Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[Space7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Space7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Space7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Space7]

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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