number of states with the majority of electors decide the system for electing the President, effectively overruling the method in the Constitution. The appropriate means to change a constitutionally defined system is to amend the Constitution, but that requires 3/4 of the states as well as 2/3 of each branch of Congress. The proponents feel they have found a loophole that allows the constitutional system to be avoided.

The second problem is that in a close election, the voters of a state adopting this method may well feel disenfranchised. Essentially the legislature of the state has given away their power to determined the status of their electors to the will of the whole 50 states. Suppose you were a Democrat in IL in 2004 and Ohio had narrowly voted for Kerry instead of Bush. The compact then would have forced your state's electors to vote for Bush, even though Kerry carried your state by a large margin. My guess is that you would not have been be very happy at all with the result.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: emailking on May 12, 2009, 11:54:01 PM
Hm. To me, it seems that there's a problem with a bare majority of the states deciding to completely change the way we elect a President, especially if the other states have opposed this compact. I really don't want half the states telling the other half of the states that they don't have a say anymore, especially if they have rejected this compact.

They don't have a say right now. The system is that every state legislature can decide in whatever manner they desire how to choose their Presidential electors. No state can change this.

Having a popular vote plurality election to allocate all of a state's electoral votes is a perfectly legal way of doing things should a state choose to do so. It's also 100% against the way the founding fathers intended this rule. Remember that. We're already exploiting a loophole to make things democratic. This just takes it one step further.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 13, 2009, 06:51:45 PM
Having a popular vote plurality election to allocate all of a state's electoral votes is a perfectly legal way of doing things should a state choose to do so. It's also 100% against the way the founding fathers intended this rule. Remember that. We're already exploiting a loophole to make things democratic. This just takes it one step further.

I wouldn't argue that the founders intended to be anti-democratic in the selection of the electors.  Except for the 1789 election where the process of choosing the Federal government was still being established, and 1800 where several state legislatures chose to not trust their voters and paid the price as a result, there have been a majority of electors elected by the voters.

What the founders had no conception of was of party politics.  That has had a greater effect upon the Presidential election process than the gradual adoption of universal suffrage.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on May 14, 2009, 09:27:14 PM
I wonder how many states will sign onto this before it starts getting major media attention.  Right now, nationwide passage looks so distant that hardly anyone cares about this issue.  It gets essentially no media coverage.  But what if we get to a point where states representing, say, 180 electoral votes have signed on?  The media might start to notice that the country's electoral system is potentially on the brink of changing.  It might actually become an issue that people care about, and the nature of the debate in the remaining states would take on a different flavor.



Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on May 18, 2009, 07:29:03 PM
I wonder how many states will sign onto this before it starts getting major media attention.  Right now, nationwide passage looks so distant that hardly anyone cares about this issue.  It gets essentially no media coverage.  But what if we get to a point where states representing, say, 180 electoral votes have signed on?  The media might start to notice that the country's electoral system is potentially on the brink of changing.  It might actually become an issue that people care about, and the nature of the debate in the remaining states would take on a different flavor.



When California becomes member of the pact, then perhaps they will take notice.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: jimrtex on June 05, 2009, 08:02:49 PM
Having a popular vote plurality election to allocate all of a state's electoral votes is a perfectly legal way of doing things should a state choose to do so. It's also 100% against the way the founding fathers intended this rule. Remember that. We're already exploiting a loophole to make things democratic. This just takes it one step further.
I wouldn't argue that the founders intended to be anti-democratic in the selection of the electors.  Except for the 1789 election where the process of choosing the Federal government was still being established, and 1800 where several state legislatures chose to not trust their voters and paid the price as a result, there have been a majority of electors elected by the voters.

What the founders had no conception of was of party politics.  That has had a greater effect upon the Presidential election process than the gradual adoption of universal suffrage.
Arguably 42 of 69 electors appointed in 1789 were popularly elected to some extent.  In Massachusetts the voters nominated 2 electors from each of 8 districts which the legislature chose between, and in New Hampshire, electors needed a majority.  Since none received a majority, the legislature chose the electors.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Sasquatch on August 29, 2009, 04:14:13 AM
I can't wait for this to go into effect.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: minionofmidas on August 29, 2009, 05:15:28 AM
Having a popular vote plurality election to allocate all of a state's electoral votes is a perfectly legal way of doing things should a state choose to do so. It's also 100% against the way the founding fathers intended this rule. Remember that. We're already exploiting a loophole to make things democratic. This just takes it one step further.
I wouldn't argue that the founders intended to be anti-democratic in the selection of the electors.  Except for the 1789 election where the process of choosing the Federal government was still being established, and 1800 where several state legislatures chose to not trust their voters and paid the price as a result, there have been a majority of electors elected by the voters.

What the founders had no conception of was of party politics.  That has had a greater effect upon the Presidential election process than the gradual adoption of universal suffrage.
Arguably 42 of 69 electors appointed in 1789 were popularly elected to some extent.  In Massachusetts the voters nominated 2 electors from each of 8 districts which the legislature chose between, and in New Hampshire, electors needed a majority.  Since none received a majority, the legislature chose the electors.
I don't think popular election of electors is the same as de-facto popular election of a presidential ticket via a mode of counting that makes use of electors.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ARescan on February 03, 2010, 06:13:56 PM
There's a reason this system is here. We can get it wrong sometimes.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 03, 2010, 06:18:01 PM
There's a reason this system is here. We can get it wrong sometimes.

Yes indeed, although you probably mean it a little differently than I do :)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Bo on February 03, 2010, 07:50:50 PM
Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 04, 2010, 06:16:32 AM
Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 04, 2010, 03:00:19 PM
Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Beet on February 04, 2010, 03:05:21 PM
Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Congress isn't democratic. Are you kidding? A person in North Dakota has 57 times more power than a person in California. And then you have the filibuster, which gives constituents of the minority 50% more power than constituents of the majority. And then you have D.C. which has zero representation period but is taxed like hell. Congress is the biggest joke in history.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 04, 2010, 03:05:58 PM
Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

The Congress, of course, is also not Democratic. Look at the unequal representation in the Senate. (Not to mention gerrymandered districts.)

In addition to that....why shouldn't the executive branch be democratic....other than that being the "Founders'" intention?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 04, 2010, 03:16:16 PM
Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

The Congress, of course, is also not Democratic. Look at the unequal representation in the Senate. (Not to mention gerrymandered districts.)

In addition to that....why shouldn't the executive branch be democratic....other than that being the "Founders'" intention?

I'm a strong believer in federalism. Which is why I support the electoral college and Senate (though not filibuster, you change my opinion on that ;))

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Congress isn't democratic. Are you kidding? A person in North Dakota has 57 times more power than a person in California. And then you have the filibuster, which gives constituents of the minority 50% more power than constituents of the majority. And then you have D.C. which has zero representation period but is taxed like hell. Congress is the biggest joke in history.

DC should have representatives IMO.

Besides, this is a check on the majority, preventing the tyranny of the minority.

Without the Senate, the big states would get far more than their fair share of federal dollars, at least that would be the logical outcome.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Beet on February 04, 2010, 03:27:03 PM
Quote
Quote
Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Congress isn't democratic. Are you kidding? A person in North Dakota has 57 times more power than a person in California. And then you have the filibuster, which gives constituents of the minority 50% more power than constituents of the majority. And then you have D.C. which has zero representation period but is taxed like hell. Congress is the biggest joke in history.

DC should have representatives IMO.

Besides, this is a check on the majority, preventing the tyranny of the minority.

Without the Senate, the big states would get far more than their fair share of federal dollars, at least that would be the logical outcome.

As opposed to now where they get far less?

And not to be inordinately partisan, which I know I sometimes am, but when it's Dems' turn to be in the minority the moderate heroes always come out to ensure that the majority has its way. Just look at the "gang of 14" from 2005 for instance. Where is the "gang of 14" of 2009???


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 04, 2010, 03:37:39 PM
As it is now....the minority has more power than the majority, which for all practical purposes means that they are a majority.

It's just a matter of who gets more money.....and I would tend to believe that the greater number of people should have a greater amount of power, as opposed to the other way around.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 04, 2010, 04:08:03 PM
In what way is a system that occasionally has the minority win a check against tyranny of the majority?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 04, 2010, 05:49:20 PM
As it is now....the minority has more power than the majority, which for all practical purposes means that they are a majority.

It's just a matter of who gets more money.....and I would tend to believe that the greater number of people should have a greater amount of power, as opposed to the other way around.

Apparently the house of reps doesn't exist.

Edit: They do have more power. Honestly, the house is controlled by people from big states: Pelosi, Hoyer, Boehner, Waxman. That is why the Senate exists, to balance that.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 04, 2010, 05:51:49 PM
As it is now....the minority has more power than the majority, which for all practical purposes means that they are a majority.

It's just a matter of who gets more money.....and I would tend to believe that the greater number of people should have a greater amount of power, as opposed to the other way around.

Apparently the house of reps doesn't exist.

But it can't do anything by itself, it's worthless because everything has to be approved by a body that has very unequal representation.

Granted, the minority can't push its agenda through against the will of the majority.....but it's impossible for the majority to push anything through against the will of the minority.

It creates a deadlock that is extremely unfair, as people in small states have MUCH MUCH more power than people from moderately sized or large states.


As said, it's just a question of who actually holds power. Under the present system, it's clearly not the supposed "majority".


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 04, 2010, 05:59:26 PM
As it is now....the minority has more power than the majority, which for all practical purposes means that they are a majority.

It's just a matter of who gets more money.....and I would tend to believe that the greater number of people should have a greater amount of power, as opposed to the other way around.

Apparently the house of reps doesn't exist.

But it can't do anything by itself, it's worthless because everything has to be approved by a body that has very unequal representation.

Granted, the minority can't push its agenda through against the will of the majority.....but it's impossible for the majority to push anything through against the will of the minority.

It creates a deadlock that is extremely unfair, as people in small states have MUCH MUCH more power than people from moderately sized or large states.


As said, it's just a question of who actually holds power. Under the present system, it's clearly not the supposed "majority".

I haven't seen the Senate do anything that blatantly favored small states. (except for unethical things like buying votes.)

I feel like you're just mad about healthcare, but maybe I'm wrong.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 04, 2010, 06:05:28 PM
That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying very few people in a couple of small states are able to block anything they want.

Therefore, these people in small states hold very disproportionate power. Considering that the Senate must agree to everything (not to mention with 60 votes....and good that you've come to accept that shouldn't be necessary ;)), that means it doesn't mean much to control a majority in the House.....because it has to go through the Senate.

Why should my influence on healthcare be 10 times lower than a guy in Wyoming has?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 04, 2010, 06:49:12 PM
That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying very few people in a couple of small states are able to block anything they want.

Therefore, these people in small states hold very disproportionate power. Considering that the Senate must agree to everything (not to mention with 60 votes....and good that you've come to accept that shouldn't be necessary ;)), that means it doesn't mean much to control a majority in the House.....because it has to go through the Senate.

Why should my influence on healthcare be 10 times lower than a guy in Wyoming has?

Look, that's all fine in theory. Think about, though. The odds that all 50 Senators from small states would oppose something is absurd. Some are Dem, some are Rep, and some are split.

If the Senate was perfectly representative, the Republicans would have 45 seats, so it works both ways.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 04, 2010, 06:53:33 PM
That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying very few people in a couple of small states are able to block anything they want.

Therefore, these people in small states hold very disproportionate power. Considering that the Senate must agree to everything (not to mention with 60 votes....and good that you've come to accept that shouldn't be necessary ;)), that means it doesn't mean much to control a majority in the House.....because it has to go through the Senate.

Why should my influence on healthcare be 10 times lower than a guy in Wyoming has?

Look, that's all fine in theory. Think about, though. The odds that all 50 Senators from small states would oppose something is absurd. Some are Dem, some are Rep, and some are split.

If the Senate was perfectly representative, the Republicans would have 45 seats, so it works both ways.

Yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that a person in Wyoming has ten times the influence that I do.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 04, 2010, 07:10:27 PM
That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying very few people in a couple of small states are able to block anything they want.

Therefore, these people in small states hold very disproportionate power. Considering that the Senate must agree to everything (not to mention with 60 votes....and good that you've come to accept that shouldn't be necessary ;)), that means it doesn't mean much to control a majority in the House.....because it has to go through the Senate.

Why should my influence on healthcare be 10 times lower than a guy in Wyoming has?

Look, that's all fine in theory. Think about, though. The odds that all 50 Senators from small states would oppose something is absurd. Some are Dem, some are Rep, and some are split.

If the Senate was perfectly representative, the Republicans would have 45 seats, so it works both ways.

Yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that a person in Wyoming has ten times the influence that I do.

Again, in theory.

Can you cite an issue where the small states generally blocked or significantly modified to their advantage? You can't say healthcare, because Senators from Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, and Tennessee opposed it.

Besides, doesn't each state government, having its own sovereignty on many issues, deserve equal representation?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 04, 2010, 07:23:27 PM
Quote
Again, in theory.

No, practically as well. Unless you believe every state has equal population? ;)

Quote
Can you cite an issue where the small states generally blocked or significantly modified to their advantage? You can't say healthcare, because Senators from Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, and Tennessee opposed it.

That's true enough, but take the House of Representatives....where a public option was able to pass.
Sure, there were senators from big states that opposed healthcare, but if people in every state had roughly equal representation, then the partisan distribution would be different. Small states tend to have more conservatives. (Note that this assumes that the FPTP voting system is maintained. A proportional system of electing senators would actually benefit the Republicans currently....but that's only because they were destroyed in the last two elections.)

Of course, this isn't even mentioning Democrats that don't vote like Democrats simply because they represent states that Democrats shouldn't be really representing.

Quote
Besides, doesn't each state government, having its own sovereignty on many issues, deserve equal representation?

State governments don't deserve any representation. I don't care what the founders intended. State lines are artificial, why should I believe that precisely the lines that were drawn for states should determine the composition of the federal legislature? Why can't I divide New York into two parts and then demand that they get two senators each?

I only care about the people being represented equally.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 04, 2010, 08:22:42 PM
Quote
Again, in theory.

No, practically as well. Unless you believe every state has equal population? ;)

Quote
Can you cite an issue where the small states generally blocked or significantly modified to their advantage? You can't say healthcare, because Senators from Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, and Tennessee opposed it.

That's true enough, but take the House of Representatives....where a public option was able to pass.
Sure, there were senators from big states that opposed healthcare, but if people in every state had roughly equal representation, then the partisan distribution would be different. Small states tend to have more conservatives. (Note that this assumes that the FPTP voting system is maintained. A proportional system of electing senators would actually benefit the Republicans currently....but that's only because they were destroyed in the last two elections.)

Of course, this isn't even mentioning Democrats that don't vote like Democrats simply because they represent states that Democrats shouldn't be really representing.

Quote
Besides, doesn't each state government, having its own sovereignty on many issues, deserve equal representation?

State governments don't deserve any representation. I don't care what the founders intended. State lines are artificial, why should I believe that precisely the lines that were drawn for states should determine the composition of the federal legislature? Why can't I divide New York into two parts and then demand that they get two senators each?

I only care about the people being represented equally.


The lines aren't arbitrary because over time each one developed its own economy. This happened with the original 13 colonies, and when new states were admitted, the lines were drawn to reflect that. 

As for small states, Vermont, Rhode Island, West Virginia (at the congressional level), New Mexico, and Hawaii are Democratic bastions, and North Dakota and Montana haven't been that harsh to Dems either.

Of course, it is fallacious to assume that direct representation of the people is always the best option. This system has worked for us, and it is a check on the majority, which is important. 


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 04, 2010, 10:10:52 PM
You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on February 04, 2010, 10:19:22 PM

State governments don't deserve any representation. I don't care what the founders intended. State lines are artificial, why should I believe that precisely the lines that were drawn for states should determine the composition of the federal legislature? Why can't I divide New York into two parts and then demand that they get two senators each?

I only care about the people being represented equally.


The State of New York could petition Congress to do exactly that. We've had threads on California's referendum to split. Historically, the big states have preferred to stay together when presented with a choice to split. I might conclude that they feel their size outweighs the extra representation the public would get in the Senate.

Governments throughout the world deal with bodies that at best approximate equality. The Council of the EU has one member to each member state regardless of population, and uses unweighted votes for some actions. Even the weighted vote gives Italy the same vote as Germany even though it has only 3/4 of Germany's population. Poland has 27 weighted votes compared to Germany's 29, but Poland has less than half the population. Malta has 3 votes but about 1/200th of Germany's population. That gives a person from Malta about 20 times the voting power of a German.

Representative districts in other countries are usually less precisely divided than the ones in the US. Very few countries gerrymander districts to get exact population equality the way we do. I don't think that level of gerrymandering necessarily serves the public.

Closer to home in IL the elected Supreme Court give 3 of 7 seats to Cook County. The Cook seats are elected countywide which is dominated by Chicago. It effectively gives Chicago 43% of the Court with about 23% of the state's population.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 04, 2010, 10:31:46 PM
Ah, but effective overrepresentation and actual overrepresentation are very different beasts. Chicago does not vote monolithically; the residents of the townships remain enfranchised. I see no reason for a state to have to jump through hoops for its people to get the representation they deserve.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 04, 2010, 10:34:18 PM
Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Because it's Democratic to have the 21 least popular states block any legislation in the Senate.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 04, 2010, 10:36:27 PM
You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

Yes, obviously. It's a terrible analogy though. States are mini-countries, not sociological groupings. Each has a UNIQUE economy that has developed throughout its existence as a sovereign institution.

Considering that Californians control who governs their state, and their Reps in the hous, and that their state has a huge economy and population, that more than makes up for the Senate.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 04, 2010, 10:42:40 PM
Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 04, 2010, 10:54:25 PM
You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

Yes, obviously. It's a terrible analogy though. States are mini-countries, not sociological groupings. Each has a UNIQUE economy that has developed throughout its existence as a sovereign institution.

I beg to differ. I have much more in common with a rich in New York than with a poor in Imperial County. Certainly, the rich have special interests. Don't those interests deserve to be represented? They have a unique influence on the economy as well.

Considering that Californians control who governs their state, and their Reps in the hous, and that their state has a huge economy and population, that more than makes up for the Senate.

What? Because I have the influence I deserve in some bodies, that makes it reasonable for me to be denied equal influence in another?

Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?

Because states are nothing but groups of citizens. Citizens vote. States do not.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 04, 2010, 11:32:57 PM
You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

Yes, obviously. It's a terrible analogy though. States are mini-countries, not sociological groupings. Each has a UNIQUE economy that has developed throughout its existence as a sovereign institution.

I beg to differ. I have much more in common with a rich in New York than with a poor in Imperial County. Certainly, the rich have special interests. Don't those interests deserve to be represented? They have a unique influence on the economy as well.

How often do you interact with a rich person in New York? How about a poor in California? California's laws affect you, New York's do not.

Quote
Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?

Because states are nothing but groups of citizens. Citizens vote. States do not.

Citizens OF states vote, because citizens of states are different from those of another.

Is it fair that my state government has huge mandates imposed by a federal government in Washington? No. It'd be even more unfair if representatives from California, New York, Texas, and few other large states, imposed a policy on Colorado because it made them look good in their states, but harmed mine. States deserve representation for that reason, their policy making is influenced, sometimes programs are mandated, by the federal government, yet one pays taxes for their state, so as a taxpayer, one deserves to have an equal voice.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on February 04, 2010, 11:41:18 PM
Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Because it's Democratic to have the 21 least popular states block any legislation in the Senate.

That's an issue with the Senate rule, not the federal system. In principle, the House could have a supermajority cloture rule.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 05, 2010, 12:15:46 AM
You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

Yes, obviously. It's a terrible analogy though. States are mini-countries, not sociological groupings. Each has a UNIQUE economy that has developed throughout its existence as a sovereign institution.

I beg to differ. I have much more in common with a rich in New York than with a poor in Imperial County. Certainly, the rich have special interests. Don't those interests deserve to be represented? They have a unique influence on the economy as well.

How often do you interact with a rich person in New York? How about a poor in California?

Given the nature of the American city, I essentially never interact with poors. I certainly haven't interacted with a poor in 2010. On the other hand, take this interaction: I, a rich from California, am interacting with you, a rich from Colorado.

California's laws affect you, New York's do not.

This is true, but irrelevant. The Senate does not legislate on behalf of either state.

Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?

Because states are nothing but groups of citizens. Citizens vote. States do not.

Citizens OF states vote, because citizens of states are different from those of another.

Is it fair that my state government has huge mandates imposed by a federal government in Washington? No. It'd be even more unfair if representatives from California, New York, Texas, and few other large states, imposed a policy on Colorado because it made them look good in their states, but harmed mine. States deserve representation for that reason, their policy making is influenced, sometimes programs are mandated, by the federal government, yet one pays taxes for their state, so as a taxpayer, one deserves to have an equal voice.

Citizens FROM social classes vote, because citizens of social classes are different from those of another.

Is it fair that my provincial government has huge mandates imposed by a central government in Berlin? No. It'd be even more unfair if representatives from the lower classes imposed a policy on us because it made them look good in their group, but harmed mine. Social classes deserve representation for that reason, their policy making is influenced, sometimes programs are mandated, by the central government, yet one pays taxes for their income, so as a taxpayer, one deserves to have an equal voice.

Congratulations, we have an argument for Prussian democracy. The fundamental issue with this argument is that it assumes that the right to participate in a democracy comes with the payment of taxes, which I contest.

READ THIS

But let's go with your tax-based reasoning. It's fine if you don't want a policy imposed by big states. But you shouldn't expect to be protected by a military funded by taxes from big states. If states have an equal say in how money is doled out, they should bear an equal share of the load. You can't have 7.441 times more influence than me by force of population unless you also pay 7.441 times more taxes than I do.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on February 05, 2010, 01:20:22 AM
Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

An economic based republic is as workable as any other, though ideally it should not just be based on taxes, but also expenditures.  If I pay $50,000 in taxes but receive $60,000 from the government, should I be more deserving of ten times the representation of someone who pays $5,000 in taxes but receives $1,000 in government income?.  I'd say not.  (Such a system would effectively eliminate most voting by senior citizens who receive Social Security.)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 05, 2010, 01:42:00 AM
Of course it's feasible, but I don't think that it's morally right.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 05, 2010, 04:32:28 AM
Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?

Let me ask you a different question.

Illinois used to distribute seats in the Illinois Senate seat equally to every county, although that was eventually declared unconstitutional.

How is that different than granting equal representation to each state at federal level?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Joe Republic on February 05, 2010, 04:53:57 AM
Illinois used to distribute seats in the Illinois Senate seat equally to every county, although that was eventually declared unconstitutional.

You mean to say that they found a problem with two state senators representing as many citizens as every other senator combined?

Well sir, I for one am shocked.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 05, 2010, 02:59:37 PM
A few things, Xahar.

First, I am by no means rich. Unless you consider a family of four with health insurance premiums, a mortgage, and only 40k after taxes, plus a number of other bills despite living conservatively rich.

Second, personally, I have significant interactions with "poors" on a nearly daily basis (my little segment of Boulder suburbia isn't very class segregated).

Now, my argument, put, well... better :P

A huge % of a state's budget is imposed by federal mandates. Now, that's not fair to my state government, nor its people. A program that benefits Californians may not benefit North Dakotans, but because of California's huge influence, they can force ND to spend that money (they do this despite being a blatant violation of states' rights), despite the fact that a Californian gives no money to ND, nor lives there. Thus, ND may have to raise taxes, but California doesn't care because it doesn't affect them.

As for the military, that does not make sense. Each state gives the same amount of money proportionately, and it is the President (who always wins the popular vote save once in modern history) who controls the military. Congress has very little influence over the military Xahar, and even if it did, the house would be a check on the Senate. It works both ways Xahar.

Now, I don't think it is fair that California, for instance, gives more the federal government than it receives, but that is due to corrupt Senators, and is their fault, not one of the system's design.

Your argument about the representation by class didn't make any sense. See, states are sovereign governments in a contract with their citizens, and on domestic issues they're more influential than the federal government (usually), that's why they deserve equal representation.

You're only arguments are, frankly, poor analogies and emotional arguments, Xahar.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 05, 2010, 09:23:05 PM
A few things, Xahar.

First, I am by no means rich. Unless you consider a family of four with health insurance premiums, a mortgage, and only 40k after taxes, plus a number of other bills despite living conservatively rich.

The fact that you have time to burn here would qualify you as a rich.

Second, personally, I have significant interactions with "poors" on a nearly daily basis (my little segment of Boulder suburbia isn't very class segregated).

Your anecdotal evidence and mine are worth about the same. Anyhow, this tangent is getting entirely unrelated, so let's abandon it.

Now, my argument, put, well... better :P

A huge % of a state's budget is imposed by federal mandates. Now, that's not fair to my state government, nor its people.

Fair enough, If you feel that way, then leave the federation, since it's clearly not working for Colorado.

A program that benefits Californians may not benefit North Dakotans, but because of California's huge influence, they can force ND to spend that money (they do this despite being a blatant violation of states' rights), despite the fact that a Californian gives no money to ND, nor lives there. Thus, ND may have to raise taxes, but California doesn't care because it doesn't affect them.

The same is true anywhere. A county government will do things that affect some areas of the county but not others.

As for the military, that does not make sense. Each state gives the same amount of money proportionately,

Indeed. Therefore, they should also have a proportionate say, yes?

and it is the President (who always wins the popular vote save once in modern history) who controls the military. Congress has very little influence over the military Xahar, and even if it did, the house would be a check on the Senate. It works both ways Xahar.

Do you not understand this?

Underrepresentation in some areas combined with adequate representation in others is still net underrepresentation.

Now, I don't think it is fair that California, for instance, gives more the federal government than it receives, but that is due to corrupt Senators, and is their fault, not one of the system's design.

You seem not to understand that my objections here are philosophical, not political.

Your argument about the representation by class didn't make any sense. See, states are sovereign governments in a contract with their citizens, and on domestic issues they're more influential than the federal government (usually), that's why they deserve equal representation.

You know what? I don't care about that. I believe that everyone should have a vote counting the same. End of story.

You're only arguments are, frankly, poor analogies and emotional arguments, Xahar.

My arguments are emotional! Yes! I believe in democracy and equality. The idea that some people have more votes than others goes against that.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 05, 2010, 10:49:51 PM
A few things, Xahar.

First, I am by no means rich. Unless you consider a family of four with health insurance premiums, a mortgage, and only 40k after taxes, plus a number of other bills despite living conservatively rich.

The fact that you have time to burn here would qualify you as a rich.

LOL I'm 16 dude, even a poor 16 year-old has time to burn :P

Quote
Now, my argument, put, well... better :P

A huge % of a state's budget is imposed by federal mandates. Now, that's not fair to my state government, nor its people.

Fair enough, If you feel that way, then leave the federation, since it's clearly not working for Colorado.

You don't understand that my arguments are philosophical and not political ;)

Colorado actually gets it pretty fair, being right in the middle in terms of population. You're the one with the problems with the status quo, not me.

Quote
A program that benefits Californians may not benefit North Dakotans, but because of California's huge influence, they can force ND to spend that money (they do this despite being a blatant violation of states' rights), despite the fact that a Californian gives no money to ND, nor lives there. Thus, ND may have to raise taxes, but California doesn't care because it doesn't affect them.

The same is true anywhere. A county government will do things that affect some areas of the county but not others.

That is a poor analogy. States share all domestic sovereignty with the federal government, a county is not such a separate institution.

Quote
As for the military, that does not make sense. Each state gives the same amount of money proportionately,

Indeed. Therefore, they should also have a proportionate say, yes?

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

Quote
Now, I don't think it is fair that California, for instance, gives more the federal government than it receives, but that is due to corrupt Senators, and is their fault, not one of the system's design.

You seem not to understand that my objections here are philosophical, not political.

It's suspect that you are from the largest state, that's all.

Quote
You're only arguments are, frankly, poor analogies and emotional arguments, Xahar.

My arguments are emotional! Yes! I believe in democracy and equality. The idea that some people have more votes than others goes against that.

It is my belief that the Senate is an equalizer, not giving some people more influence. The rural areas would be just be ignored, face it.

Oh, and you believe it equality and democracy and stuff, but I recall you calling voters idiots on multiple occasions.

Here's a question, do you believe in federalism at all? If not, there is no point in us debating this.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 05, 2010, 10:59:54 PM
Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Because it's Democratic to have the 21 least popular states block any legislation in the Senate.

That's an issue with the Senate rule, not the federal system. In principle, the House could have a supermajority cloture rule.

So it's democratic for Wyoming to have as much representation as California in the Senate?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 05, 2010, 11:09:40 PM
Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it :)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 06, 2010, 07:43:36 AM
Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it :)

You don't seem to understand the arguments against your notions ;)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 06, 2010, 07:45:10 AM
They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

You mean like on healthcare, or cap-and-trade?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 06, 2010, 01:35:35 PM
Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it :)

You don't seem to understand the arguments against your notions ;)

Cause otherwise I'd totally agree with you ::)

The only argument is that everybody should be perfectly represented. This is a fallacy, as equal representation =/= the best governance. One house of congress and (for the most part) the Presidency are elected by an equal vote. It was Xahar himself who has said voters are idiots on multiple occasions.

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

You mean like on healthcare, or cap-and-trade?

That's the Democrats' fault, not the Senate. Republicans never had trouble.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 06, 2010, 02:00:11 PM
Why even have people represented at all? Why not have all decisions made by a small and self-appointed group of wise men who know our interests better than we ourselves do?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: minionofmidas on February 06, 2010, 02:18:53 PM
Because they'll feel better thinking that.
Quote
Why not have all decisions made by a small and self-appointed group of wise men who know our interests better than we ourselves do?
They are.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 06, 2010, 02:21:14 PM
Because they'll feel better thinking that.
Quote
Why not have all decisions made by a small and self-appointed group of wise men who know our interests better than we ourselves do?
They are.

It tends more to be several different groups of self-appointed wise men...


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: minionofmidas on February 06, 2010, 02:29:34 PM
Because they'll feel better thinking that.
Quote
Why not have all decisions made by a small and self-appointed group of wise men who know our interests better than we ourselves do?
They are.

It tends more to be several different groups of self-appointed wise men...
...although there is considerable overlap between the groups.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 06, 2010, 03:05:22 PM
Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it :)

You don't seem to understand the arguments against your notions ;)

Cause otherwise I'd totally agree with you ::)

The only argument is that everybody should be perfectly represented. This is a fallacy, as equal representation =/= the best governance. One house of congress and (for the most part) the Presidency are elected by an equal vote. It was Xahar himself who has said voters are idiots on multiple occasions.

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

You mean like on healthcare, or cap-and-trade?

That's the Democrats' fault, not the Senate. Republicans never had trouble.

It doesn't matter how equal representation is for the Presidency or the House of Representatives. The unequal Senate can block anything it pleases. What's so terribly difficult to understand about that?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 06, 2010, 05:24:06 PM
Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it :)

You don't seem to understand the arguments against your notions ;)

Cause otherwise I'd totally agree with you ::)

The only argument is that everybody should be perfectly represented. This is a fallacy, as equal representation =/= the best governance. One house of congress and (for the most part) the Presidency are elected by an equal vote. It was Xahar himself who has said voters are idiots on multiple occasions.

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

You mean like on healthcare, or cap-and-trade?

That's the Democrats' fault, not the Senate. Republicans never had trouble.

It doesn't matter how equal representation is for the Presidency or the House of Representatives. The unequal Senate can block anything it pleases. What's so terribly difficult to understand about that?

I understand that, and I don't care.

The states deserve representation IMO.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 06, 2010, 06:27:43 PM
Then we have no reason to continue debating here.

I disagree that states deserve any representation whatsoever on principle.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Bo on February 06, 2010, 07:05:36 PM
Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Because it's Democratic to have the 21 least popular states block any legislation in the Senate.

I think the 21 least populous states account for only 11% of America's population.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 07, 2010, 02:29:31 PM
Then we have no reason to continue debating here.

I disagree that states deserve any representation whatsoever on principle.

Indeed, that is what I was trying to say earlier to Xahar.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 08, 2010, 11:07:26 PM
Now, my argument, put, well... better :P

A huge % of a state's budget is imposed by federal mandates. Now, that's not fair to my state government, nor its people.

Fair enough, If you feel that way, then leave the federation, since it's clearly not working for Colorado.

You don't understand that my arguments are philosophical and not political ;)

As are mine. If a place isn't getting a good deal in the situation it's in, it ought to change that.

Colorado actually gets it pretty fair, being right in the middle in terms of population. You're the one with the problems with the status quo, not me.

Yes, Colorado gets it fair. You are thus admitting that the system is unfair.

A program that benefits Californians may not benefit North Dakotans, but because of California's huge influence, they can force ND to spend that money (they do this despite being a blatant violation of states' rights), despite the fact that a Californian gives no money to ND, nor lives there. Thus, ND may have to raise taxes, but California doesn't care because it doesn't affect them.

The same is true anywhere. A county government will do things that affect some areas of the county but not others.

That is a poor analogy. States share all domestic sovereignty with the federal government, a county is not such a separate institution.

So, then, change "county" to "state".

As for the military, that does not make sense. Each state gives the same amount of money proportionately,

Indeed. Therefore, they should also have a proportionate say, yes?

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

Let me refer you to this:

Do you not understand this?

Underrepresentation in some areas combined with adequate representation in others is still net underrepresentation.

Read it well.

Now, I don't think it is fair that California, for instance, gives more the federal government than it receives, but that is due to corrupt Senators, and is their fault, not one of the system's design.

You seem not to understand that my objections here are philosophical, not political.

It's suspect that you are from the largest state, that's all.

I fail to see how that affects my argument.

You're only arguments are, frankly, poor analogies and emotional arguments, Xahar.

My arguments are emotional! Yes! I believe in democracy and equality. The idea that some people have more votes than others goes against that.

It is my belief that the Senate is an equalizer, not giving some people more influence.

I don't know how you can say these things with a straight face. In 1820, the British parliamentary constituency of Old Sarum had seven voters and returned two members to the Commons, and the constituency of Westminster had 9,280 voters and also returned two members to the Commons. Presumably this was also an equalizer and not giving some people more influence?

The rural areas would be just be ignored, face it.

That's not true; rural areas are not ignored in the House, and many of its most powerful members come from rural areas. If it were true, than it would mean that rural areas were so insignificant that they deserved to be ignored.

Oh, and you believe it equality and democracy and stuff, but I recall you calling voters idiots on multiple occasions.

Oh, certainly. But rule by idiots is better than any other sort.

Here's a question, do you believe in federalism at all? If not, there is no point in us debating this.

It depends on the situation. Do I believe that Singapore ought to have a federalist system? Of course not. Do I believe that Russia should have a federalist government? Obviously. For America, federalism is preferable to a unitary state, given America's size. But federalism means that areas within the state decide local matters. I see no relation between federalism and the apportionment of representatives in a central legislature.

Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it :)

Isn't debate the (theoretical) point of this forum?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 08, 2010, 11:43:54 PM
Quote
Colorado actually gets it pretty fair, being right in the middle in terms of population. You're the one with the problems with the status quo, not me.

Yes, Colorado gets it fair. You are thus admitting that the system is unfair.

Maybe, maybe not :P

Quote
A program that benefits Californians may not benefit North Dakotans, but because of California's huge influence, they can force ND to spend that money (they do this despite being a blatant violation of states' rights), despite the fact that a Californian gives no money to ND, nor lives there. Thus, ND may have to raise taxes, but California doesn't care because it doesn't affect them.

The same is true anywhere. A county government will do things that affect some areas of the county but not others.

That is a poor analogy. States share all domestic sovereignty with the federal government, a county is not such a separate institution.

So, then, change "county" to "state".

The thing is, the states established the federal government, they're approval is required for constitutional changes, counties were established by the states.

Quote
Now, I don't think it is fair that California, for instance, gives more the federal government than it receives, but that is due to corrupt Senators, and is their fault, not one of the system's design.

You seem not to understand that my objections here are philosophical, not political.

It's suspect that you are from the largest state, that's all.

I fail to see how that affects my argument.

I'm just explaining why I thought you were arguing it from a political point of view originally.

Quote
You're only arguments are, frankly, poor analogies and emotional arguments, Xahar.

My arguments are emotional! Yes! I believe in democracy and equality. The idea that some people have more votes than others goes against that.

It is my belief that the Senate is an equalizer, not giving some people more influence.

I don't know how you can say these things with a straight face. In 1820, the British parliamentary constituency of Old Sarum had seven voters and returned two members to the Commons, and the constituency of Westminster had 9,280 voters and also returned two members to the Commons. Presumably this was also an equalizer and not giving some people more influence?

No, because the commons are supposed to be like the US house.

This is how I see it. The states, for all domestic purposes, are mini-countries that have agreed to establish a federal government that has sovereignty over them on important issues that must be dealt with nationally. The Senate ensures that the big states don't walk over the small ones. California has 53 people earmarking for it, yet Utah only 3. I wish legislating didn't occur that way, but it is a reality.

The Senate also ensures there's consensus among many different groups of people on legislation. Now, I think that procedural filibuster is stupid, but still. Imagine all the stuff that would have passed under the Bush and under Obama without the Senate. Like it or not, it prevents radical change unless there is a clear consensus for radical change.

I admit the Senate is obstructionist at times, but I blame the politicians and parties for taking advantage of the institution.

Quote
The rural areas would be just be ignored, face it.

That's not true; rural areas are not ignored in the House, and many of its most powerful members come from rural areas. If it were true, than it would mean that rural areas were so insignificant that they deserved to be ignored.

I do agree that they have their influence, but perhaps not enough IMO. After all, the speaker is from downtown San Francisco.

I was exaggerating, in hindsight.

Quote
Here's a question, do you believe in federalism at all? If not, there is no point in us debating this.

It depends on the situation. Do I believe that Singapore ought to have a federalist system? Of course not. Do I believe that Russia should have a federalist government? Obviously. For America, federalism is preferable to a unitary state, given America's size. But federalism means that areas within the state decide local matters. I see no relation between federalism and the apportionment of representatives in a central legislature.

To ensure the interests of the member states of the federation receive equal treatment. Now, in practice this doesn't always happen, but that's due to stupid political stuff like bribing Senators and such.

I would like to add that members from large states are usually very influential in the Senate. Your two Senators are. Look at Durbin, Schumer, Hutchinson, "Big John" Cornyn.

Generally, if two members have similar seniority it seems, at least to me, that the ones from big states have more influence.

Quote
Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it :)

Isn't debate the (theoretical) point of this forum?

Indeed. I've been enjoying this one. :) You're one of the more reasonable (if not moderate) and logical Democrats on the forum (though most posters here are indeed intelligent).


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 09, 2010, 02:14:03 AM
I think one thing you're confusing is federalism and federal elections.

It's completely possible to have equal representation at federal level and still allocate significant power to the states. One thing doesn't really have much to do with the other.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 09, 2010, 11:18:38 AM
I think one thing you're confusing is federalism and federal elections.

It's completely possible to have equal representation at federal level and still allocate significant power to the states. One thing doesn't really have much to do with the other.

I'm not. I realize they're not mutually exclusive. The equ representation contributes to the overall cohesiveness. The Senate brings a sense of equality and cohesion to the people of the various states. We already have significant region divides, NAFTA, for example, which the border stats like but industrial Midwest states don't. It legitimizes the federal government, and creates national unity.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 09, 2010, 11:20:39 AM
I think one thing you're confusing is federalism and federal elections.

It's completely possible to have equal representation at federal level and still allocate significant power to the states. One thing doesn't really have much to do with the other.

I'm not. I realize they're not mutually exclusive. The equ representation contributes to the overall cohesiveness. The Senate brings a sense of equality and cohesion to the people of the various states. We already have significant region divides, NAFTA, for example, which the border stats like but industrial Midwest states don't. It legitimizes the federal government, and creates national unity.

I don't feel unified, to be honest. In fact, it offends me greatly that a voter in North Dakota has the same representation in the Senate as I do.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 09, 2010, 05:43:50 PM
I think one thing you're confusing is federalism and federal elections.

It's completely possible to have equal representation at federal level and still allocate significant power to the states. One thing doesn't really have much to do with the other.

I'm not. I realize they're not mutually exclusive. The equ representation contributes to the overall cohesiveness. The Senate brings a sense of equality and cohesion to the people of the various states. We already have significant region divides, NAFTA, for example, which the border stats like but industrial Midwest states don't. It legitimizes the federal government, and creates national unity.

I don't feel unified, to be honest. In fact, it offends me greatly that a voter in North Dakota has the same representation in the Senate as I do.

First, you worded that poorly ;)

Perhaps you're offended, but most Americans agree with the system. I have never met a person in real life opposed to the Senate. Personally, I really don't care that New Mexico gets the same representation as my state.

Besides, one of your Senators is the Majority whip, and as I said earlier, Senators from big states tend to be more influential (though seniority trumps that).


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 09, 2010, 05:48:27 PM
With all due respect....the fact that most Americans approve of the system is hardly an argument in favor of said system :)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on February 09, 2010, 05:53:41 PM
With all due respect....the fact that most Americans approve of the system is hardly an argument in favor of said system :)

Nice subtle reference to one reform plan ::) :P


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 19, 2010, 11:01:40 PM
The pace to nullify the EC is picking up, so far this year:

Colorado House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Oregon House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
New Mexico House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Arkansas House, Washington House, and Vermont Senate Pass National Popular Vote Bill


I think there is a good chance this plan will be in effect by 2012


Even if enough states pass it, don't forget that tthis is done by state statute. Any legislature that doesn't like the way 2012 might turn out can just as easily repeal their state law before the electors would be certified. Only a constitutional amendment can change the system and not leave it open to partisan whim.

Not true.  A state may not break a compact it has signed onto.  An interstate compact is like an international treaty and supersedes state law:

Quote
An interstate compact is an exception to the rule that one legislature may not restrict its successors. 3 More than mere statutes, compacts are contracts that are binding on the member states and their citizens. 4 Like any other statute, an interstate compact supersedes prior law. 5 But as with other contracts, the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution 6 protects compacts from impairment by the states. Although a state cannot be bound by a compact to which it has not consented, 7 a compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states. 8 A state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide, 9  and the extent to which a compact may constitutionally permit any alteration by less than unanimous consent is unclear.

(emphasis added)

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=49+Fla.+L.+Rev.+1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=04a01655420564f0c293e096df74fc67

Quote
An approved compact establishes a contractual relationship between the signatory states which is protected from impairment by the contract clause of the constitution.  In common with an international treaty, a compact supersedes existing state laws and hence compacting states surrender part of their respective sovereignty.

http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=qWehEho4Vu4C&lpg=PA34&ots=6cgZc015m8&dq=impairment%20clause%20interstate%20compacts&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q=impairment%20clause%20interstate%20compacts&f=true



Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 19, 2010, 11:04:40 PM
With all due respect....the fact that most Americans approve of the system is hardly an argument in favor of said system :)

That is true, but it is also true that there 70%+ public support for a direct national election of the president:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 19, 2010, 11:15:49 PM
Hm. To me, it seems that there's a problem with a bare majority of the states deciding to completely change the way we elect a President, especially if the other states have opposed this compact. I really don't want half the states telling the other half of the states that they don't have a say anymore, especially if they have rejected this compact.

But they are not completely changing the way.  We have been electing the president the same way since 1804 and this compact does not propose to change that.  It simply allows for a group of states to sign onto a compact where they will use their plenary powers to decide the method of the appointment of their respective electors.

Quote
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .

U.S. Const., Article II, Section 1.

Quote
Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.

McPherson v. Blacker (1892), SCOTUS

Quote
The source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker … that the State legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary.

Bush v. Gore (2000), SCOTUS

These sources were taken from nationalpopularvote.com in their FAQ.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 20, 2010, 01:49:02 PM
The pace to nullify the EC is picking up, so far this year:

Colorado House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Oregon House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
New Mexico House Passes National Popular Vote Bill
Arkansas House, Washington House, and Vermont Senate Pass National Popular Vote Bill


I think there is a good chance this plan will be in effect by 2012


Even if enough states pass it, don't forget that tthis is done by state statute. Any legislature that doesn't like the way 2012 might turn out can just as easily repeal their state law before the electors would be certified. Only a constitutional amendment can change the system and not leave it open to partisan whim.

Not true.  A state may not break a compact it has signed onto.  An interstate compact is like an international treaty and supersedes state law:

Quote
An interstate compact is an exception to the rule that one legislature may not restrict its successors. 3 More than mere statutes, compacts are contracts that are binding on the member states and their citizens. 4 Like any other statute, an interstate compact supersedes prior law. 5 But as with other contracts, the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution 6 protects compacts from impairment by the states. Although a state cannot be bound by a compact to which it has not consented, 7 a compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states. 8 A state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide, 9  and the extent to which a compact may constitutionally permit any alteration by less than unanimous consent is unclear.

(emphasis added)

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=49+Fla.+L.+Rev.+1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=04a01655420564f0c293e096df74fc67

Quote
An approved compact establishes a contractual relationship between the signatory states which is protected from impairment by the contract clause of the constitution.  In common with an international treaty, a compact supersedes existing state laws and hence compacting states surrender part of their respective sovereignty.

http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=qWehEho4Vu4C&lpg=PA34&ots=6cgZc015m8&dq=impairment%20clause%20interstate%20compacts&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q=impairment%20clause%20interstate%20compacts&f=true



A compact requires the consent of Congress as well. (Article I Section 10 Clause 3 of the Constitution.)  These State laws are as far as I can tell, not being enacted in the form a a compact that would be sent to Congress for approval, and even if they were, I see no chance that this would pass the Senate anytime soon.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 21, 2010, 08:51:30 AM
The compact would not need Congressional consent to take effect.  SCOTUS has ruled that the requirement for consent cannot be read literally:

Quote
Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta.

U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, SCOTUS

This would be a compact among those states to exercise powers that already exist within the exclusive domain of the states, that of the method of appointing presidential electors.  The Court's rulings have only required consent where the compacts encroach on the supremacy of the U.S. government.  Would such a compact need consent, if it is only to coordinate the exercise of a power the states already have exclusively?

Either way, just to be safe, the NPVIC advocates are seeking such consent.

Sourcing taken from this page:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m15.php#m15_4

You may want to try reading through this, as it is well-sourced. 


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 21, 2010, 01:17:18 PM
Neither Virginia v. Tennessee nor United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n would be applicable in a the case of an irrevocable binding agreement between the States as to how they choose electors.

In Virginia v. Tennessee, the Court found that the Congress had given its assent, albeit informally, to the border agreement made by the States.  In mentioned in passing that there were classes of interstate agreements that did not require Congressional approval.

In the other case, since a state may withdraw from the Multistate Tax Commission at any time, it is not cogent either.

Certainly the States may choose to jointly agree on a method of choosing electors, but that agreement cannot be made irrevocable, nor can it be made enforceable absent Congressional approval of the compact.  States would be free to leave at any time.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: yougo1000 on May 22, 2010, 08:22:40 AM
I hop these campaigns succeed.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 22, 2010, 11:16:46 AM

What do pancakes have to do with politics? :)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 22, 2010, 01:07:50 PM
Neither Virginia v. Tennessee nor United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n would be applicable in a the case of an irrevocable binding agreement between the States as to how they choose electors.

In Virginia v. Tennessee, the Court found that the Congress had given its assent, albeit informally, to the border agreement made by the States.  In mentioned in passing that there were classes of interstate agreements that did not require Congressional approval.

In the other case, since a state may withdraw from the Multistate Tax Commission at any time, it is not cogent either.

Certainly the States may choose to jointly agree on a method of choosing electors, but that agreement cannot be made irrevocable, nor can it be made enforceable absent Congressional approval of the compact.  States would be free to leave at any time.

First, the NPVIC is not an irrevocable binding agreement, as a state would be free to withdraw at any time; the only proviso is that if the state enacts a withdrawal within six months of the end of a presidential term, the withdrawal may only take effect when a new president-elect shall have qualified:

Quote
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.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php

Under the Impairments Clause of the Constitution, because a compact is like a contract a state cannot just violate the terms of the contract.

The other question is one of whether Congressional consent is required for the compact to take effect.  In the case of U.S. Steel named above, that compact at the time of the SCOTUS ruling had not received even implied consent from Congress, yet the Court upheld the compact.  (That the compact had not received that consent was at the heart of the controversy in that case.)

Of course, the NPVIC is likely to be challenged anyway, so the case bears watching, but in accordance with previous cases, since the compact is limited to one subject and is simply an agreement between states concerning how they will use powers that are already exclusively in their domain, consent would likely not be required.  Either way, so that D.C. can become part of the NPVIC and just to be sure, the supports of the NPVIC are still seeking either implied or express Congressional consent.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 22, 2010, 02:06:50 PM
... a state would be free to withdraw at any time; the only proviso is that if the state enacts a withdrawal within six months of the end of a presidential term, the withdrawal may only take effect when a new president-elect shall have qualified:

Quote
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.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php

Under the Impairments Clause of the Constitution, because a compact is like a contract a state cannot just violate the terms of the contract.


Without Congressional approval, the six month deadline is non-enforceable as the contract would not have been validly entered into.

The other question is one of whether Congressional consent is required for the compact to take effect.  In the case of U.S. Steel named above, that compact at the time of the SCOTUS ruling had not received even implied consent from Congress, yet the Court upheld the compact.  (That the compact had not received that consent was at the heart of the controversy in that case.)

State withdrawal was not at issue in the U.S. Steel case.  From the syllabus of that case:

Quote
Under the test of whether the particular compact enhances state power quoad the Federal Government, this Compact does not purport to authorize member States to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence, nor is there any delegation of sovereign power to the Commission, each State being free to adopt or reject the Commission's rules and regulations and to withdraw from the Compact at any time.
(Bold and underline emphasis added.)

The six month withdrawal proviso of the NPVIC does not meet the standard of the holding in the U.S. Steel case.

Of course, the NPVIC is likely to be challenged anyway, so the case bears watching, but in accordance with previous cases, since the compact is limited to one subject and is simply an agreement between states concerning how they will use powers that are already exclusively in their domain, consent would likely not be required.

As I pointed out, that six month proviso is invalid without Congressional consent.  The rest of the NPVIC should survive any court challenge.  Besides, the six months is more like three and a half months.  If any State tried to change its method of selecting electors after Election Day, it wouldn't meet the standard for incontestability in the Congress.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 22, 2010, 02:16:17 PM
... a state would be free to withdraw at any time; the only proviso is that if the state enacts a withdrawal within six months of the end of a presidential term, the withdrawal may only take effect when a new president-elect shall have qualified:

Quote
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.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php

Under the Impairments Clause of the Constitution, because a compact is like a contract a state cannot just violate the terms of the contract.


Without Congressional approval, the six month deadline is non-enforceable as the contract would not have been validly entered into.

The other question is one of whether Congressional consent is required for the compact to take effect.  In the case of U.S. Steel named above, that compact at the time of the SCOTUS ruling had not received even implied consent from Congress, yet the Court upheld the compact.  (That the compact had not received that consent was at the heart of the controversy in that case.)

State withdrawal was not at issue in the U.S. Steel case.  From the syllabus of that case:

Quote
Under the test of whether the particular compact enhances state power quoad the Federal Government, this Compact does not purport to authorize member States to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence, nor is there any delegation of sovereign power to the Commission, each State being free to adopt or reject the Commission's rules and regulations and to withdraw from the Compact at any time.
(Bold and underline emphasis added.)

The six month withdrawal proviso of the NPVIC does not meet the standard of the holding in the U.S. Steel case.

Of course, the NPVIC is likely to be challenged anyway, so the case bears watching, but in accordance with previous cases, since the compact is limited to one subject and is simply an agreement between states concerning how they will use powers that are already exclusively in their domain, consent would likely not be required.

As I pointed out, that six month proviso is invalid without Congressional consent.  The rest of the NPVIC should survive any court challenge.  Besides, the six months is more like three and a half months.  If any State tried to change its method of selecting electors after Election Day, it wouldn't meet the standard for incontestability in the Congress.

Just because there are provisos on withdrawal in the law does not mean the compact requires Congressional consent for those provisos to have force of law.  For example, the Multistate Tax Compact (MTC) does have a proviso on withdrawal, signifying where the compliance of states would matter the most for the purposes of that compact.  Here is the MTC on the matter of withdrawal:

Quote
2. Any party State may withdraw from this compact by enacting a statute repealing the same. No withdrawal shall affect any liability already incurred by or chargeable to a party State prior to the time of such withdrawal.

http://www.mtc.gov/About.aspx?id=98

The presence of such provisos does not make the compact require Congressional consent.

Quote
As I pointed out, that six month proviso is invalid without Congressional consent.  The rest of the NPVIC should survive any court challenge.  Besides, the six months is more like three and a half months.  If any State tried to change its method of selecting electors after Election Day, it wouldn't meet the standard for incontestability in the Congress.

If a compact requires Congressional consent, then none of it can take effect without that consent.

I agree with you, however, on the period following Election Day.  The NPVIC would provide some redundancy for that period.

EDIT: Changed "approval" to "consent" to be more consistent with terms.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 22, 2010, 02:46:58 PM
Just because there are provisos on withdrawal in the law does not mean the compact requires Congressional consent for those provisos to have force of law.  For example, the Multistate Tax Compact (MTC) does have a proviso on withdrawal, signifying where the compliance of states would matter the most for the purposes of that compact.  Here is the MTC on the matter of withdrawal:

Quote
2. Any party State may withdraw from this compact by enacting a statute repealing the same. No withdrawal shall affect any liability already incurred by or chargeable to a party State prior to the time of such withdrawal.

http://www.mtc.gov/About.aspx?id=98

The presence of such provisos does not make the compact require Congressional consent.

That proviso is a simple restatement of the Constitutional ban on ex post facto laws.

If a compact requires Congressional consent, then none of it can take effect without that consent.

Not so.  The NPVIC includes a severability clause.   If the limitation on withdrawal were held to be invalid, then the rest would still apply, assuming that there were still 270 EVs in the agreement.  Not that I think the NPVIC will go into force any time soon.  It won't be in place for 2012 and until we get another case where the popular vote and electoral vote disagree there won't be much impetus for it.

At best, advocates of a national popular vote have something in place that could be quickly enacted after the next time the EV and the PV disagree.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: yougo1000 on May 22, 2010, 09:17:59 PM

What do pancakes have to do with politics? :)

Sorry my keyboard is messed up.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 23, 2010, 05:51:05 AM
Just because there are provisos on withdrawal in the law does not mean the compact requires Congressional consent for those provisos to have force of law.  For example, the Multistate Tax Compact (MTC) does have a proviso on withdrawal, signifying where the compliance of states would matter the most for the purposes of that compact.  Here is the MTC on the matter of withdrawal:

Quote
2. Any party State may withdraw from this compact by enacting a statute repealing the same. No withdrawal shall affect any liability already incurred by or chargeable to a party State prior to the time of such withdrawal.

http://www.mtc.gov/About.aspx?id=98

The presence of such provisos does not make the compact require Congressional consent.

That proviso is a simple restatement of the Constitutional ban on ex post facto laws.

If a compact requires Congressional consent, then none of it can take effect without that consent.

Not so.  The NPVIC includes a severability clause.   If the limitation on withdrawal were held to be invalid, then the rest would still apply, assuming that there were still 270 EVs in the agreement.  Not that I think the NPVIC will go into force any time soon.  It won't be in place for 2012 and until we get another case where the popular vote and electoral vote disagree there won't be much impetus for it.

At best, advocates of a national popular vote have something in place that could be quickly enacted after the next time the EV and the PV disagree.

Here is a discussion that should give a good introduction to the question:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0221.htm


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 23, 2010, 01:08:02 PM
Here is a discussion that should give a good introduction to the question:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0221.htm

Not really, because it does not touch upon the sole point of disagreement between us concerning the constitutionality of the NPVIC, the six month waiting period to revoke membership.  The rest of the NPVIC is constitutional, but the severable provision that bars a State from exiting the Compact in that six month window is not unless Congress gives its assent to the Compact.  That limitation on when a State can withdraw is what makes the NPVIC a delegation of sovereign power, which under the holding of the U.S. Steel makes it a compact that requires Congressional approval.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 23, 2010, 03:59:05 PM
Here is a discussion that should give a good introduction to the question:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0221.htm

Not really, because it does not touch upon the sole point of disagreement between us concerning the constitutionality of the NPVIC, the six month waiting period to revoke membership.  The rest of the NPVIC is constitutional, but the severable provision that bars a State from exiting the Compact in that six month window is not unless Congress gives its assent to the Compact.  That limitation on when a State can withdraw is what makes the NPVIC a delegation of sovereign power, which under the holding of the U.S. Steel makes it a compact that requires Congressional approval.

I found a source that didn't bring it up.  Perhaps it was just an omission?  Here is another source:

http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/108/1/Gringer.pdf

The author at this source is opposed to the NPVIC.  It's published at the Columbia Law Review, so you would expect a pretty well-detailed essay, and it is 230 pages long, but the article did not mention your concern at all, or at least I couldn't find it.  Perhaps he didn't find it that substantial, or perhaps he just forgot?

This detailed book, written by proponents of NPVIC, seems to omit mentioning it as well.  One would think it would be found in one of the following places:

http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EVECh5new_web.pdf

http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EVE-CH-8.pdf

http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EVECh10new_web.pdf

This is a document that was jointly written by at least a couple lawyers, and a political science professor who has published books on interstate compacts:

http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EVEBios_web.pdf

Perhaps that was just an omission too?

I mean, where in the literature could one find this concern?  None of my sources seem to be any good, but they do seem to be otherwise good sources on the subject, both supportive and opposed.  Perhaps you know where to find this concern?

EDIT: Modified with some slight wording changes, and then here is the book published online:

http://www.every-vote-equal.com/tableofcontents.htm



Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 23, 2010, 06:58:24 PM
To be fair, it is a very minor concern, as it would be unlikely that the timing issue would be significant unless a State were already in the process of considering withdrawing from the NPVIC at the time before the July 20 deadline but did not do so until after July 20, and such State's withdrawal would affect whether the agreement was in force.  I don't see a State likely considering withdrawal from scratch after July 20.

In any case, my main objections to the NPVIC aren't constitutional at all, rather they are:
1. Ballot Access
The NPVIC strongly assumes that only the Republican and Democratic parties matter.  The agreeing States are not having to adopt identical ballot access rules (and even if they did, the non compacting States are not).  Not only that, but in the circumstances that major (i.e. they got EVs) third party efforts have been made, they regularly do not end up on the ballot in every state, and in some cases have displaced the major party candidates from the ballot in that State so that they were not on the ballot everywhere.

2. Close Elections
The NPVIC makes the problem of a close election national and provides no mechanism to effectively deal with it. In 1960, the national PV margin was less than 0.2%, a margin that in many States would trigger an automatic recount and in the remainder would usually allow the loser to demand a recount.  In 1880, the margin was less than 0.1%. Yet there is no provision for recounts being triggered in such a close election, and even if they were, no way to get the noncompacting states to join in on a recount.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on May 23, 2010, 10:47:49 PM
1. Ballot Access
The NPVIC strongly assumes that only the Republican and Democratic parties matter.  The agreeing States are not having to adopt identical ballot access rules (and even if they did, the non compacting States are not).  Not only that, but in the circumstances that major (i.e. they got EVs) third party efforts have been made, they regularly do not end up on the ballot in every state, and in some cases have displaced the major party candidates from the ballot in that State so that they were not on the ballot everywhere.

2. Close Elections
The NPVIC makes the problem of a close election national and provides no mechanism to effectively deal with it. In 1960, the national PV margin was less than 0.2%, a margin that in many States would trigger an automatic recount and in the remainder would usually allow the loser to demand a recount.  In 1880, the margin was less than 0.1%. Yet there is no provision for recounts being triggered in such a close election, and even if they were, no way to get the noncompacting states to join in on a recount.

I find point 2 troubling as well. I wonder what would happen to the electors of a state that provides for an automatic recount in close elections. With the NPVIC the electors would presumably need a recount from other states since the election depends on the national vote. This looks like certain litigation should it occur.

My other concern is related to point 1 but perhaps in a different way - there is no runoff provision for candidates in a large field. If there is an election with multiple candidates it's quite possible that none come close to a majority. There's no runoff or IRV in the NPVIC so there is no way to create a majority as the EC has presently. The proposed constitutional amendment in 1969 to replace the EC set a 40% threshold to identify a popular vote winner and a runoff otherwise; it passed the House but was killed in the Senate.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 25, 2010, 11:20:46 PM
To be fair, it is a very minor concern, as it would be unlikely that the timing issue would be significant unless a State were already in the process of considering withdrawing from the NPVIC at the time before the July 20 deadline but did not do so until after July 20, and such State's withdrawal would affect whether the agreement was in force.  I don't see a State likely considering withdrawal from scratch after July 20.

In any case, my main objections to the NPVIC aren't constitutional at all, rather they are:
1. Ballot Access
The NPVIC strongly assumes that only the Republican and Democratic parties matter.  The agreeing States are not having to adopt identical ballot access rules (and even if they did, the non compacting States are not).  Not only that, but in the circumstances that major (i.e. they got EVs) third party efforts have been made, they regularly do not end up on the ballot in every state, and in some cases have displaced the major party candidates from the ballot in that State so that they were not on the ballot everywhere.

2. Close Elections
The NPVIC makes the problem of a close election national and provides no mechanism to effectively deal with it. In 1960, the national PV margin was less than 0.2%, a margin that in many States would trigger an automatic recount and in the remainder would usually allow the loser to demand a recount.  In 1880, the margin was less than 0.1%. Yet there is no provision for recounts being triggered in such a close election, and even if they were, no way to get the noncompacting states to join in on a recount.

You keep raising the question.  Is your concern even valid?  What is the source for your concern?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 25, 2010, 11:35:26 PM
To be fair, it is a very minor concern, as it would be unlikely that the timing issue would be significant unless a State were already in the process of considering withdrawing from the NPVIC at the time before the July 20 deadline but did not do so until after July 20, and such State's withdrawal would affect whether the agreement was in force.  I don't see a State likely considering withdrawal from scratch after July 20.

You keep raising the question.  Is your concern even valid?  What is the source for your concern?

My concern over the six month limit is valid, and I've quoted the parts of previous Supreme Court rulings that support my opinion on the issue.  Granted, it is unlikely to be a concern that will matter since a very specific set of circumstances would have to happen for it to matter, even assuming the NPVIC effort ever crosses the 270EV threshold.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 26, 2010, 12:58:10 AM
To be fair, it is a very minor concern, as it would be unlikely that the timing issue would be significant unless a State were already in the process of considering withdrawing from the NPVIC at the time before the July 20 deadline but did not do so until after July 20, and such State's withdrawal would affect whether the agreement was in force.  I don't see a State likely considering withdrawal from scratch after July 20.

You keep raising the question.  Is your concern even valid?  What is the source for your concern?

My concern over the six month limit is valid, and I've quoted the parts of previous Supreme Court rulings that support my opinion on the issue.  Granted, it is unlikely to be a concern that will matter since a very specific set of circumstances would have to happen for it to matter, even assuming the NPVIC effort ever crosses the 270EV threshold.

Are you talking about the leap of logic where you take this paragraph:

Quote
Under the test of whether the particular compact enhances state power quoad the Federal Government, this Compact does not purport to authorize member States to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence, nor is there any delegation of sovereign power to the Commission, each State being free to adopt or reject the Commission's rules and regulations and to withdraw from the Compact at any time.

and make it say that Congressional consent can be required for just the part that puts provisos on withdrawal, if there's a severability clause, but where there are cases the rest of the compact can just go ahead and take effect, because of the severability clause?  Tell me, have you ever heard of a court case where the argument was that only part of a compact required Congressional consent to take effect, and the rest could just take effect, as long as there is a severability clause?

And then, you dismiss the one proviso on withdrawal that did exist in the case the Supreme Court quotation came from by saying it is simply a restatement of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, so it is not a real proviso on withdrawal?  (The proviso in the MTC keeps the states from throwing away their obligations when it matters the most to the operation of the compact, just like the proviso in the NPVIC does.  That is, it simply binds the states to their compact while they are part of it, which is like a contract, one which they cannot break or else they violate the Contract Clause.)

EDIT: Slight wording change that better clarifies what I'm saying.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on May 26, 2010, 01:03:10 AM
If the compact gets 270 EV worth of states signed on, it should become a lot easier to amend the Constitution to have the same effect as the compact.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 26, 2010, 01:05:03 AM
If the compact gets 270 EV worth of states signed on, it should become a lot easier to amend the Constitution to have the same effect as the compact.


Only problem is that it is far easier to repeal a national popular vote if it doesn't work, when you only have to get enough states to jump ship on the NPVIC versus having to repeal an Amendment to the Constitution.

EDIT: Also, the threshold of support is lower, using the flexibility of the electoral college.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 26, 2010, 02:32:28 PM
To be fair, it is a very minor concern, as it would be unlikely that the timing issue would be significant unless a State were already in the process of considering withdrawing from the NPVIC at the time before the July 20 deadline but did not do so until after July 20, and such State's withdrawal would affect whether the agreement was in force.  I don't see a State likely considering withdrawal from scratch after July 20.

You keep raising the question.  Is your concern even valid?  What is the source for your concern?

My concern over the six month limit is valid, and I've quoted the parts of previous Supreme Court rulings that support my opinion on the issue.  Granted, it is unlikely to be a concern that will matter since a very specific set of circumstances would have to happen for it to matter, even assuming the NPVIC effort ever crosses the 270EV threshold.

Are you talking about the leap of logic where you take this paragraph:

Quote
Under the test of whether the particular compact enhances state power quoad the Federal Government, this Compact does not purport to authorize member States to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence, nor is there any delegation of sovereign power to the Commission, each State being free to adopt or reject the Commission's rules and regulations and to withdraw from the Compact at any time.

and make it say that Congressional consent can be required for just the part that puts provisos on withdrawal, if there's a severability clause, but where there are cases the rest of the compact can just go ahead and take effect, because of the severability clause?  Tell me, have you ever heard of a court case where the argument was that only part of a compact required Congressional consent to take effect, and the rest could just take effect, as long as there is a severability clause?

And then, you dismiss the one proviso on withdrawal that did exist in the case the Supreme Court quotation came from by saying it is simply a restatement of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, so it is not a real proviso on withdrawal?  (The proviso in the MTC keeps the states from throwing away their obligations when it matters the most to the operation of the compact, just like the proviso in the NPVIC does.  That is, it simply binds the states to their compact while they are part of it, which is like a contract, one which they cannot break or else they violate the Contract Clause.)

EDIT: Slight wording change that better clarifies what I'm saying.


The court has routinely used the presence of a severability clause to decide whether to toss an entire law or just parts of it, so once a part that causes a constitutional problem is severed, the rest would be acceptable.  The compact clause makes its clear that enforceable contracts between States require the Consent of Congress.  The only provision of the NPVIC that males it a enforceable contract instead of State law is the withdrawl proviso. The Constitution and existing federal law allow a State to change its method of choosing electors up until election day.  Setting an earlier date makes it a compact that requires Congressional approval instead of being a collection of States that have chosen to use the same method of selecting electors.

The MTC proviso wasn't litigated in the U.S.Steel case as State withdrawal was not at issue in that case.  However, even if it had been, its withdrawl proviso isn't equivalent to that in the NPVIC.  The NPVIC attempts to control how a State selects its electors for a period of time after the State withdraws from the NPVIC.  The MTC does not attempt to control how a State adjudicates tax cases for any period of time after a State withdraws from the MTC.  It only specifies that rulings prior to the withdrawl (i.e. prior to the change in State law) remain in force, which they would have to as States are forbidden from passing ex post facto laws,  In short, the MTC withdrawl provisio imposes no obligation on a State.  The NPVIC withdrawl proviso does impose obligations on a State and restricts what it can do.  Such restrictions require Congressional approval under the compact clause.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 26, 2010, 08:31:58 PM
To be fair, it is a very minor concern, as it would be unlikely that the timing issue would be significant unless a State were already in the process of considering withdrawing from the NPVIC at the time before the July 20 deadline but did not do so until after July 20, and such State's withdrawal would affect whether the agreement was in force.  I don't see a State likely considering withdrawal from scratch after July 20.

You keep raising the question.  Is your concern even valid?  What is the source for your concern?

My concern over the six month limit is valid, and I've quoted the parts of previous Supreme Court rulings that support my opinion on the issue.  Granted, it is unlikely to be a concern that will matter since a very specific set of circumstances would have to happen for it to matter, even assuming the NPVIC effort ever crosses the 270EV threshold.

Are you talking about the leap of logic where you take this paragraph:

Quote
Under the test of whether the particular compact enhances state power quoad the Federal Government, this Compact does not purport to authorize member States to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence, nor is there any delegation of sovereign power to the Commission, each State being free to adopt or reject the Commission's rules and regulations and to withdraw from the Compact at any time.

and make it say that Congressional consent can be required for just the part that puts provisos on withdrawal, if there's a severability clause, but where there are cases the rest of the compact can just go ahead and take effect, because of the severability clause?  Tell me, have you ever heard of a court case where the argument was that only part of a compact required Congressional consent to take effect, and the rest could just take effect, as long as there is a severability clause?

And then, you dismiss the one proviso on withdrawal that did exist in the case the Supreme Court quotation came from by saying it is simply a restatement of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, so it is not a real proviso on withdrawal?  (The proviso in the MTC keeps the states from throwing away their obligations when it matters the most to the operation of the compact, just like the proviso in the NPVIC does.  That is, it simply binds the states to their compact while they are part of it, which is like a contract, one which they cannot break or else they violate the Contract Clause.)

EDIT: Slight wording change that better clarifies what I'm saying.


The court has routinely used the presence of a severability clause to decide whether to toss an entire law or just parts of it, so once a part that causes a constitutional problem is severed, the rest would be acceptable.  The compact clause makes its clear that enforceable contracts between States require the Consent of Congress.  The only provision of the NPVIC that males it a enforceable contract instead of State law is the withdrawl proviso. The Constitution and existing federal law allow a State to change its method of choosing electors up until election day.  Setting an earlier date makes it a compact that requires Congressional approval instead of being a collection of States that have chosen to use the same method of selecting electors.


So it's not just about imposing some limits on withdrawal, it's about enforcing the whole thing.  So now, it seems, not only have you taken the quoted paragraph from the Supreme Court decision to make it say that, hey, there can be no provisos on withdrawal or when a state can withdraw, but that now in order for any compact to be enforceable, it must be consented to by Congress.  So, where the compacting states come together, but don't intend to seek Congressional consent, they don't care if it's enforceable or not?  I mean, I guess sometimes someone may enter into a contract, where they don't care where it's enforceable.

Also, I'm still waiting for that court case which wrestles with question about whether only part of a compact needs Congressional consent (because of the severability clause), but not the whole thing.

Quote
The MTC proviso wasn't litigated in the U.S.Steel case as State withdrawal was not at issue in that case.  However, even if it had been, its withdrawl proviso isn't equivalent to that in the NPVIC.  The NPVIC attempts to control how a State selects its electors for a period of time after the State withdraws from the NPVIC.  The MTC does not attempt to control how a State adjudicates tax cases for any period of time after a State withdraws from the MTC.  It only specifies that rulings prior to the withdrawl (i.e. prior to the change in State law) remain in force, which they would have to as States are forbidden from passing ex post facto laws,  In short, the MTC withdrawl provisio imposes no obligation on a State.  The NPVIC withdrawl proviso does impose obligations on a State and restricts what it can do.  Such restrictions require Congressional approval under the compact clause.

True, but you yourself quoted the case mentioning withdrawal.  Clearly, withdrawal was used in that case.  If you read back, the main concern of the court in deciding the question of whether consent was needed was not whether it placed provisos on withdrawal, though of course being able to withdraw at any time helped the case for the compact not needing Congressional consent, but whether the provisions of the compact had the effect of increasing the member states powers "quoad the national government."  The court looked at several aspects in that case.

Also, you seem to have returned to saying that a compact is enforceable, by saying that the MTC can cause a state to incur liability, but only if it does not limit the withdrawal at all, while ignoring the fact that there are provisos in the MTC relating to withdrawal, as well.

You also bring up again that seemingly ridiculous ex post facto point, while ignoring the fact that the state cannot do it because it cannot violate the Contract and Impairments Clause, and without providing any source yourself in support.

Please tell me, What have you read regarding Interstate compacts?  Make sure to include what supports your points.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 26, 2010, 09:52:22 PM
Why would a Court case deal with whether severability is applicable to state compacts in particular?  Severability clauses, such as that included in the NPVIC are a standard feature of most legislation so that if a portion is ruled invalid what remains can still take effect.  The only time a severability clause isn't included is if the law is so simple there is only one issue at stake, or the drafters want it to be all or nothing.  Once the withdrawal limitation is severed from the NPVIC, what remains is not a contract, but a bunch of identically worded State laws, that would still be valid in any State that hadn't repealed the law that caused the State to adopt the NPVIC.

The NPVIC doesn't need enforcing by an outside agency if no State chooses to repeal the law that had it join the NPVIC.  It is a State law in each of the States that adopts it, and as such it is just as enforceable as any other State law would be.

The MTC provisio only details the effects of limitations that arise from the ex post facto prohibition, and would be just as applicable even if they weren't there.  The State would be just as liable for any payment whether that law had specified it was owed to a non-State entity.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 26, 2010, 10:09:40 PM
Why would a Court case deal with whether severability is applicable to state compacts in particular?  Severability clauses, such as that included in the NPVIC are a standard feature of most legislation so that if a portion is ruled invalid what remains can still take effect.  The only time a severability clause isn't included is if the law is so simple there is only one issue at stake, or the drafters want it to be all or nothing.  Once the withdrawal limitation is severed from the NPVIC, what remains is not a contract, but a bunch of identically worded State laws, that would still be valid in any State that hadn't repealed the law that caused the State to adopt the NPVIC.

Do you have that court case talking about where only part of a compact clause needs Congressional consent?  Or even barring that, do you have any academic source that states that compacts may only partly need Congressional consent if they have a severability clause?  And for academic sources that do mention the severability clauses, what do they say?  Every source I've read on Interstate compacts, including every source I've provided here, only ever deals with whether a compact as a whole requires complete Congressional consent.

If you look more closely at the wording of such severability clauses, you see that severability applies in cases where that part is found to be "invalid"?  But would you consider a part of a compact to be "invalid" just because Congress has yet to give consent to it?  Would you consider an amendment to a bill that has passed only one house of Congress, even though the bill itself has passed both houses of Congresses, do be "invalid" until the other house passes it too?

Quote
The NPVIC doesn't need enforcing by an outside agency if no State chooses to repeal the law that had it join the NPVIC.  It is a State law in each of the States that adopts it, and as such it is just as enforceable as any other State law would be.

Again, why would states enter into a compact if there is nothing to enforce, (EDIT: if there is nothing they want to make sure that the other states provide in return for what they provide)?

Quote
The MTC provisio only details the effects of limitations that arise from the ex post facto prohibition, and would be just as applicable even if they weren't there.  The State would be just as liable for any payment whether that law had specified it was owed to a non-State entity.

Your behavior in this thread has been appalling.  You again bring up the clause dealing with ex post facto laws, when I already asked for a source on your assertion of its relation to the MTC, and when it clearly is because of the Contracts and Impairments Clause instead that a state cannot just shirk its liability incurred under the MTC (and I have presented reliable sources mentioning the Contract Clause), meaning that the MTC is/has been enforceable, even though it has not obtained Congressional consent.

Your attempts to make the ex post facto laws apply to a compact that doesn't have anything to do with ex post facto laws are worse than your attempts to stretch the meaning of the quoted paragraph in the SCOTUS's ruling on the MTC case to make it so there can be no provisos on withdrawal.  Do you have any desire to seriously read up on the subject, or to read and understand the sources that introduce the concepts of interstate compacts and how the NPVIC falls under the law, that I have posted?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 26, 2010, 11:25:44 PM
True Federalist,

If you're looking to read further, read this by the Council of State Governments:

Quote
Although compact clause appears to require congressional consent in every case, the
Supreme Court has determined that the clause is activated only by those agreements that
would alter the balance of political power between the states and federal government or
intrude on a power reserved to Congress. Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893).
Thus, where an interstate agreement accomplishes nothing more than what the states are
otherwise empowered to do unilaterally, the compact does not intrude on federal interests
requiring congressional consent. U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 434 U.S.
452 (1978). In this circumstance, the compact continues to be a contract between the
states, the meaning of which may be subject to the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction
over disputes between the states. The compact is not, however, “federalized” for purposes
of enforcement and interpretation.
However, where congressional consent is required because the compact intrudes on
federal interests, the lack of congressional consent renders the agreement void as between
the states. By contrast, where the compact does not intrude on federal interests, the
agreement is not invalid for lack of congressional consent. New Hampshire v. Maine, 426
U.S. 363 (1976).

http://www.cglg.org/projects/water/CompactEducation/Congressional_Consent_and_other_Legal_Issues-CSGNCIC.pdf

This restates the concern of the SCOTUS relating to whether the compact increases powers quoad the national government, but does not rip some phrases from the last sentence relating to time limits from the opening sentence of the quoted paragraph we have discussed so much from the context set by the first, as you have done.  Congressional consent being required or not, it is still a contract, and so the member states are subject to the Contract Clause regarding it.

EDIT: Forgot to add link.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 27, 2010, 12:55:02 AM
Even if one takes the view that the NPVIC is a contract does not require Congressional approval, it does not follow that if a State broke the contract before Election Day that the State could be obligated to cast its votes for the NPV winner, so long as the other States still have the option of selecting their electors the old way.

If a State withdraws between July 20 and Election Day, thereby causing the number of agreeing EV's to fall below 270, what action would the other States had done in anticipation of the withdrawing State remaining in the NPVIC?  None, as electors aren't appointed until after Election Day.  Hence, there is no harm done, as the remaining States can appoint electors using their own popular votes.

It may well be that one or more of the candidates is inconvenienced, but they aren't a party to the agreement.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 27, 2010, 01:24:11 AM
Even if one takes the view that the NPVIC is a contract does not require Congressional approval, it does not follow that if a State broke the contract before Election Day that the State could be obligated to cast its votes for the NPV winner, so long as the other States still have the option of selecting their electors the old way.

If a State withdraws between July 20 and Election Day, thereby causing the number of agreeing EV's to fall below 270, what action would the other States had done in anticipation of the withdrawing State remaining in the NPVIC?  None, as electors aren't appointed until after Election Day.  Hence, there is no harm done, as the remaining States can appoint electors using their own popular votes.

It may well be that one or more of the candidates is inconvenienced, but they aren't a party to the agreement.

The state in question would have violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution ("No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts") and been subject to suit by other member states seeking enforcement.  If the Supreme Court says that no Congressional consent is needed for the Compact to take effect (or the Compact has received consent) and the Compact is constitutional, and the court finds that the defendant is violating the Compact, then the Court will order that the violating state comply with the Compact.  (Now, if all member states unanimously agreed to ditch the Compact, that would be different, as there would be no state that would seek enforcement; therefore, no one would have standing.)

It's just like a contract.  If you're party to a contract, and the other side isn't keeping up their end of the bargain, wouldn't you seek enforcement and wouldn't you have the right to bring suit requesting that enforcement?  But if all parties agree to ditch the contract, that would be the end of it, right?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 27, 2010, 02:16:16 AM
In order for there to be a tort, there must be a specific harm.  So long as the other States have not already selected their electors, and know that the withdrawing State will not be using the national popular vote to select its electors, what harm has been caused? Even if there were a harm, why must the redress be enforcement of the NPVIC?  I finally got around to noticing the link you posted to Every Vote Equal.  But in the case it cites, West Virginia ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, the issue was over money. West Virginia Auditor's decision to not pay, meant that when he was found to be in the wrong, there was a specific harm to redress.

I can't see a non-Congressionally approved the NPVIC overriding "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," in the  case where a State withdraws before Election Day and clearly states it's not going to use the NPV to select electors, then it would be acting in accordance with its Constitutional prerogatives.

Still, as I said earlier, we're bothering with what is an obscure possibility that will likely never come up.  The NPVIC is likely never going to get to 270 until we have another case of the PV and the EV disagreeing, and maybe not even then.  It's no coincidence that every State that has adopted it so far is solidly Democratic, as the Democrats were the ones who were on the wrong end of the split last time.  The farther we get from the Bush presidency, the less important this will seem.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 27, 2010, 09:34:38 AM
So long as the other States have not already selected their electors, and know that the withdrawing State will not be using the national popular vote to select its electors, what harm has been caused? Even if there were a harm, why must the redress be enforcement of the NPVIC?

Good God!  Your behavior has gotten even more appalling, as you are now denying knowledge of the basic principles of contracts!  Of course the redress would be the enforcement of the NPVIC, because that is the contract the state signed!  The state agreed to do it, and now the state would be violating the contract they signed!  Sure, the suing states wouldn't be able to get money out of it, but assuming the conditions I laid out in my previous post were true they'd get enforcement of the contract.  That is, they'd get an injunction ordering the state to follow the contract, exactly what they would have sought.

Why are you being like this on this issue?  Are you that opposed to the NPVIC that you'd thought to encourage opposition with bogus statements?  You are a moderator and you seem to be present yourself as someone with good knowledge of the Constitution and other matters!  What is with your behavior!  Until you explain to me this, I refuse to engage in any more discussion with you on this matter!


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 27, 2010, 10:42:50 AM
I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever claimed to be one.  I do have a strong respect for individual State sovereignty, and July 20 deadline is an arbitrary, capricious restraint on that sovereignty.  This discussion has proved useful, as it has given me a chance to refine my gut feeling on this side issue of the NPVIC.

If were I making a fresh argument against the validity of the July 20 proviso,  it would be as follows.

1. Article II Section 1 Clause 2 provides that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors".

2. Article II Section 1 Clause 4 provides that "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors".

3. Congress has used its Clause 4 power to provide in 3 USC 1 that "The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President."

4. Congress has further reinforced the importance of Election Day in by providing in 3 USC 5 that "If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State,"  (Emphasis mine.)  Clearly Congress has provided that States are free to change the method used to select electors up until Election.

Therefore, any purported State contract or State law that prevents a State from changing the method of selecting electors at any time prior to Election Day, infringes upon Congress' power under Article II Section 1 Clause 4 to determine when Electors will be chosen.

Hence, the July 20 provsio in the NPVIC can only be enforceable if Congress assents.  This is not only because of any implications of the Compact Clause, but because that proviso touches upon Congress' authority under Article II Section 1 Clause 4.

True Federalist,

If you're looking to read further, read this by the Council of State Governments:

Quote
However, where congressional consent is required because the compact intrudes on
federal interests, the lack of congressional consent renders the agreement void as between
the states. By contrast, where the compact does not intrude on federal interests, the
agreement is not invalid for lack of congressional consent. New Hampshire v. Maine, 426
U.S. 363 (1976).

http://www.cglg.org/projects/water/CompactEducation/Congressional_Consent_and_other_Legal_Issues-CSGNCIC.pdf

As I have shown, there is a federal interest being intruded upon by the July 20 proviso of the NPVIC.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 30, 2010, 11:36:39 PM
I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever claimed to be one.  I do have a strong respect for individual State sovereignty, and July 20 deadline is an arbitrary, capricious restraint on that sovereignty.  This discussion has proved useful, as it has given me a chance to refine my gut feeling on this side issue of the NPVIC.

If were I making a fresh argument against the validity of the July 20 proviso,  it would be as follows.

1. Article II Section 1 Clause 2 provides that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors".

2. Article II Section 1 Clause 4 provides that "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors".

3. Congress has used its Clause 4 power to provide in 3 USC 1 that "The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President."

4. Congress has further reinforced the importance of Election Day in by providing in 3 USC 5 that "If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State,"  (Emphasis mine.)  Clearly Congress has provided that States are free to change the method used to select electors up until Election.

Therefore, any purported State contract or State law that prevents a State from changing the method of selecting electors at any time prior to Election Day, infringes upon Congress' power under Article II Section 1 Clause 4 to determine when Electors will be chosen.

Hence, the July 20 provsio in the NPVIC can only be enforceable if Congress assents.  This is not only because of any implications of the Compact Clause, but because that proviso touches upon Congress' authority under Article II Section 1 Clause 4.

True Federalist,

If you're looking to read further, read this by the Council of State Governments:

Quote
However, where congressional consent is required because the compact intrudes on
federal interests, the lack of congressional consent renders the agreement void as between
the states. By contrast, where the compact does not intrude on federal interests, the
agreement is not invalid for lack of congressional consent. New Hampshire v. Maine, 426
U.S. 363 (1976).

http://www.cglg.org/projects/water/CompactEducation/Congressional_Consent_and_other_Legal_Issues-CSGNCIC.pdf

As I have shown, there is a federal interest being intruded upon by the July 20 proviso of the NPVIC.

In your post you fail to distinguish directing the manner in which the electors are appointed and the choosing of electors.  After the day for choosing electors has passed, of course a state can't change its manner of appointing the elections, because the day for choosing the electors has passed, unless it intends to have that enactment be for the following election!  So if a state failed to choose its electors on that day, of course that would be an issue for Congress to be involved in.

But we're focused on the period before the day for choosing electors, and we're talking about the manner that the state legislature may direct to be used, which is granted to that legislature.  When a state legislature signs onto the Compact and the Compact takes effect and it is now 6 months until the next Presidential inauguration, it is agreeing that from 6 months before the inauguration until a president-elect shall have qualified, it will keep its state's manner of appointing electors the same as specified in the Compact.  The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly, and the Impairments Clause shows, that a Compact is the same as a contract and a state cannot violate it.  The electors would still be chosen on the day selected by Congress, so there would be no infringement on Congress's power under Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 4.

Also, as I have repeatedly pointed out and provided supporting evidence for, there are compacts that do not need Congressional consent to take effect.  If this Compact does require Congressional consent, it would not be because of infringement upon Congress's power under Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 4.

You also bring up the issue of state sovereignty, but fail to note one of the important aspects of that sovereignty, the ability to enter into compacts with other sovereigns.  2 or more parties will not enter into a contract unless the agreement is somehow binding on the other parties.  If states could not reasonably expect to hold other states accountable for the compacts they signed, then the compact system would fail, and states would either be forced to solve many of their problems in an uncoordinated manner or Congress would be forced to directly regulate those issues that have an effect on interstate commerce for which a compact might have been more effective or doable instead.

As pointed out in the case of regarding the MTC, the Compact Clause applies to those compacts that would tend to increase state power relative to federal power, or would interfere with the exercise of federal power.  The NPVIC does not do that--it is an agreement among state legislatures for a certain period to direct a specific manner for appointing electors, which is within the power of those legislatures.

As for the date July 20th, here is a good introduction to the reasons behind the choosing of that date, and why it isn't arbitrary and capricious, but is rather necessary to the proper functioning of the NPVIC:

Quote
That is, no withdrawal from the National Popular Vote compact can become effective between July 20 of a presidential election year and the inauguration on January 20 of the following year. This six-month "blackout" period was chosen because it encompasses six important events relating to presidential elections, namely, the national nominating conventions, the fall general-election campaign period, Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, the meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, the counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and the inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m9.php#m9_2


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 31, 2010, 03:45:27 PM
It's clear neither of us is going to convince the other of the validity of the six month proviso.

However, I will make one last effort on one point, that July 20 clearly is an arbitrary date for locking the method in. There is no reason concerning ease of implementation of the NPVIC, since there is no problem implementing NPV selection of the electors, even if the date were Election Day itself.  If the intent is to prevent campaign strategies from being affected by the adoption of the NPVIC in the middle of the campaign, then the primary season should also be covered.  After all, the later primaries, held after the nominees are usually known, serve mainly to make preparations for the general election campaign in the battleground states.  In the early primaries, one factor that some voters use to choose between the candidates is how electable they believe them to be in the battleground states.  Any change from per state elections to a national popular vote election will impact the primaries.

So why exclude the primary season from coverage?  First off, there is the fact that the longer the lock in period, the harder it would be to sell this.  But also consider when this was put forth.  There were hopes that this could be in place in time for the 2008 election. The time when most Legislatures might pass something like this would be during a second session after having been introduced in the first. , A lock-in date of January 20, 2008 would have made passage impossible in time for 2008.  July 20, 2008 was ambitious, but not impossible.

And now, the NPVIC will go through a long period of somnolence.  Because of the fact that its effect is quite partisan, enough time has passed since 2000, that it will not be adopted soon. (In the current political climate, going to the NPV is advantageous for the Democrats and all of the States that have adopted it so far are Democratic.) The outrage from what happened in 2000 is mostly dissipated.  It likely will pass in California next year if Brown is elected governor, but after that I can't see it reaching even 200 EV's in time for 2012, and 150 EV's, while possible, isn't certain.

It may get adopted after the next 2000-type election, especially if the political landscape has changed by then so that a different set of States form the solid support of the two main parties, so that the dominant party in some the States that adopt it now would be disadvantaged by its adoption then.  The other possibility is that if we enter an extended period in which adoption of the NPVIC would not have a partisan effect, then it might get adopted like the 27th Amendment did.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on June 01, 2010, 03:34:59 AM
Tell me, in 2004 and 2008, which party did the electoral college favor relative to the popular vote?  I think that by doing so you can dispel a lot of myths Republican opponents of the NPV have on this issue, namely the idea that the electoral college structurally favors Republicans or the idea that implementing a NPV would favor the Democrats.

Bush nearly lost the 2004 election despite winning a majority of the popular vote!

Here are some more:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20041112.html


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on June 01, 2010, 04:02:12 PM
Those who try to argue that 2004 indicates that the EV isn't currently stacked in favor of the Republicans neglect one salient fact: voter turnout.  The solid states have lower than average voter turnout (measured as a percentage of all who are eligible to register and vote.)  California and New York would have higher participation in Presidential elections if who their State's EV's would be going to wasn't a foregone conclusion.  Greater voter participation is certainly one argument in favor of using the NPV, but it makes a proper analysis of the political implications more complicated than simply applying a uniform national swing, since it will not act uniformly to increase voter turnout.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on August 04, 2010, 08:14:48 PM
Mass becomes the 6th state to pass this Compact, when the Governor signed it into law today.  The six states account for 73 EV of the 270 needed to trigger the compact.
I still think its unconstitutional since this compact effectively nullifies all the EV of the non-compact states.  And destroys one aspect of the Federal-State balance of power embedded into the Constitution, since states would no longer matter only the popular vote when electing the President
If enough states sign on I guess we'll need to wait to see what the Supremes say.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Bo on August 07, 2010, 03:44:03 PM
Mass becomes the 6th state to pass this Compact, when the Governor signed it into law today.  The six states account for 73 EV of the 270 needed to trigger the compact.
I still think its unconstitutional since this compact effectively nullifies all the EV of the non-compact states.  And destroys one aspect of the Federal-State balance of power embedded into the Constitution, since states would no longer matter only the popular vote when electing the President
If enough states sign on I guess we'll need to wait to see what the Supremes say.

Do you personally think that the SC will declare it unconstitutional or not?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on October 10, 2010, 10:30:49 AM
The SC should declare it unconstitutional, but historically they have avoided "political" issues, so they may refuse to take a case.  Then again there is Gore v Bush as precedent for intervention, so perhaps they would take the case.
I expect that if they did they do take the case they would strike it down.

The plain language of the constitution would seem to invalidate this compact, (unless Congress approves it):

Article 1 section 8:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,"


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on October 10, 2010, 12:19:40 PM
The SC should declare it unconstitutional, but historically they have avoided "political" issues, so they may refuse to take a case.  Then again there is Gore v Bush as precedent for intervention, so perhaps they would take the case.
I expect that if they did they do take the case they would strike it down.

The plain language of the constitution would seem to invalidate this compact, (unless Congress approves it):

Article 1 section 8:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,"

As was lengthily debated already in this thread, the only portion of the NPVIC that makes it Constitutionally suspect are the limitations on State withdrawal once it goes into force.  Otherwise it is just a bunch of identically worded State laws on how to choose Electors.  The specific circumstances that would make that provision applicable are extremely unlikely to happen.  You'd have to have 270 or more EVs signed up to this on the 20 July before the election and then have some State try to withdraw between 20 July and Election Day and reduce the number of EVs pledged to use this method to go below 270.

I agree that absent Congressional assent, the Supreme Court should strike down the anti-withdrawal provisio, but the severability proviso would keep the rest of it intact and operative if more than 270 EVs are agreeing to use that method on Election Day.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on October 10, 2010, 03:42:03 PM
I read an interesting article awhile back about why this would never last. Basically, as soon as, say, Massachusetts' votes went to Sarah Palin even though Obama won the state, the whole thing will unravel quickly. Very few people support this on principle, most just do because of bitterness over 2000.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on October 11, 2010, 09:53:50 AM
Very few people support this on principle, most just do because of bitterness over 2000.

Very few people support the popular vote determining who wins the election? I doubt that. Now granted, this is just a way to achieve that goal.....but the principle behind the idea is the same.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on October 11, 2010, 12:06:19 PM
Very few people support this on principle, most just do because of bitterness over 2000.

Very few people support the popular vote determining who wins the election? I doubt that. Now granted, this is just a way to achieve that goal.....but the principle behind the idea is the same.

But again, some latte liberal in Massachusetts will support this until his state's electoral votes go to Sarah Palin.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on October 11, 2010, 03:16:25 PM
Very few people support this on principle, most just do because of bitterness over 2000.

Very few people support the popular vote determining who wins the election? I doubt that. Now granted, this is just a way to achieve that goal.....but the principle behind the idea is the same.

But again, some latte liberal in Massachusetts will support this until his state's electoral votes go to Sarah Palin.

The electoral votes are irrelevant under this system....they don't count for anything.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on October 11, 2010, 03:22:12 PM
Very few people support this on principle, most just do because of bitterness over 2000.

Very few people support the popular vote determining who wins the election? I doubt that. Now granted, this is just a way to achieve that goal.....but the principle behind the idea is the same.

But again, some latte liberal in Massachusetts will support this until his state's electoral votes go to Sarah Palin.

The electoral votes are irrelevant under this system....they don't count for anything.

Actually they do count, they are just assigned differently than in the current system. Assume the compact is in force and take the given example of Palin over Obama. Under the compact MA would seat a slate of Palin electors to vote in the EC. The compact guarantees that if no electors are faithless, then the candidate with the highest popular vote total would command a majority of electors. The slates of electors remain a real part of this system, that's how it survives a constitutional challenge.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Verily on October 11, 2010, 05:58:02 PM
Very few people support this on principle, most just do because of bitterness over 2000.

Very few people support the popular vote determining who wins the election? I doubt that. Now granted, this is just a way to achieve that goal.....but the principle behind the idea is the same.

But again, some latte liberal in Massachusetts will support this until his state's electoral votes go to Sarah Palin.

The electoral votes are irrelevant under this system....they don't count for anything.

Actually they do count, they are just assigned differently than in the current system. Assume the compact is in force and take the given example of Palin over Obama. Under the compact MA would seat a slate of Palin electors to vote in the EC. The compact guarantees that if no electors are faithless, then the candidate with the highest popular vote total would command a majority of electors. The slates of electors remain a real part of this system, that's how it survives a constitutional challenge.

Well, sort of. The electors are truly and completely pointless regardless. The fact that they're still voting is immaterial as their result would not differ under any circumstances from the popular vote.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on October 11, 2010, 06:10:33 PM
Very few people support this on principle, most just do because of bitterness over 2000.

Very few people support the popular vote determining who wins the election? I doubt that. Now granted, this is just a way to achieve that goal.....but the principle behind the idea is the same.

But again, some latte liberal in Massachusetts will support this until his state's electoral votes go to Sarah Palin.

The electoral votes are irrelevant under this system....they don't count for anything.

Actually they do count, they are just assigned differently than in the current system. Assume the compact is in force and take the given example of Palin over Obama. Under the compact MA would seat a slate of Palin electors to vote in the EC. The compact guarantees that if no electors are faithless, then the candidate with the highest popular vote total would command a majority of electors. The slates of electors remain a real part of this system, that's how it survives a constitutional challenge.

The electors, now and as they would be under the NPVIC, are like the Queen of England.

EDIT: To clarify, not many care (or even really know) about the electoral college today, and consistently polls have shown a supermajority of Americans supporting the adoption of a national popular vote system.  It's just like the Queen of England.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on October 27, 2010, 05:50:16 AM
Earlier in this thread it was claimed:
"As was lengthily debated already in this thread, the only portion of the NPVIC that makes it Constitutionally suspect are the limitations on State withdrawal once it goes into force. "

There is another Constitutional argument against the Compact. 
The 12th Amendment provides a Constitutional process if no single candidate gets a majority of EVs, such as could occur when three candidates split EVs.   This compact makes it impossible for the 12th Amendment to ever be used.  Thus the states in the Compact, through state laws, prevent all states (and citizens) from using a Constitutional process.   I do not think states can pass laws to get around Constitutional protections.

Although the 12th amendment has not been used since the early 1800's it just might affect the 2012 race.  If 2012 is a Palin-Obama contest, there are strong hints Bloomberg would run, and with his Billions to spend, might win enough states to prevent anyone from winning 270 EV, and hence the President would be determined via the 12th Amendment.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 27, 2010, 08:20:00 AM
There is another Constitutional argument against the Compact. 
The 12th Amendment provides a Constitutional process if no single candidate gets a majority of EVs, such as could occur when three candidates split EVs.   This compact makes it impossible for the 12th Amendment to ever be used.  Thus the states in the Compact, through state laws, prevent all states (and citizens) from using a Constitutional process.   I do not think states can pass laws to get around Constitutional protections.

That's a totally fallacious argument. If passed, the NPVIC would de facto nullify the 12th Amendment, but absolutely nothing in the NPVIC is explicitely contrary to the 12th Amendment. The 12th Amentment never states that there must be cases where its provision applies. Imagine the constitution says "any flying pig shall have its wings cut". If you interpret it the same way you interpret the 12th Amendment, it would imply "flying pigs shall exist".


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on October 30, 2010, 03:17:54 AM
Earlier in this thread it was claimed:
"As was lengthily debated already in this thread, the only portion of the NPVIC that makes it Constitutionally suspect are the limitations on State withdrawal once it goes into force. "

There is another Constitutional argument against the Compact.  
The 12th Amendment provides a Constitutional process if no single candidate gets a majority of EVs, such as could occur when three candidates split EVs.   This compact makes it impossible for the 12th Amendment to ever be used.  Thus the states in the Compact, through state laws, prevent all states (and citizens) from using a Constitutional process.   I do not think states can pass laws to get around Constitutional protections.

Although the 12th amendment has not been used since the early 1800's it just might affect the 2012 race.  If 2012 is a Palin-Obama contest, there are strong hints Bloomberg would run, and with his Billions to spend, might win enough states to prevent anyone from winning 270 EV, and hence the President would be determined via the 12th Amendment.


But the 12th amendment is used (and whether it is used is irrelevant), and nothing in the 12th amendment overrides the state's plenary powers to determine the manner of selecting electors.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on October 30, 2010, 03:19:53 AM
There is another Constitutional argument against the Compact. 
The 12th Amendment provides a Constitutional process if no single candidate gets a majority of EVs, such as could occur when three candidates split EVs.   This compact makes it impossible for the 12th Amendment to ever be used.  Thus the states in the Compact, through state laws, prevent all states (and citizens) from using a Constitutional process.   I do not think states can pass laws to get around Constitutional protections.

That's a totally fallacious argument. If passed, the NPVIC would de facto nullify the 12th Amendment, but absolutely nothing in the NPVIC is explicitely contrary to the 12th Amendment. The 12th Amentment never states that there must be cases where its provision applies. Imagine the constitution says "any flying pig shall have its wings cut". If you interpret it the same way you interpret the 12th Amendment, it would imply "flying pigs shall exist".

You answered this way better than I did.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on October 30, 2010, 04:11:06 AM
So this has now been passed in 6 states and DC.  What do you guys think of the prospects of this (eventually) actually being adopted by enough states to reach 270 EV?  Is there a decent chance that the 2020 or 2024 election might be decided by the national popular vote?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on October 30, 2010, 12:58:28 PM
It'll probably pick up California and maybe New York but not much else in the 2011-12 cycle.  But after that, it won't pick up much more for now.  Rightly or wrongly, the NPVIC is perceived as favoring the Democratic Party right now.  I wouldn't be surprised that if the GOP retakes the White House in 2012 that repeal of DC's adoption of this was forced upon the District.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vepres on October 30, 2010, 02:16:08 PM
So this has now been passed in 6 states and DC.  What do you guys think of the prospects of this (eventually) actually being adopted by enough states to reach 270 EV?  Is there a decent chance that the 2020 or 2024 election might be decided by the national popular vote?


This won't have credibility until a McCain state adopts it, IMO. Right now, I can't see that happening in the near future.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Frink on October 30, 2010, 04:40:56 PM
We should be working towards IRV rather than this nonsense..


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on October 30, 2010, 04:50:13 PM
We should be working towards IRV rather than this nonsense..

I don't think there's any clear way to do that with an interstate compact though.  It would have to be done via constitutional amendment, and that's pretty much impossible to pass.

Maybe if NPV passes though, then there might be less resistance from the states to change things further by going to NPV via a constitutional amendment.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on October 30, 2010, 05:23:37 PM
It'll probably pick up California and maybe New York but not much else in the 2011-12 cycle.  But after that, it won't pick up much more for now.  Rightly or wrongly, the NPVIC is perceived as favoring the Democratic Party right now.

That is correct, but for the medium-term I think the chances are very good.  Polling has consistently shown that about 70% of Americans support, with consistent majorities in every state, since World War II.  Evidence also shows a lot of support from moderate Republicans and former politicians who are Republican (such as Bob Dole), such as statements and recorded votes (see the votes in the NY State Senate).

In my view, once the NPVIC crosses a certain threshold of EV's, such as 150-200, then with the increased national coverage and people caring about it, it should take off like a rocket and would be adopted, or lead to the adoption of a constitutional amendment modifying the presidential election process.

Quote
I wouldn't be surprised that if the GOP retakes the White House in 2012 that repeal of DC's adoption of this was forced upon the District.

I think any such attempt would be filibustered.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on October 30, 2010, 11:21:06 PM
In my view, once the NPVIC crosses a certain threshold of EV's, such as 150-200, then with the increased national coverage and people caring about it, it should take off like a rocket and would be adopted, or lead to the adoption of a constitutional amendment modifying the presidential election process.

I could definitely see it getting a huge burst of publicity once we reach the point at which it only takes one or two more states to reach 270.  But that might not happen for some time.  And I'm not exactly sure how this issue will play politically once it reaches that stage.  A national popular vote might be popular in the abstract right now, but once such a radical change in the electoral system comes close to reality, the people who benefit from the current system will come up with all sorts of creative reasons for why this has to be stopped.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on October 30, 2010, 11:32:30 PM
In my view, once the NPVIC crosses a certain threshold of EV's, such as 150-200, then with the increased national coverage and people caring about it, it should take off like a rocket and would be adopted, or lead to the adoption of a constitutional amendment modifying the presidential election process.

I could definitely see it getting a huge burst of publicity once we reach the point at which it only takes one or two more states to reach 270.  But that might not happen for some time.  And I'm not exactly sure how this issue will play politically once it reaches that stage.  A national popular vote might be popular in the abstract right now, but once such a radical change in the electoral system comes close to reality, the people who benefit from the current system will come up with all sorts of creative reasons for why this has to be stopped.


Agreed.  This being at the 150-200 EV stage will mean that this will remain a wonkish issue that only political insiders care about, and they will largely vote in their party's self-interest rather the public perception.  Plus, until we have another election where the PV and EV results diverge, this won't be on the public radar.  At most, the NPVIC has done the groundwork for something to be quickly done the next time the PV winner does not win the EV.  Given how infrequently that has occurred, it may well not be until the 22nd century that it happens (in which case the NPVIC may well have been completely forgotten by then).


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on October 30, 2010, 11:52:20 PM
I wouldn't be surprised that if the GOP retakes the White House in 2012 that repeal of DC's adoption of this was forced upon the District.

I think any such attempt would be filibustered.

That assumes the Democrats have 41 Senators in the 113th Congress.  If the 2012 election is as bad for the Democrats as the 2010 election is shaping up to be, it is quite conceivable that the GOP will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate by then, even if they don't retake control of the Senate in this election.  In a perfect election year for the GOP there are by my count 14 currently Democratic seats (CA, FL, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NJ, ND, OH, PA, VA, WA, and WI) that are potential GOP gains in 2012, tho some of those would likely require the current incumbent to not seek reelection and have the race be for an open seat.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on October 31, 2010, 12:05:12 AM
I wouldn't be surprised that if the GOP retakes the White House in 2012 that repeal of DC's adoption of this was forced upon the District.

I think any such attempt would be filibustered.

That assumes the Democrats have 41 Senators in the 113th Congress.  If the 2012 election is as bad for the Democrats as the 2010 election is shaping up to be, it is quite conceivable that the GOP will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate by then, even if they don't retake control of the Senate in this election.  In a perfect election year for the GOP there are by my count 14 currently Democratic seats (CA, FL, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NJ, ND, OH, PA, VA, WA, and WI) that are potential GOP gains in 2012, tho some of those would likely require the current incumbent to not seek reelection and have the race be for an open seat.

Even if the Republicans did get a filibuster-proof majority, I would not think all Republicans would be on board.  60 Republicans in the Senate = 5-10 Mike Castles in the Senate.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on October 31, 2010, 12:16:22 AM
In my view, once the NPVIC crosses a certain threshold of EV's, such as 150-200, then with the increased national coverage and people caring about it, it should take off like a rocket and would be adopted, or lead to the adoption of a constitutional amendment modifying the presidential election process.

I could definitely see it getting a huge burst of publicity once we reach the point at which it only takes one or two more states to reach 270.  But that might not happen for some time.  And I'm not exactly sure how this issue will play politically once it reaches that stage.  A national popular vote might be popular in the abstract right now, but once such a radical change in the electoral system comes close to reality, the people who benefit from the current system will come up with all sorts of creative reasons for why this has to be stopped.


Agreed.  This being at the 150-200 EV stage will mean that this will remain a wonkish issue that only political insiders care about, and they will largely vote in their party's self-interest rather the public perception.  Plus, until we have another election where the PV and EV results diverge, this won't be on the public radar.  At most, the NPVIC has done the groundwork for something to be quickly done the next time the PV winner does not win the EV.  Given how infrequently that has occurred, it may well not be until the 22nd century that it happens (in which case the NPVIC may well have been completely forgotten by then).

What about those people in California and Texas and New York who, despite their large populations, are practically ignored by presidential candidates in the general election?  It isn't just about elections where the EV winner happened to differ from the PV winner, but rather that the possibility exists in every election--that is why candidates focus on a few swing states and just about entirely ignore the rest.  (EDIT: Need I remind you that the national popular vote has had consistent majority support in polls?)

It's an injustice that the NPVIC supporters have been beating the drums about, and if the NPVIC gets to 150-200 EV, I think they can gain momentum on it.  In the eyes of the public, once they are actually aware that many of them have been getting ignored by presidential candidates they will want a change.  This already impacted the 2008 election, where the candidates promised to campaign across the country equally (though it turned out they lied and did the usual way anyway).

Not only that, it isn't just something Democrats support, as I've stated before, but there are many moderate Republicans who have supported it as well, as evidenced in the roll call votes of many states that have considered and passed it.  Essentially, this has been and is something that is supported by Democrats and moderate Republicans, which suggests in the long run it will win or will spur the adoption of a constitutional amendment relating to the matter.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on October 31, 2010, 10:47:38 AM
Here's an article written by a tea partier on the issue:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/blogs/charlsteaparty_20100823.php


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on October 31, 2010, 03:43:09 PM
Even if the Republicans did get a filibuster-proof majority, I would not think all Republicans would be on board.  60 Republicans in the Senate = 5-10 Mike Castles in the Senate.

Mike Castle won't be in the Senate, he didn't even win the primary.  And even if he were, I suspect while he might not vote for such a measure, that he wouldn't offend the GOP leadership by sustaining a filibuster.

Need I remind you that the national popular vote has had consistent majority support in polls?

No, but except for those States where it could get passed via the initiative process, that's largely irrelevant.  Support on this issue is broad but extremely shallow.  Very few voters will base their decision on who to vote for based upon a politician deciding to support or oppose the NPVIC.

Not only that, it isn't just something Democrats support, as I've stated before, but there are many moderate Republicans who have supported it as well, as evidenced in the roll call votes of many states that have considered and passed it.  Essentially, this has been and is something that is supported by Democrats and moderate Republicans, which suggests in the long run it will win or will spur the adoption of a constitutional amendment relating to the matter.

From what I've seen, what moderate Republican support that there has been on this has mainly been in Democratic States where passage sooner or later was inevitable, or where the other house of the assembly was certain to block it, so why make waves?  I admire your idealism, but I just don't think that without another election such as 2000 that the idealism behind the NPVIC will triumph over the cynicism of that comes with leading a major political party.  The fact that this has so far passed only in solidly Democratic States and is only likely to pass in such States only bolsters my view that at present, this is being voted by the politicians upon a purely partisan basis.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on October 31, 2010, 05:17:28 PM
Even if the Republicans did get a filibuster-proof majority, I would not think all Republicans would be on board.  60 Republicans in the Senate = 5-10 Mike Castles in the Senate.

Mike Castle won't be in the Senate, he didn't even win the primary.  And even if he were, I suspect while he might not vote for such a measure, that he wouldn't offend the GOP leadership by sustaining a filibuster.


Duh.  But just like the Democrats never got 60 liberals in the Senate this Congress, the Republicans are not going to get 60 conservatives (and there are conservatives that support and have supported a national popular vote in principle).

I guess I read that kind of person differently.  It depends on how much people care about the issue, I suppose.

Still, I would be willing to bet that if Congress did act to shut down DC joining the initiative, there is going to be action to make up for it by proposing a constitutional amendment.

Quote

Need I remind you that the national popular vote has had consistent majority support in polls?

No, but except for those States where it could get passed via the initiative process, that's largely irrelevant.  Support on this issue is broad but extremely shallow.  Very few voters will base their decision on who to vote for based upon a politician deciding to support or oppose the NPVIC.


The numbers I've seen are around the 70% range.  That's not exactly shallow.  Now you do have a point in that right now most people are only sort of half-aware of the issue, but all it takes is their activation.

Quote
Not only that, it isn't just something Democrats support, as I've stated before, but there are many moderate Republicans who have supported it as well, as evidenced in the roll call votes of many states that have considered and passed it.  Essentially, this has been and is something that is supported by Democrats and moderate Republicans, which suggests in the long run it will win or will spur the adoption of a constitutional amendment relating to the matter.

From what I've seen, what moderate Republican support that there has been on this has mainly been in Democratic States where passage sooner or later was inevitable, or where the other house of the assembly was certain to block it, so why make waves?  I admire your idealism, but I just don't think that without another election such as 2000 that the idealism behind the NPVIC will triumph over the cynicism of that comes with leading a major political party.  The fact that this has so far passed only in solidly Democratic States and is only likely to pass in such States only bolsters my view that at present, this is being voted by the politicians upon a purely partisan basis.

I disagree that it would require another 2000 (though that would certainly help).  Still, you cannot deny that Republicans have and will continue to vote for it, many of whom write articles on it, so therefore it is not a partisan issue, however it may be seen in today's crazy political climate (that will calm down once unemployment improves):

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/blogs/bolen_201008.php


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on November 01, 2010, 12:57:30 AM
That there are a few idealistic Republicans (and Democrats) I'll readily admit, but the existing method of electing the President is by and large favorable to the Republican establishment given the current distribution of Republicans and Democrats.  It is also not in the interest of the establishment of either major party to broaden the scope of where a Presidential campaign needs to be fought.  It is easier for the party establishment to have some control over what happens if the battle is fought in a few battleground states instead of nationwide.

By the way, if the GOP goes after DC's approval of the NPVIC in 2013, it won't be as a standalone bill.  If the GOP does get a clean sweep, I fully expect that one of the items they pass will be an omnibus bill overriding the DC government on a whole host of matters.  It'll make the people in DC madder than a nest of hornets, but the GOP has no reason to care what the locals in DC think about them.

The numbers I've seen are around the 70% range.  That's not exactly shallow.  Now you do have a point in that right now most people are only sort of half-aware of the issue, but all it takes is their activation.

The 70% figure is what makes the support broad.  The shallow part of my statement referred to the fact that few people would base their vote on that issue, and I don't see that changing no matter how much publicity the issue gets.  It's a technical issue that rarely has a real world effect, and even when it does it happens in elections that are very close.  Indeed, there has never been a case where a candidate has gotten a majority of the public vote and yet lost in the electoral college.  Aside from 1876, all of the cases to date have involved situations where a candidate received a narrow plurality in the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college.  1876 is special case, as it can reasonably be argued that the election was stolen by Hayes and should have been rightfully won by Tilden in the Electoral College.  Leaving aside the issue of the electoral votes decided by the electoral commission, had Colorado's electors been chosen in the popular vote instead of by the State legislature, there is a good chance that Tilden would have won those 3 votes.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on November 01, 2010, 05:21:17 PM
That there are a few idealistic Republicans (and Democrats) I'll readily admit, but the existing method of electing the President is by and large favorable to the Republican establishment given the current distribution of Republicans and Democrats.  It is also not in the interest of the establishment of either major party to broaden the scope of where a Presidential campaign needs to be fought.  It is easier for the party establishment to have some control over what happens if the battle is fought in a few battleground states instead of nationwide.

"That there are a few idealistic Republicans (and Democrats) I'll readily admit, but the existing method of electing the President is by and large favorable to the Republican establishment given the current distribution of Republicans and Democrats."

There is no evidence for this, and what evidence there is goes against it.  Polling in 2000 before the election actually showed Gore winning the EV (and winning the presidency), but Bush winning the PV.  The actual results went the other way, but they didn't have to.

The same thing almost happened to Bush again in 2004, in that if Kerry had 60,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won, even though Bush would have had more than 3,000,000 votes ahead of Kerry.

Now if you're referring to the Republican Party's perception, then you do have a point there.

Quote
By the way, if the GOP goes after DC's approval of the NPVIC in 2013, it won't be as a standalone bill.  If the GOP does get a clean sweep, I fully expect that one of the items they pass will be an omnibus bill overriding the DC government on a whole host of matters.  It'll make the people in DC madder than a nest of hornets, but the GOP has no reason to care what the locals in DC think about them.

Are you saying that no one in the GOP would be opposed to this, even someone like Mike Castle?  Such a bill would be very controversial and violate the previous understanding between DC and the Fed of DC's self-governance.  I would think that the GOP passing such a bill would be like the Dems passing the health care bill, or worse: It would be a long slog as the GOP leadership tried to strong-arm and bribe its moderates to do that.  The GOP leadership is not going to waste its political capital on something that would easily be shown as a spiteful attack on DC, unless they're idiots.

Quote
The numbers I've seen are around the 70% range.  That's not exactly shallow.  Now you do have a point in that right now most people are only sort of half-aware of the issue, but all it takes is their activation.

The 70% figure is what makes the support broad.  The shallow part of my statement referred to the fact that few people would base their vote on that issue, and I don't see that changing no matter how much publicity the issue gets.  It's a technical issue that rarely has a real world effect, and even when it does it happens in elections that are very close.  Indeed, there has never been a case where a candidate has gotten a majority of the public vote and yet lost in the electoral college.  Aside from 1876, all of the cases to date have involved situations where a candidate received a narrow plurality in the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college.  1876 is special case, as it can reasonably be argued that the election was stolen by Hayes and should have been rightfully won by Tilden in the Electoral College.  Leaving aside the issue of the electoral votes decided by the electoral commission, had Colorado's electors been chosen in the popular vote instead of by the State legislature, there is a good chance that Tilden would have won those 3 votes.
[/quote]

"It's a technical issue that rarely has a real world effect, and even when it does it happens in elections that are very close."

The electoral college's structure affects every election: any candidate who wants to win knows that he has to focus on the swing states and not waste his time with the safe states.  That has a huge effect on what issues are discussed, on turnout, and who benefits and who doesn't.  It creates a system where most of the country is ignored, including swing voters in safe states.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on November 02, 2010, 12:25:04 AM
Yes I believe the Republicans can be just as great a set of overreaching idiots in 2013 as the Democrats were in 2009.  The Republican advantage in small States means that more often than not, they would benefit from the Senatorial EVs.  Of the three times where there has been a discrepancy, twice (1876 and 2000) there would not have been one were the Electoral College base solely on the number of Representatives.  While the GOP does suffer from wasted votes in safe States, it is nowhere near the level it was with respect to the solid South and the Democratic Party.  (That the Democrats didn't suffer from this effect more than once in 1884 with Cleveland is likely because the solid South also had low voter turnout, which got even lower in the 20th century.)

There's no evidence that turning the Presidential election into a national election instead of a State-by-State election would have a major effect on either the issues or the results.  That might be the case if we were like Canada, where a province (Quebec) has an issue that they care about but the rest of the country largely doesn't care pro or con on the issue.  But by and large, the issues today in the national elections of the United States are the same all across the country, with just what the majority position on them differs among the States.

As far as distortions in the electoral issues that occur from having elections being conducted State-by-State instead of nationally, the use of the same States each time to hold the early primaries and caucuses is a far more significant effect than campaigns concentrating on the swing States in the electoral college during the general election.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Illuminati Blood Drinker on November 27, 2010, 11:46:43 PM
We should be working towards IRV rather than this nonsense..
Seconded.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: emailking on November 29, 2010, 10:17:32 AM
Using IRV determine the electoral votes for each state is an improvement but unlikely to occur anytime soon. Most people don't think about vote splitting or consider it a problem if they do. 

I see IRV is a separate issue. Yes, the best thing would be a national ballot determined by IRV (or condorcet really, as I would prefer). But right now there's a lot of support for a nationalizing the vote. Not so much for changing the ranking method.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on December 01, 2010, 11:05:04 AM
I spoke with the office of New York State Rep. Dinowitz, who sponsored the bill, and the person there said with the Assembly adjourning yesterday, the bill is effectively dead.  The person also said it's unlikely any action on the matter would be taken by the Republican-controlled Senate next Legislature, despite the bill having a lot of Republican crossover votes this year.

It looks like New York will not become part of the compact anytime soon.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 02, 2010, 10:20:26 PM
I spoke with the office of New York State Rep. Dinowitz, who sponsored the bill, and the person there said with the Assembly adjourning yesterday, the bill is effectively dead.  The person also said it's unlikely any action on the matter would be taken by the Republican-controlled Senate next Legislature, despite the bill having a lot of Republican crossover votes this year.

It looks like New York will not become part of the compact anytime soon.


Which doesn't surprise me in the least.  A fair number of those crossover votes were likely made to avoid making waves on a bill that wasn't see as likely passing the other house.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on December 22, 2010, 09:32:31 AM
The Electoral College nullification Compact loses 2 EV. 
With new reapportionment, the 6 states + DC that have passed the Compact collectivley lost 2 EV: MA-1, NJ-1, IL-1, but WA +2.  So far states (+DC) .

So imagine if the compact had 270 EV and the states implement it requirment to award votes by popular vot ein 2012 and  then the compact drops back to 268, what happens?  Chaos!


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 22, 2010, 12:08:16 PM
The Electoral College nullification Compact loses 2 EV. 
With new reapportionment, the 6 states + DC that have passed the Compact collectivley lost 2 EV: MA-1, NJ-1, IL-1, but WA +2.  So far states (+DC) .

So imagine if the compact had 270 EV and the states implement it requirment to award votes by popular vot ein 2012 and  then the compact drops back to 268, what happens?  Chaos!

Come on, do you imagine a candidate winning a block of 268 EVs and still losing the Electoral College ? ;D


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 26, 2010, 08:59:49 PM
The Electoral College nullification Compact loses 2 EV.  
With new reapportionment, the 6 states + DC that have passed the Compact collectively lost 2 EV: MA-1, NJ-1, IL-1, but WA +2.  So far states (+DC) .

So imagine if the compact had 270 EV and the states implement it requirement to award votes by popular vot ein 2012 and  then the compact drops back to 268, what happens?  Chaos!

Come on, do you imagine a candidate winning a block of 268 EVs and still losing the Electoral College ? ;D

The way the compact is written, if reapportionment caused the toral to go from 270+ to 269-, then the compact would go into abeyance until more EV's joined, so no it wouldn't be chaos.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on January 09, 2011, 09:26:44 PM
Saul Anuzis, who is running for RNC Chairman, supports NPV, and one RNC committee member from Alaska is going after him on the issue:

link (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/Critic_hits_Anuzis_as_unfit_over_national_popular_vote_plan.html?showall)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: California8429 on January 14, 2011, 05:49:04 PM
Saul Anuzis, who is running for RNC Chairman, supports NPV, and one RNC committee member from Alaska is going after him on the issue:

link (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/Critic_hits_Anuzis_as_unfit_over_national_popular_vote_plan.html?showall)


good thing he lost :D


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on February 27, 2011, 09:03:30 PM
The constitution is clear:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:...."

While the Compact says: "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."

So can a current state legislature bind the hands of a future Legislature?  Will the Compact's requirement that any changes by states made 6 months before an election must be delayed to a future election hold up in Court if a state makes a change effective less than 6 months before an election?

If the states truly want to go to a National Popular Vote, then have the states pass a Constitutional Amendment rather than pass this cute legal trick to circumvent the Constitution.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on March 04, 2011, 03:00:30 AM
The constitution is clear:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:...."

While the Compact says: "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."

So can a current state legislature bind the hands of a future Legislature?  Will the Compact's requirement that any changes by states made 6 months before an election must be delayed to a future election hold up in Court if a state makes a change effective less than 6 months before an election?

If the states truly want to go to a National Popular Vote, then have the states pass a Constitutional Amendment rather than pass this cute legal trick to circumvent the Constitution.


Hi zork,

States can indeed bind the action of future legislatures by signing onto an enforceable compact.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: will101 on March 12, 2011, 08:12:14 PM
The constitution is clear:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:...."

While the Compact says: "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."

So can a current state legislature bind the hands of a future Legislature?  Will the Compact's requirement that any changes by states made 6 months before an election must be delayed to a future election hold up in Court if a state makes a change effective less than 6 months before an election?

If the states truly want to go to a National Popular Vote, then have the states pass a Constitutional Amendment rather than pass this cute legal trick to circumvent the Constitution.


Hi zork,

States can indeed bind the action of future legislatures by signing onto an enforceable compact.
That's like saying states should be prohibited from building anything or signing a contract that will last more than a year.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on April 15, 2011, 05:49:57 AM
It looks like a bipartisan group has introduced the compact in the Missouri House of Representatives (lower house), which to be quite honest is surprising in this state, including the Republican Speaker and the Democratic Minority Leader.  Might this bill have some wings?

EDIT: The House elections chair also sponsors the bill.  This, combined with the Speaker and Minority Leader, suggests that this bill does have some wings, at least in the House.  We shall see what happens and what happens with the Senate and the Governor.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on April 17, 2011, 12:00:37 AM
It looks like Vermont is about to sign onto the Compact:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=VT

It's not a large state, but it is still one more under NPVIC's belt.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 17, 2011, 03:53:49 PM
It looks like Vermont is about to sign onto the Compact:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=VT

It's not a large state, but it is still one more under NPVIC's belt.

More troublesome for NPVIC supporters is not Vermont's size, but its politics. This only reinforces the image of this being a Democratic measure rather than a bipartisan one, and this will need real bipartisan support to get close to 270.  (Not just weak gestures towards bipartisanship that a few Republicans have made where it doesn't matter.)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on April 17, 2011, 04:48:28 PM
It looks like Vermont is about to sign onto the Compact:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=VT

It's not a large state, but it is still one more under NPVIC's belt.

More troublesome for NPVIC supporters is not Vermont's size, but its politics. This only reinforces the image of this being a Democratic measure rather than a bipartisan one, and this will need real bipartisan support to get close to 270.  (Not just weak gestures towards bipartisanship that a few Republicans have made where it doesn't matter.)

I want to see what happens in Missouri, where both the Republican House Speaker, the Republican Elections Chair, and the Democratic House Minority Leader introduced NPVIC.  Because of that, I think it can pass the Missouri State House.  I think the progress of that bill will be a lot more interesting to follow, especially if it can grow some wings.

EDIT: It's next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, at 8:15 am:

http://www.house.mo.gov/BillHearings.aspx?bill=HB974

EDIT 2: They even analyzed the fiscal impact, of which there is none:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/Oversight/OVER11/fishtm/2029-01N.ORG.htm


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on April 17, 2011, 06:46:28 PM
Both the Democratic and Republican Caucus Chairs in CA support the NPVIC, and it just passed the Assembly Elections Committee 5-4:

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=CA

Perhaps the Republicans in solidly Democratic states are beginning to recognize that they have become largely irrelevant in elections for president?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 17, 2011, 09:09:04 PM
Both the Democratic and Republican Caucus Chairs in CA support the NPVIC, and it just passed the Assembly Elections Committee 5-4:

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=CA

Perhaps the Republicans in solidly Democratic states are beginning to recognize that they have become largely irrelevant in elections for president?

More like the Republicans in solidly Democratic states are saving their ammunition on fights that matter.  Unlike financial or social issues, this isn't one that they can excite their base by opposing. Now that Brown is governor I would be shocked if California didn't pass the NPVIC, even if every single Republican member of the Assembly opposed it.  Passage in California is not significant.

Passage in Missouri would be significant. I don't know Missouri politics well, but even if it passes the House, the Senate could be more difficult since the GOP is even stronger in that body than the House and half the membership will not be up for reelection in 2012.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on April 17, 2011, 10:12:57 PM
Both the Democratic and Republican Caucus Chairs in CA support the NPVIC, and it just passed the Assembly Elections Committee 5-4:

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=CA

Perhaps the Republicans in solidly Democratic states are beginning to recognize that they have become largely irrelevant in elections for president?

More like the Republicans in solidly Democratic states are saving their ammunition on fights that matter.  Unlike financial or social issues, this isn't one that they can excite their base by opposing. Now that Brown is governor I would be shocked if California didn't pass the NPVIC, even if every single Republican member of the Assembly opposed it.  Passage in California is not significant.

Passage in Missouri would be significant. I don't know Missouri politics well, but even if it passes the House, the Senate could be more difficult since the GOP is even stronger in that body than the House and half the membership will not be up for reelection in 2012.

The California Republican Caucus Chair came out in support and also mentioned that the attitudes of Republicans are changing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWqkvI9eXjY&feature=player_embedded

It''s one thing to just sort of go along with it and not fight it, but another to actually appear on TV saying that you support it and that the attitudes among Republicans are changing.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 18, 2011, 11:33:39 AM
As I said, California Republicans supporting this is insignificant.  Missouri Republicans would be.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 23, 2011, 04:01:42 PM
Vermont became the 8th state to join the compact.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110422005311/en/Vermont-Eighth-State-Enact-National-Popular-Vote (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110422005311/en/Vermont-Eighth-State-Enact-National-Popular-Vote)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on April 29, 2011, 08:06:09 AM
NPV advocacy featured on Bloggingheads:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/35733?in=21:22&out=37:13


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 05, 2011, 12:56:23 AM
In Tennessee, a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the Senate and a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the House:

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1024


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 05, 2011, 07:36:27 PM
3 Republicans have introduced it in Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2663o.asp&Session_ID=102


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Joe Republic on May 05, 2011, 07:41:06 PM
In Tennessee, a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the Senate and a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the House:

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1024
3 Republicans have introduced it in Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2663o.asp&Session_ID=102

Why are Republican legislators in Republican states taking up this issue?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on May 05, 2011, 08:00:41 PM
3 Republicans have introduced it in Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2663o.asp&Session_ID=102


Yes, but the Arizona legislature has since adjourned for the year.  So this isn't going to be taken up there until 2012.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 06, 2011, 10:25:05 AM
3 Republicans have introduced it in Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2663o.asp&Session_ID=102


Yes, but the Arizona legislature has since adjourned for the year.  So this isn't going to be taken up there until 2012.


I'm putting watching it on my calendar for next year. :)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on May 06, 2011, 04:50:40 PM
In Tennessee, a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the Senate and a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the House:

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1024
3 Republicans have introduced it in Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2663o.asp&Session_ID=102

Why are Republican legislators in Republican states taking up this issue?

Perhaps because they are tired of their states being ignored by presidential candidates and want some piece of the action.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 10, 2011, 05:23:28 PM
In New York, the NPVIC is ready for a floor vote in both houses.  In the Republican-controlled Senate, the bill was introduced by a Republican and passed the Elections committee unanimously--which, presumably, is Republican-controlled.

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A00489&term=2011

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S4208-2011

EDIT: Indeed, the Elections committee is Republican-controlled.  O'Mara, Gallivan, Nozzolio, Ranzenhofer, and Ball are Republicans, while the remaining 3 are Democrats.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 10, 2011, 06:42:05 PM
This gives a good summary of what is going on on the ground in Louisiana:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110508/NEWS01/105080313/Movement-seeks-elect-U-S-president-by-popular-vote

The NPVIC is unlikely to pass there this legislature, as the state Republican Party opposes the measure, and the Republicans control both Houses and the governorship, but note how 3 Republicans still came together to introduce the bill in the House and a majority of the state's population, including a majority of state Republicans, support the idea of a national popular vote.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 12, 2011, 01:06:50 AM
I spoke with the office of New York State Rep. Dinowitz, who sponsored the bill, and the person there said with the Assembly adjourning yesterday, the bill is effectively dead.  The person also said it's unlikely any action on the matter would be taken by the Republican-controlled Senate next Legislature, despite the bill having a lot of Republican crossover votes this year.

It looks like New York will not become part of the compact anytime soon.


Which doesn't surprise me in the least.  A fair number of those crossover votes were likely made to avoid making waves on a bill that wasn't see as likely passing the other house.

For New York, I called the offices of Senator Griffo, the Republican who introduced the NPVIC into the Republican-controlled State Senate this year, and Assemblyman Dinowitz, a Democrat who has repeatedly introduced the NPVIC in the Assembly.  The person answering the phones for Griffo says that they're hoping to get a floor vote by the end of June, and they have a meeting with the leadership next week to discuss getting the bill a floor vote--the bill is already on the third reading calendar.  He also said that there isn't really any opposition from the leadership to the NPVIC in the Senate; it passed the Elections committee with no objections.  I told him that New York Republicans must hate being ignored in presidential elections, and he agreed.

Dinowitz's person answering the phones didn't seem as optimistic.  He said that they're hoping to get a floor vote this legislature.  I asked him if he's seen any opposition from the leadership, and he said he doesn't know if the leadership is opposed.

So it would be pretty funny if the NPVIC passes the Republican-controlled Senate but fails to pass the Democratic-controlled House.

EDIT: It took only 20 seconds for the NPVIC to report out of the Senate Elections committee when it came under consideration.  Shortly after 6:30 in the following video the consideration for the NPVIC, and by the time the video gets to 7:00 the committee had already unanimously agreed to report the bill to the floor:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/may/02/elections-meeting


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on May 25, 2011, 09:30:41 AM
The Louisiana House committee passed unanimously the NPV bill. It goes to the House floor now.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 27, 2011, 03:55:44 PM
The Louisiana House committee passed unanimously the NPV bill. It goes to the House floor now.

It's scheduled for a floor debate on 6/6 according to the status page.  It's nice to get an up or down vote on it, but honestly I don't expect it to pass.  It'll be an interesting show to watch regardless.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on May 27, 2011, 06:27:19 PM
The Louisiana House committee passed unanimously the NPV bill. It goes to the House floor now.

It's scheduled for a floor debate on 6/6 according to the status page.  It's nice to get an up or down vote on it, but honestly I don't expect it to pass.  It'll be an interesting show to watch regardless.

How can it pass unanimously the committee and then be rejected by the full body?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on May 27, 2011, 06:45:34 PM
The Louisiana House committee passed unanimously the NPV bill. It goes to the House floor now.

It's scheduled for a floor debate on 6/6 according to the status page.  It's nice to get an up or down vote on it, but honestly I don't expect it to pass.  It'll be an interesting show to watch regardless.

How can it pass unanimously the committee and then be rejected by the full body?

My understanding is that 6 of 14 members wanted to defer the bill, that is basically kill it, but that failed.  After that, the committee voted unanimously to let it go to the floor.  Those 6 members were probably opposed and only allowed it to go to the floor when because of the vote they saw they couldn't kill it right there.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on June 06, 2011, 03:08:29 PM
The bill appears to be dead now in the Louisiana House.  According to the status page on the bill, it was "[r]ead by title, returned to the calendar."  According to page 28 of the Louisiana Legislative Floor Guide (which can be found on the House's website), that means the bill is "in limbo".  Basically, it seems the bill is just about dead in Louisiana, though it may be revived by the end of the current legislature.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on June 07, 2011, 10:38:34 AM
OK, the NPVIC is on the active list for today's session of the Republican-controlled New York State Senate today, which was introduced by a Republican and unanimously passed the Elections Committee about a month ago.  It is calendar no. 398:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/jun/07/senate-session-06-07-11

I have not seen it on the active list before, but I find that generally at the beginning of the session, they go through the active list.  The session today is at 1400 EDT.  So we'll see.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on June 07, 2011, 03:04:39 PM
OK, the NPVIC is on the active list for today's session of the Republican-controlled New York State Senate today, which was introduced by a Republican and unanimously passed the Elections Committee about a month ago.  It is calendar no. 398:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/jun/07/senate-session-06-07-11

I have not seen it on the active list before, but I find that generally at the beginning of the session, they go through the active list.  The session today is at 1400 EDT.  So we'll see.

It passed 47-13-2.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 08, 2011, 01:06:23 AM
OK, the NPVIC is on the active list for today's session of the Republican-controlled New York State Senate today, which was introduced by a Republican and unanimously passed the Elections Committee about a month ago.  It is calendar no. 398:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/jun/07/senate-session-06-07-11

I have not seen it on the active list before, but I find that generally at the beginning of the session, they go through the active list.  The session today is at 1400 EDT.  So we'll see.

It passed 47-13-2.

Really ? So it has a strong chance to pass with a democratic House and Governor.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on June 08, 2011, 06:28:04 AM
OK, the NPVIC is on the active list for today's session of the Republican-controlled New York State Senate today, which was introduced by a Republican and unanimously passed the Elections Committee about a month ago.  It is calendar no. 398:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/jun/07/senate-session-06-07-11

I have not seen it on the active list before, but I find that generally at the beginning of the session, they go through the active list.  The session today is at 1400 EDT.  So we'll see.

It passed 47-13-2.

Really ? So it has a strong chance to pass with a democratic House and Governor.

I suppose New York Republicans have nothing to lose by doing this....it's not like they're going to win New York in the near future.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Del Tachi on June 24, 2011, 10:17:14 PM
Okay, so I have a question about this NPVIC thing…

Let us assume that it actually garners enough support to go into effect.  Let’s also assume that it withstands any legal challenges that it might encounter and that it is upheld by the SCOTUS. 

THIS IS THE SCENARIO:

The year is 2020. 

The closest national election in twenty years has just taken place.  In it, the Republican candidate has 48.9% of the national popular vote--the most of any candidate.  Because of this, the NPVIC should elect him president.

NOT SO FAST!!!

Only minutes after the Republican is declared the winner, political junkies (who’s lives have been made a lot less exciting by the NPVIC) do insanely fast calculations to conclude that if electoral votes were being allocated under a statewide-WTA (the old way of doing things) then the Democratic candidate would actually win the election with a 273-265 electoral college victory!

Since the Democratic candidate and his army of super-lawyers are sexy, master statesmen they are able to do enough arm-wrangling in the NPVIC states to coerce the state legislatures to send electors to the electoral college who will support the statewide popular vote winner, who turns out to be the Democratic candidate.  At the electoral college meeting on December 18th they do exactly that, all of the NPVIC member states (except for one) decide to cast their electoral votes to the Democratic candidate.  In a clear violation of the NPVIC, he is elected president despite losing the popular vote.

So, this is the loophole in the NPVIC.  Its not legally binding!  A state could “pull-out” of the NPVIC at the last moment and thus swing the election.  Even worse, the other member states could take no action against those who violate the agreement--as the states are given the right to appoint their electors in whatever manner they see fit in the Constitution. 

So, how is this problem reconciled?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 25, 2011, 03:15:54 AM
I know politics are extremely cynical, but I like to think that people in the loser's party would be honest enough to respect the compact their State engaged in. Otherwise, well, I'd just feel sad for the country.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on June 25, 2011, 03:25:26 AM
Is there anything to stop a state legislature from overturning the results after the fact in the current system either?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on June 25, 2011, 08:24:32 PM
Is there anything to stop a state legislature from overturning the results after the fact in the current system either?


If they do so, they would lose the safe harbor provisions of 3 USC 5.  Note that this was part of the controversy in Bush v. Gore and one of the errors in that decision.  SCOTUS ruled that the Florida legislature considered having its electors be protected by the safe harbor provisions of 3 USC 5 to be so important that any procedure for determining who the electors would need to be concluded by six days before the meeting of the electors so as to be protected under the safe harbor provision.  If a court was going to make that sort of ruling it should have been a Florida court that made it, not SCOTUS.

(Note, SCOTUS likely correctly inferred the intent of the Florida legislature, as losing the safe-harbor provisions is one reason why the legislature stayed out of the controversy despite considering inserting themselves into it. However, it wasn't their job to do the inferring.)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on June 27, 2011, 11:46:17 PM
Okay, so I have a question about this NPVIC thing…

Let us assume that it actually garners enough support to go into effect.  Let’s also assume that it withstands any legal challenges that it might encounter and that it is upheld by the SCOTUS. 

THIS IS THE SCENARIO:

The year is 2020. 

The closest national election in twenty years has just taken place.  In it, the Republican candidate has 48.9% of the national popular vote--the most of any candidate.  Because of this, the NPVIC should elect him president.

NOT SO FAST!!!

Only minutes after the Republican is declared the winner, political junkies (who’s lives have been made a lot less exciting by the NPVIC) do insanely fast calculations to conclude that if electoral votes were being allocated under a statewide-WTA (the old way of doing things) then the Democratic candidate would actually win the election with a 273-265 electoral college victory!

Since the Democratic candidate and his army of super-lawyers are sexy, master statesmen they are able to do enough arm-wrangling in the NPVIC states to coerce the state legislatures to send electors to the electoral college who will support the statewide popular vote winner, who turns out to be the Democratic candidate.  At the electoral college meeting on December 18th they do exactly that, all of the NPVIC member states (except for one) decide to cast their electoral votes to the Democratic candidate.  In a clear violation of the NPVIC, he is elected president despite losing the popular vote.

So, this is the loophole in the NPVIC.  Its not legally binding!  A state could “pull-out” of the NPVIC at the last moment and thus swing the election.  Even worse, the other member states could take no action against those who violate the agreement--as the states are given the right to appoint their electors in whatever manner they see fit in the Constitution. 

So, how is this problem reconciled?


The NPVIC already handles this.  This is from the text of the NPVIC:

Quote
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.

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Simfan34 on July 08, 2011, 12:07:14 AM
If the NPVIC will requirers all states to sign on, why not just have an amendment?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 08, 2011, 01:08:07 AM
If the NPVIC will requirers all states to sign on, why not just have an amendment?

It only requires enough states for a majority of electoral votes.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on July 15, 2011, 01:37:53 AM
California legislature passed the NPVIC and sent it to Brown to sign it.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/14/3769954/calif-senate-approves-change-to.html (http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/14/3769954/calif-senate-approves-change-to.html)



Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 15, 2011, 03:13:01 AM
Even though CA and NY are both democratic States, their entry in the compact would add a lot of EVs to it, and thus hopefully help it to gain some credibility.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on July 23, 2011, 04:52:51 AM
I'm still not convinced this will work.

The whole "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that blah blah blah" bit is useless.

Remember this is a state law. Therefore, what this really says is

ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MARYLAND, LAW 5182 MEANS WE GIVE OUR ELECTORAL VOTES TO EBERYBODY SO WE KAN ALL SHARE MMMKAY

All you need to do is pass a new

ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MARYLAND, LAW 5182 IS NOW VOID. HAHAHA SUCKERS.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 23, 2011, 10:36:28 AM
I'm still not convinced this will work.

The whole "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that blah blah blah" bit is useless.

Remember this is a state law. Therefore, what this really says is

ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MARYLAND, LAW 5182 MEANS WE GIVE OUR ELECTORAL VOTES TO EBERYBODY SO WE KAN ALL SHARE MMMKAY

All you need to do is pass a new

ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MARYLAND, LAW 5182 IS NOW VOID. HAHAHA SUCKERS.


If this compact were to get Congressional approval there would be no question about whether the six month provision is enforceable.  Even without Congressional approval it probably would be.

But even if they were to be able to withdraw, after the six month deadline, it likely would not cause a suckerpunch moment at the government level.

If Maryland passes a new law after election day, then Maryland would lose the safe harbor status for its electors and they likely would suffer a challenge in the Congress.  (It's also possible that electors chosen in conformity to the compact would also suffer a challenge.)

If Maryland passes a new law before election day, then the other states would be able to assign electors on the basis of their previous law.

About the only impact that would be likely to occur from a late withdrawal would be upon campaigns that planned their strategy assuming that the compact is in force only to find that we were back to winner take all by state.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on July 23, 2011, 11:44:12 PM
I actually tried to prepare a map of states that are considering this that'd add up to a majority, and then show an example of one party being able to pull this; but there are enough states for both parties that are looking at this that I was unable to do so.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on August 04, 2011, 10:55:31 AM
The Republican National Committee is considering officially opposing the National Popular Vote:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/08/02/republican-national-committee-considers-taking-a-stand-on-national-popular-vote-plan/

This would officially make the National Popular Vote a partisan issue, and would IMO sink its chances in the medium term (next 10 to 20 years).


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: greenforest32 on August 04, 2011, 05:28:17 PM
The Republican National Committee is considering officially opposing the National Popular Vote:

This would officially make the National Popular Vote a partisan issue, and would IMO sink its chances in the medium term (next 10 to 20 years).


Sigh. These guys are almost always against good ideas and for bad ones. Hope the resolution fails.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on August 06, 2011, 12:22:24 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/5/rnc-nixes-national-popular-vote-initiative/

Quote
A resolution opposing the National Popular Vote initiative won support of every voting RNC member but one who voted “present” instead of “yes.”


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 06, 2011, 03:19:55 AM
What is their rationale for opposing this ? "Democrats support it, so it sucks" ? Or "Electoral college will always help us in close elections" ?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on August 06, 2011, 05:36:39 AM
What is their rationale for opposing this ? "Democrats support it, so it sucks" ? Or "Electoral college will always help us in close elections" ?

More the default conservative position, IMO. Don't fix it if it ain't broke or something.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: beneficii on August 06, 2011, 07:38:46 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/5/rnc-nixes-national-popular-vote-initiative/

Quote
A resolution opposing the National Popular Vote initiative won support of every voting RNC member but one who voted “present” instead of “yes.”


Though I am suspicious of the Washington Times, at this point I think the article is probably reliable.  This bodes poorly for the NPVIC in the medium term.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 06, 2011, 10:55:30 PM
What is their rationale for opposing this ? "Democrats support it, so it sucks" ? Or "Electoral college will always help us in close elections" ?

Internal party politics could play a factor as well.  The delegate allocation rules for the two parties determine bonus delegates for how the party does in Presidential Politics differently.  The Democratic rules effectively allocate a bonus based on the percentage of the PV in the State during the last three Presidential elections.  The Republican rules give a straight up bonus based on whether the Republican got a majority of the EV in the last Presidential election. (Nebraska receives its full bonus since 4 of its 5 EVs were cast for McCain) That makes some sense under the current method of electing a President, but not if we switched to PV for electing Presidents.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 07, 2011, 04:18:13 AM
What is their rationale for opposing this ? "Democrats support it, so it sucks" ? Or "Electoral college will always help us in close elections" ?

Internal party politics could play a factor as well.  The delegate allocation rules for the two parties determine bonus delegates for how the party does in Presidential Politics differently.  The Democratic rules effectively allocate a bonus based on the percentage of the PV in the State during the last three Presidential elections.  The Republican rules give a straight up bonus based on whether the Republican got a majority of the EV in the last Presidential election. (Nebraska receives its full bonus since 4 of its 5 EVs were cast for McCain) That makes some sense under the current method of electing a President, but not if we switched to PV for electing Presidents.

Can't they just change such a silly rule ?

Rhetorical question of course : the GOP is an awesome party so its rules are all perfect and shall never be changed.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on August 07, 2011, 10:33:39 AM
What is their rationale for opposing this ? "Democrats support it, so it sucks" ? Or "Electoral college will always help us in close elections" ?

There were two frequent rationales cited by the RNC members. One was that the system is not so broken that it needs this fix, which will likely have unintended consequences. The other was the recognition that the founders intended to provide an additional boost to smaller states in the republic, and NPVIC would alter that balance.

The Electoral College does not always help the GOP in close elections. OH was quite close in 2004, and if it had gone for Kerry then he would have won the EC with a larger PV deficit to Bush than Bush had to Gore.

One consequence I worry about is the emergence of a fringe candidate who can win with less than a majority. There was a PV Amendment floated in Congress 40 years ago, and it had a runoff provision to protect against this possibility. The NPVIC entirely lacks a runoff provision for candidates with less than a majority. Parliamentary systems require a majority to run the government. The EC system has a runoff in the House, and countries such as France have a direct runoff for president.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 07, 2011, 11:12:10 AM
Candidates can win the EV with a minority in the PV, too. Actually, it happened 3 times in the last 5 elections.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 07, 2011, 09:49:36 PM
What is their rationale for opposing this ? "Democrats support it, so it sucks" ? Or "Electoral college will always help us in close elections" ?

Internal party politics could play a factor as well.  The delegate allocation rules for the two parties determine bonus delegates for how the party does in Presidential Politics differently.  The Democratic rules effectively allocate a bonus based on the percentage of the PV in the State during the last three Presidential elections.  The Republican rules give a straight up bonus based on whether the Republican got a majority of the EV in the last Presidential election. (Nebraska receives its full bonus since 4 of its 5 EVs were cast for McCain) That makes some sense under the current method of electing a President, but not if we switched to PV for electing Presidents.

Can't they just change such a silly rule ?

Rhetorical question of course : the GOP is an awesome party so its rules are all perfect and shall never be changed.

Of course they could change it, but it would mean that Republicans from highly Democratic states such as California and New York would gain influence at the expense of those who currently have it in the party.  Still, I expect this factor is of less importance than the perception that the Republicans by and large have the advantage in the small population States that have a greater influence in the EV than they would in the PV.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on August 07, 2011, 10:00:54 PM
Of course they could change it, but it would mean that Republicans from highly Democratic states such as California and New York would gain influence at the expense of those who currently have it in the party.  Still, I expect this factor is of less importance than the perception that the Republicans by and large have the advantage in the small population States that have a greater influence in the EV than they would in the PV.

There are many ways to measure "party strength" in a state besides the presidential vote.  It's reasonable for the GOP to grant more delegates to Florida than New York, since, despite having nearly equal populations, there are more Republicans in Florida than New York.......but there are much smarter ways of measuring that than their current formula.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 08, 2011, 04:26:45 AM
Of course they could change it, but it would mean that Republicans from highly Democratic states such as California and New York would gain influence at the expense of those who currently have it in the party.  Still, I expect this factor is of less importance than the perception that the Republicans by and large have the advantage in the small population States that have a greater influence in the EV than they would in the PV.

There are many ways to measure "party strength" in a state besides the presidential vote.  It's reasonable for the GOP to grant more delegates to Florida than New York, since, despite having nearly equal populations, there are more Republicans in Florida than New York.......but there are much smarter ways of measuring that than their current formula.

Indeed. Why don't they simply apportion delegates according to the number of votes get by their presidential candidates ?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on August 08, 2011, 07:12:59 PM
Jerry Brown signed the NPVIC bill.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/08/jerry-brown-signs-popular-vote.html (http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/08/jerry-brown-signs-popular-vote.html)


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 08, 2011, 09:48:35 PM
Indeed. Why don't they simply apportion delegates according to the number of votes get by their presidential candidates ?

They are doing that.  They just apportion the bonus delegates for the presidential vote by the votes that count at present, the electoral votes, not the popular votes.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 09, 2011, 03:58:48 AM
Indeed. Why don't they simply apportion delegates according to the number of votes get by their presidential candidates ?

They are doing that.  They just apportion the bonus delegates for the presidential vote by the votes that count at present, the electoral votes, not the popular votes.

Well, that's moronic. It doesn't produce a proportional representation of Republican voters.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on August 13, 2011, 07:41:28 AM
With it now seemingly becoming a partisan issue, I wonder if the more realistic way forward for the NPV is to try to convince Republicans in strongly GOP states to sign on (making the case to them that they're getting screwed by the electoral college), or if it would actually be more realistic to try to get swing states to sign on during a period when the Democrats control the state legislature (which is not the case in nearly any of the swing state legislatures at the moment).

All of the states to sign onto the NPV so far are states that have gone to the Dems in recent presidential elections, and have not been seriously contested in the last few cycles.  If the NPV cannot expand beyond that base, then it's dead.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on May 09, 2012, 06:11:13 AM
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?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on May 09, 2012, 09:06:48 AM
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.

I still think the proposal is deficient without a runoff clause, but most backers from either party aren't concerned about the unintended consequences. I imagine a multi-party race with an extreme candidate taking a plurality like Le Pen nearly did in the 1st round of 2002 in France.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Simfan34 on May 09, 2012, 10:21:53 AM
I don't see a multi-party system developing any time soon.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on May 09, 2012, 11:10:26 PM
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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 10, 2012, 06:05:04 PM
How come I haven't seen this thread before?!


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on May 10, 2012, 06:13:52 PM
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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 11, 2012, 02:55:10 PM
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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on May 11, 2012, 09:28:40 PM
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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: greenforest32 on April 21, 2013, 09:46:55 PM
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

Quote
April 18, 2013

ALEM, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon House has voted to join a movement seeking to elect the president by the national popular vote.

The legislation would require Oregon to cast its seven Electoral College ballots for the candidate who wins the national vote, rather than the one who gets the most votes in Oregon.

It would take effect only if a compact is enacted in states with a majority in the electoral college.

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


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on April 21, 2013, 11:18:45 PM
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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on April 22, 2013, 08:33:37 AM
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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: politicallefty on June 16, 2013, 05:50:19 AM
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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: greenforest32 on June 17, 2013, 04:11:47 AM
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

Quote
The District of Columbia and eight states, including California and Washington, have agreed to join the compact and the Oregon House in April passed a measure, House Bill 3077, on a 38-21 vote that would do the same here.

However, the measure has languished on the other side of the Capitol, where it faces the opposition of Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem.

Koza and other supporters of the plan say it would ensure that presidential nominees once again campaign broadly around the country instead of focusing on just a few swing states.  But Courtney says he fears that smaller states like Oregon would tend to get ignored as the presidential candidates focused on the country's biggest metropolitan areas.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on June 17, 2013, 07:04:15 AM
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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Space7 on June 25, 2013, 08:41:50 PM
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?
 




Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Smid on June 25, 2013, 09:00:37 PM
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?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on June 25, 2013, 10:26:12 PM
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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Space7 on June 25, 2013, 11:11:14 PM
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


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: greenforest32 on June 25, 2013, 11:34:13 PM
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 (http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000287) 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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on June 26, 2013, 04:25:01 AM
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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on June 26, 2013, 04:31:59 AM
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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Space7 on June 26, 2013, 09:00:18 AM
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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Citizen Hats on June 26, 2013, 12:30:53 PM


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


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: barfbag on June 28, 2013, 12:24:38 AM
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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: greenforest32 on July 13, 2013, 12:18:35 AM
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/

Quote
7/12/2013

 Rhode Island has joined several other states in agreeing to award its four electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in presidential elections.

Democratic Gov. Lincoln Chafee has signed legislation to join the National Popular Vote compact.

...

State lawmakers endorsed the compact in 2008 but former Republican Gov. Don Carcieri vetoed the bill.

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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Space7 on July 13, 2013, 12:49:07 AM
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/

Quote
7/12/2013

 Rhode Island has joined several other states in agreeing to award its four electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in presidential elections.

Democratic Gov. Lincoln Chafee has signed legislation to join the National Popular Vote compact.

...

State lawmakers endorsed the compact in 2008 but former Republican Gov. Don Carcieri vetoed the bill.

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.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: politicallefty on February 16, 2014, 06:24:04 AM
I didn't see this posted anywhere, but the Oklahoma Senate has passed the NPVIC (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/14/3294001/oklahoma-national-popular-vote/):

Quote
The Oklahoma Senate voted Wednesday to pass a bill that would add Oklahoma to the growing list of states working to ensure that the presidential candidate receiving the most votes becomes president. It became the first legislative body in a GOP-leaning state to embrace the National Popular Vote, an interstate compact that would ensure that the candidate who garners the most votes in each presidential election would also receive a majority in the Electoral College.

[...]

SB 906, which passed 28 to 18 and now proceeds to the Oklahoma House, would add Oklahoma to a growing group of states that have agreed to automatically give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of how the candidate does in their state. The compact, which has already been endorsed by ten jurisdictions possessing 136 electoral votes, would only go into effect when at least 270 electoral votes are governed by the compact. Oklahoma’s 9 electoral votes would bring the count to 145, about 53.7 percent of the needed total.

[...]

16 Oklahoma Senate Republicans joined all 12 Democrats in support of the bill

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).


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on February 17, 2014, 01:55:26 AM
Maybe. maybe not.  While in 2000, the NPVIC would have worked to Gore's advantage, in both 2008 and 2012 it would have potentially worked to the advantage of the GOP assuming a uniform swing to a tight election.  So it makes some sense that GOP states would start to sign on, but also that some Democratic states would choose to leave it.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: windjammer on February 17, 2014, 09:15:43 AM
Well, why would you want to end Electoral College. The United States of America is a federalist state, so this current electoral college is a good compromise.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Franzl on February 17, 2014, 09:26:04 AM
Well, why would you want to end Electoral College. The United States of America is a federalist state, so this current electoral college is a good compromise.

I don't see a connection between the two. Nothing about federalism would change under a fair electoral system.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on February 17, 2014, 11:13:54 AM
Maybe. maybe not.  While in 2000, the NPVIC would have worked to Gore's advantage, in both 2008 and 2012 it would have potentially worked to the advantage of the GOP assuming a uniform swing to a tight election.  So it makes some sense that GOP states would start to sign on, but also that some Democratic states would choose to leave it.

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama. The buildup of overwhelming margins in the cities for Dems and their inroads with information economy voters in the traditionally GOP suburbs has shifted the structural advantage to the Dems. As a partisan activity, that should shift the interest in popular vote to the GOP.

I still think that the NPVIC remains flawed as long as it has no run-off for candidates who fail to get a majority on the initial ballot. The run off can be IRV or some other modern mechanism, but there's a reason why most countries use a run off for the direct election of their chief executive.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: TTS1996 on February 17, 2014, 02:10:27 PM

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama.
That's not evidence of a structural advantage: counting Gore as a southern Democrat, no non-southern Dem won the popular vote after Kennedy until Obama. No non-right-handed Republican won the presidency after Nixon until Bush Jr. - it's a structural advantage! Or, maybe, coincidence, or the way these things work.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on February 17, 2014, 04:42:18 PM

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama.
That's not evidence of a structural advantage: counting Gore as a southern Democrat, no non-southern Dem won the popular vote after Kennedy until Obama. No non-right-handed Republican won the presidency after Nixon until Bush Jr. - it's a structural advantage! Or, maybe, coincidence, or the way these things work.

You reversed my two clauses and their dependency. The structural advantage is measured by how the EC would go if the vote shifted to an even split between the two candidates. Until the last decade that advantage was typically for the GOP and an even race would be expected to go for the GOP. Since a big piece of that base since 1960 was in the South, a southern candidate could swing regional votes and get a win like Carter did in 1976. Gore was not really considered a Southern candidate after his 8 years as VP.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on February 17, 2014, 09:16:13 PM
Maybe. maybe not.  While in 2000, the NPVIC would have worked to Gore's advantage, in both 2008 and 2012 it would have potentially worked to the advantage of the GOP assuming a uniform swing to a tight election.  So it makes some sense that GOP states would start to sign on, but also that some Democratic states would choose to leave it.

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama. The buildup of overwhelming margins in the cities for Dems and their inroads with information economy voters in the traditionally GOP suburbs has shifted the structural advantage to the Dems. As a partisan activity, that should shift the interest in popular vote to the GOP.

That's part of it, but I actually think there's also an undercurrent of ideological disagreement on the issue, even though it doesn't seem like it should be a very ideological issue.  The GOP, as a party, voices more reverence for the original intent of the founders, and shows more hostility to more modern democratic innovations than the Dems.  This would probably apply to other electoral reforms as well.  For example, even if you could convince everyone that introducing IRV would give no net electoral advantage to either party, I bet you'd have more takers among Democrats than Republicans.

Republicans, on average, are also more likely to voice support for the virtues of the indirect character of American democracy.  Heck, some of them want to repeal the 17th Amendment!


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Nichlemn on February 19, 2014, 12:42:19 PM

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama.
That's not evidence of a structural advantage: counting Gore as a southern Democrat, no non-southern Dem won the popular vote after Kennedy until Obama. No non-right-handed Republican won the presidency after Nixon until Bush Jr. - it's a structural advantage! Or, maybe, coincidence, or the way these things work.

You reversed my two clauses and their dependency. The structural advantage is measured by how the EC would go if the vote shifted to an even split between the two candidates. Until the last decade that advantage was typically for the GOP and an even race would be expected to go for the GOP. Since a big piece of that base since 1960 was in the South, a southern candidate could swing regional votes and get a win like Carter did in 1976. Gore was not really considered a Southern candidate after his 8 years as VP.

No, there wasn't. (http://"https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167153.0") From 1960 to 2004, Republicans had the theoretical EC edge six times (1968, 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 2000) while Democrats had it the other six times (1960, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1996, 2004). There appears to be no consistent pattern in the EC advantage.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: politicallefty on February 23, 2014, 09:02:15 AM
I don't think either party is considering the current bias in the Electoral College. Democrats seem to almost unanimously support adopting the popular vote for electing the President. With Republicans, it seems to be based on the state. From what I've seen, you have both Oklahoma Republicans and New York Republicans both in favour of the NPVIC. I wish more states would realize that they are ignored by the current system. There's no reason at all why a state like Texas shouldn't support the NPVIC. As long as we have the Electoral College in place as is, only the very few swing states will get the attention during a presidential election.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mechaman on February 23, 2014, 10:18:53 AM
Good lord the NVPIC is a retard's idea.

Why don't you just end the Electoral College?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: politicallefty on February 23, 2014, 10:31:32 AM
Good lord the NVPIC is a retard's idea.

Why don't you just end the Electoral College?

I won't deny the fact that it's essentially a loophole in the Constitution, but I don't think it's any more flawed than the current system. Abolishing the Electoral College once and for all requires 290 votes in the House, 67 votes in the Senate, and 38 states. The first two could happen under the right circumstances, but I have a hard time ever seeing 38 states voluntarily abolishing the Electoral College. If the NPVIC is adopted, I could see it basically forcing action on a constitutional amendment.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Vega on February 23, 2014, 10:43:29 AM
Fantastic!


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: SteveRogers on February 25, 2014, 06:37:17 PM
I'd support doing away with the electoral college, but I can't bring myself to support the NPVIC because ironically enough that would entail a minority of the population forcing a dramatic change on the rest of the country. If we're going to repeal the electoral college, then we should do it through the proper channels.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Bojack Horseman on February 27, 2014, 12:22:02 AM
And what State politician in his right mind is going to pass this?  No safe State is going to give the opposing party the chance to claim its electoral votes, and no swing State is going to want Presidential attention diffused away from it.  Possibly this might sneak in via a referendum in a few states, but not enough to reach the 270 electoral vote margin to make this work.

California has. So has Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, Washington DC, Massachusetts, and Hawaii.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on February 27, 2014, 12:39:01 AM
I'll admit that this has done much better than I thought it would, but it's still at only 136 EV and there are no signs it has any chance of going into force in time for 2016.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 28, 2014, 08:35:02 AM

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama.
That's not evidence of a structural advantage: counting Gore as a southern Democrat, no non-southern Dem won the popular vote after Kennedy until Obama. No non-right-handed Republican won the presidency after Nixon until Bush Jr. - it's a structural advantage! Or, maybe, coincidence, or the way these things work.

You reversed my two clauses and their dependency. The structural advantage is measured by how the EC would go if the vote shifted to an even split between the two candidates. Until the last decade that advantage was typically for the GOP and an even race would be expected to go for the GOP. Since a big piece of that base since 1960 was in the South, a southern candidate could swing regional votes and get a win like Carter did in 1976. Gore was not really considered a Southern candidate after his 8 years as VP.

No, there wasn't. (http://"https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167153.0") From 1960 to 2004, Republicans had the theoretical EC edge six times (1968, 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 2000) while Democrats had it the other six times (1960, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1996, 2004). There appears to be no consistent pattern in the EC advantage.

Indeed. FTR, here's the structural advantage (measured as the difference in winning margins between the national popular vote and the popular vote in the decisive State) from 1932 to 2012:

1932: R+0.05
1936: R+3.69
1940: R+3.06
1944: R+2.48
1948: R+3.64
1952: R+0.62
1956: D+0.86
1960: D+0.64
1964: D+2.01
1968: R+1.58
1972: D+0.88
1976: R+0.38
1980: D+1.81
1984: R+0.77
1988: R+0.17
1992: R+0.91
1996: D+0.68
2000: R+0.53
2004: D+0.35
2008: D+1.98
2012: D+1.52

No clear pattern here, except maybe that Republicans had a structural advantage in the years of the Solid South, as Democrats wasted a sh*tload of votes there (but this would require going farther back to confirm).


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on February 28, 2014, 12:35:53 PM
The Solid South wasn't as much as a help to the Democrats in the PV as one might think as the vote in the general election tended to be suppressed both because of institutional reasons but also voter apathy.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on February 28, 2014, 03:46:00 PM
What Antonio's fine work suggests to me is that from 1964-80 there was no clear advantage to either party in the EC. After the reapportionment of 1980, there seems to be a Pub advantage through 2000 with 4 of 5 elections having an R lean. After 2000 the EC seems to shift to the Dems, so it will be interesting to see if that continues for the remaining elections this decade.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Skill and Chance on March 12, 2014, 02:40:48 AM

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama.
That's not evidence of a structural advantage: counting Gore as a southern Democrat, no non-southern Dem won the popular vote after Kennedy until Obama. No non-right-handed Republican won the presidency after Nixon until Bush Jr. - it's a structural advantage! Or, maybe, coincidence, or the way these things work.

You reversed my two clauses and their dependency. The structural advantage is measured by how the EC would go if the vote shifted to an even split between the two candidates. Until the last decade that advantage was typically for the GOP and an even race would be expected to go for the GOP. Since a big piece of that base since 1960 was in the South, a southern candidate could swing regional votes and get a win like Carter did in 1976. Gore was not really considered a Southern candidate after his 8 years as VP.

No, there wasn't. (http://"https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167153.0") From 1960 to 2004, Republicans had the theoretical EC edge six times (1968, 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 2000) while Democrats had it the other six times (1960, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1996, 2004). There appears to be no consistent pattern in the EC advantage.

Indeed. FTR, here's the structural advantage (measured as the difference in winning margins between the national popular vote and the popular vote in the decisive State) from 1932 to 2012:

1932: R+0.05
1936: R+3.69
1940: R+3.06
1944: R+2.48
1948: R+3.64
1952: R+0.62
1956: D+0.86
1960: D+0.64
1964: D+2.01
1968: R+1.58
1972: D+0.88
1976: R+0.38
1980: D+1.81
1984: R+0.77
1988: R+0.17
1992: R+0.91
1996: D+0.68
2000: R+0.53
2004: D+0.35
2008: D+1.98
2012: D+1.52

No clear pattern here, except maybe that Republicans had a structural advantage in the years of the Solid South, as Democrats wasted a sh*tload of votes there (but this would require going farther back to confirm).

It's fascinating that 2000 and 1960 (PV winner disputed based on allocation in AL) actually were not years with large biases.  A serious 3rd party candidate also seems to result in additional bias.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Skill and Chance on March 12, 2014, 02:44:49 AM
What Antonio's fine work suggests to me is that from 1964-80 there was no clear advantage to either party in the EC. After the reapportionment of 1980, there seems to be a Pub advantage through 2000 with 4 of 5 elections having an R lean. After 2000 the EC seems to shift to the Dems, so it will be interesting to see if that continues for the remaining elections this decade.

More data is needed, but one could argue that a Solid South effect is now developing for the GOP.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Bojack Horseman on March 16, 2014, 04:55:08 PM
I might be able to support a popular vote but only if it were accomplished the intended way: A constitutional amendment. If I was a governor and this bill hit my desk, I'd veto it. I think that's an abuse of the federalist idea of giving the states the right to dole out their electoral votes however they choose.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: greenforest32 on March 27, 2014, 12:16:44 AM
The NY legislature just approved the compact.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2014/03/8542603/legislature-approves-national-popular-vote

Quote
Mar. 25, 2014

ALBANY—The New York Legislature approved a bill tonight that would award the state's presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, if enough states agree to do the same.

Both the Assembly and Senate overwhelmingly approved a measure that would allow the state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which seeks to circumvent the Electoral College.

With New York’s 29 electors, the interstate compact would have 160 electors, or the 60 percent of the 270 it needs to take effect.

The bill has been teetering between the chambers for years, and this is the first year it has passed both chambers. The bill now returns to the Senate, and requires the signature of Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has not taken a public position on the legislation.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: greenforest32 on April 17, 2014, 02:16:53 AM
Cuomo signed it: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/04/15/gov-andrew-cuomo-signs-national-popular-vote-bill/

Quote
ALBANY, N.Y. (CBSNewYork/AP) – Gov. Andrew Cuomo has signed legislation to enter New York in an interstate agreement to award its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the majority of the popular vote.

The National Popular Vote agreement would be triggered if states representing 270 electoral votes commit. Currently 10 states and the District of Columbia, representing 165 electoral votes — 61 percent of what is needed to win a presidential election — have signed the measure.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on April 17, 2014, 02:46:29 AM
The four most populous states where this hasn't yet been enacted are now TX, FL, PA, and OH.  If it passed in all four states, then it would reach 270, and would go into effect.  So in principle, it's "only" four states away from passage now, if the big ones were to do it.

But I'm not holding my breath on that.  :P


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Nichlemn on April 17, 2014, 02:52:35 AM
Is Bush 2000 the only reason it's only Democratic states signing on? Or is there some kind of status quo conservatism involved?

In theory, it shouldn't be too hard to sell to Texas, if you focused on it being the second-largest state but ignored by Presidential campaigns, and maybe tried a "Democrats have a structural advantage in the Electoral College now" argument, even though that's not true.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on April 17, 2014, 03:08:46 AM
Is Bush 2000 the only reason it's only Democratic states signing on? Or is there some kind of status quo conservatism involved?

Bush 2000 is most likely the biggest reason for the partisan divide.  But I do think there's a bit of an ideological division as well.  Republicans in general seem to be more wedded to the old constitutional order, with many movement conservatives even favoring the repeal of the 17th Amendment.  They're more likely to think that something is gained via the indirect nature of American democracy.  And they're more likely to favor a system that treats the states as states.  Democrats seem more likely to be open to experimenting with more modern electoral innovations.

For example, even if you showed them that it would make absolutely no difference in terms of the relative strengths of the two major parties, I bet you'd be able to get more Democrats than Republicans in favor of something like IRV.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: greenforest32 on April 18, 2014, 02:42:14 PM
I'm pretty sure voter turn-out influences their opposition as well. Just in the last few years we've seen Republicans vote to keep ex-felons disenfranchised, cut early/weekend/absentee voting, repeal same-day registration, oppose automatic voter registration, etc.

When you have a national popular vote it's theoretically possible to offset those reductions in other states which is different than how it is now; under the current system of state > people an adoption of same-day registration in Connecticut and California cannot offset a repeal of it in Ohio and North Carolina. The Electoral College indirectly empowers voter suppression.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Citizen Hats on June 12, 2014, 12:24:06 AM
I might be able to support a popular vote but only if it were accomplished the intended way: A constitutional amendment. If I was a governor and this bill hit my desk, I'd veto it. I think that's an abuse of the federalist idea of giving the states the right to dole out their electoral votes however they choose.

Then why does the constitution explicitly give states the right to dole out their electoral votes however they choose?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Joe Republic on June 19, 2014, 12:41:27 AM
Hypothetical question, that I probably already know the answer to...

Let's say enough states enact the law to enable it to take effect, but only just enough, say 272 electoral votes.  A presidential election takes place using this new system.  Then the census takes place, followed by reapportionment, and suddenly the collective number of electoral votes drops to 266 or something.  Do we then go back to the current state of things, until more states opt in?


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Bacon King on June 20, 2014, 03:55:33 AM
Hypothetical question, that I probably already know the answer to...

Let's say enough states enact the law to enable it to take effect, but only just enough, say 272 electoral votes.  A presidential election takes place using this new system.  Then the census takes place, followed by reapportionment, and suddenly the collective number of electoral votes drops to 266 or something.  Do we then go back to the current state of things, until more states opt in?

Article III, Clause 9 of the Compact:

Quote
This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes.

so yep, it reverts back without a majority


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on January 21, 2016, 03:19:52 AM
According to this:

http://ballot-access.org/2016/01/20/arizona-legislature-gives-substantial-support-to-national-popular-vote-plan/

the NPV has been introduced in the Arizona legislature, where it has overwhelming bipartisan support.  If passed, Arizona would be the first state with a GOP majority in both houses to pass the NPV.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Mr. Morden on April 26, 2018, 02:14:47 PM
*bump*

Well, Trump says he supports deciding the election via the popular vote:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/26/trump-electoral-college-popular-vote-555148

So maybe this'll get some traction in Republican states now?  :P


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Progressive Pessimist on April 26, 2018, 06:30:30 PM
*bump*

Well, Drumpf says he supports deciding the election via the popular vote:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/26/trump-electoral-college-popular-vote-555148

So maybe this'll get some traction in Republican states now?  :P


That would be amazing if we could manipulate Trump into supporting the Electoral College's nullification. We just have to patronize him that he can win it and by getting rid of the Electoral College he is putting his money (even the amounts loaned from Russia) where his mouth is.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: zorkpolitics on May 25, 2018, 07:42:54 PM
Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ON Progressive on May 25, 2018, 10:40:40 PM
Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html


Quote
The NPV plan would vastly improve the chances of a splinter or special interest candidate to win the presidency. In a wide enough field, a special interest candidate could easily win with less than a quarter of the national popular vote, and for this reason there will inevitably be a large number of splinter or special interest candidates running for president if the plan goes into effect

1) You can theoretically win with 27% of the vote under the electoral college already
2) The two party system would still be a thing as long as first past the post is used.
3) I fail to see how it's a bad thing if third parties become relevant.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: catographer on May 25, 2018, 11:55:45 PM
Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html


Quote
The NPV plan would vastly improve the chances of a splinter or special interest candidate to win the presidency. In a wide enough field, a special interest candidate could easily win with less than a quarter of the national popular vote, and for this reason there will inevitably be a large number of splinter or special interest candidates running for president if the plan goes into effect

1) You can theoretically win with 27% of the vote under the electoral college already
2) The two party system would still be a thing as long as first past the post is used.
3) I fail to see how it's a bad thing if third parties become relevant.

You're absolutely right. Two party system would be in tact. Think about it this way: we already elect all 50 state governors by a simple FPTP plurality vote. It would be exactly the same, but if the entire country was a state. Gubernatorial elections are almost exclusively two party affairs where the winner often has an overall majority.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on May 26, 2018, 06:16:33 PM
Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html


Quote
The NPV plan would vastly improve the chances of a splinter or special interest candidate to win the presidency. In a wide enough field, a special interest candidate could easily win with less than a quarter of the national popular vote, and for this reason there will inevitably be a large number of splinter or special interest candidates running for president if the plan goes into effect

1) You can theoretically win with 27% of the vote under the electoral college already
2) The two party system would still be a thing as long as first past the post is used.
3) I fail to see how it's a bad thing if third parties become relevant.

It's not about third parties being relevant, it's about fringe parties winning with well less than a majority. Though one could theoretically win the EC with 27% of the vote, one needs to win the plurality in all those states to get a majority of the EV. A few regional candidates in a large field would probably block any fringe candidate in the states where the regional candidates are strong.

Similarly in a many-party parliamentary system, one party may win the popular vote with well less than a majority, but without a majority of parliamentary seats they will fail to win the government outright. It takes a broad-based party that can win a majority of seats on a national scale to prevail. The EC simply replaces the parliament with a temporary body to select the executive.

For those nation's that directly elect their executive, the best model is to use a run off, like in France. That way a fringe candidate can get blocked when a coalition of voters representing opposing parties selects the more mainstream candidate. Fifty years ago Congress considered an amendment that would move the US to a directly elected president, and it included a run off provsion if the winner was too far under 50%. That is a far better solution than NPVIC which lacks any protective run off.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: muon2 on May 26, 2018, 06:19:41 PM
Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html


Quote
The NPV plan would vastly improve the chances of a splinter or special interest candidate to win the presidency. In a wide enough field, a special interest candidate could easily win with less than a quarter of the national popular vote, and for this reason there will inevitably be a large number of splinter or special interest candidates running for president if the plan goes into effect

1) You can theoretically win with 27% of the vote under the electoral college already
2) The two party system would still be a thing as long as first past the post is used.
3) I fail to see how it's a bad thing if third parties become relevant.

You're absolutely right. Two party system would be in tact. Think about it this way: we already elect all 50 state governors by a simple FPTP plurality vote. It would be exactly the same, but if the entire country was a state. Gubernatorial elections are almost exclusively two party affairs where the winner often has an overall majority.

That's not quite true. A number of states use a run off system. That can either be a direct run off, or a de facto run off in the form of a top two primary.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Progressive Pessimist on May 29, 2018, 06:57:56 PM
Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html


That is definitely a possibility worth keeping in mind but I don't see it happening for quite awhile. This article assumes that  the two major parties would somehow lose their institutional credibility, it could happen down the line as third parties end up becoming more established. But the Democratic and Republican parties will not lose their fundraising capabilities or ubiquity enough for third parties to come in and take advantage of a further divided electorate. The two major parties will also have a better and more impressive pool of candidates compared to third parties and that may never change. If it does come down to a third party eking out a plurality though, maybe a national runoff election should be considered under those circumstances.
 I don't know, I'm still with the NPVIC. It's an attempt at change and if it needs to be changed too down the line, so be it.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Karpatsky on May 29, 2018, 08:49:50 PM
A good popular vote system needs some sort of runoff, whether instant or second-round. That said, even FPP would be better than what the US has now.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: ON Progressive on May 30, 2018, 07:28:01 AM
Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html


That is definitely a possibility worth keeping in mind but I don't see it happening for quite awhile. This article assumes that  the two major parties would somehow lose their institutional credibility, it could happen down the line as third parties end up becoming more established. But the Democratic and Republican parties will not lose their fundraising capabilities or ubiquity enough for third parties to come in and take advantage of a further divided electorate. The two major parties will also have a better and more impressive pool of candidates compared to third parties and that may never change. If it does come down to a third party eking out a plurality though, maybe a national runoff election should be considered under those circumstances.
 I don't know, I'm still with the NPVIC. It's an attempt at change and if it needs to be changed too down the line, so be it.

Yeah. A nationwide popular vote system wouldn't change the reality that third parties would still have huge disadvantages in pretty much anything from fundraising ability to candidate quality. They're also the two parties that the vast majority of people have consistently voted for, and that can't be ignored.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Slander and/or Libel on June 14, 2018, 07:53:49 AM
Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html


That is definitely a possibility worth keeping in mind but I don't see it happening for quite awhile. This article assumes that  the two major parties would somehow lose their institutional credibility, it could happen down the line as third parties end up becoming more established. But the Democratic and Republican parties will not lose their fundraising capabilities or ubiquity enough for third parties to come in and take advantage of a further divided electorate. The two major parties will also have a better and more impressive pool of candidates compared to third parties and that may never change. If it does come down to a third party eking out a plurality though, maybe a national runoff election should be considered under those circumstances.
 I don't know, I'm still with the NPVIC. It's an attempt at change and if it needs to be changed too down the line, so be it.

Yeah. A nationwide popular vote system wouldn't change the reality that third parties would still have huge disadvantages in pretty much anything from fundraising ability to candidate quality. They're also the two parties that the vast majority of people have consistently voted for, and that can't be ignored.

And beyond that, there are institutional incentives for the President to belong to the same party as a significant portion of Congress.


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: SingingAnalyst on June 21, 2018, 06:25:10 PM
Not sure this is a good idea, but it's good that it's being talked about. IRV is not perfect but I would like to see it implemented more. And, if we had proportional representation in Congress based on the Presidential vote, our Congress would have 14 Libertarians, 5 Greens, and 7 others (a situation I would consider desirable).


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: StateBoiler on June 26, 2018, 02:59:56 PM
Not sure this is a good idea, but it's good that it's being talked about. IRV is not perfect but I would like to see it implemented more. And, if we had proportional representation in Congress based on the Presidential vote, our Congress would have 14 Libertarians, 5 Greens, and 7 others (a situation I would consider desirable).

We don't vote for president based on who we want our representatives in Congress to be. If we did, I would've changed my vote for president in 2016.

I like the Argentine system actually.

Round 1 - simultaneous all-party primary on the same ballot, candidates signify what party they're wanting to represent, whoever gets most votes in a party's primary represents that party in Round 2, a party to be on the Round 2 ballot has to meet a minimum threshold (in Argentina's case, 1.5 to 2 percent).
Round 2 - all remaining candidates run, anyone gets more than 50% is declared winner, no one gets to 50% you have a runoff between the top 2 candidates


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Filinovich on July 08, 2018, 04:39:11 PM
I like the Argentine system actually.

Round 1 - simultaneous all-party primary on the same ballot, candidates signify what party they're wanting to represent, whoever gets most votes in a party's primary represents that party in Round 2, a party to be on the Round 2 ballot has to meet a minimum threshold (in Argentina's case, 1.5 to 2 percent).

What you've described here is what's known as a "blanket primary". While it's definitely an interesting system, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that it violates the 1st Amendment (See: California Democratic Party v. Jones).
Some similar alternatives that are permitted include the Top-Two Primary and the Top-Four primary (the latter being advocated by FairVote).


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Intell on July 12, 2018, 07:10:49 AM
I really hope the Democratic candidate wins despite losing the popular vote in 2020 so the Electoral College is nullified


Title: Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
Post by: Progressive Pessimist on July 12, 2018, 06:31:26 PM
I really hope the Democratic candidate wins despite losing the popular vote in 2020 so the Electoral College is nullified

That is probably not what would happen. Somehow Republicans would finagle their way into nullifying the election before getting rid of the Electoral College.