National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[Californian Tony]

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

While wandering around Wikipedia, I found this pretty interesting initiative, or "how to get rid of the Electoral college without amending the constitution". Here I don't wont to start another Electoral College vs Popular Vote debate, we already have enough.
What I find interesting is having you opinion about whether or not it could realistically reach the 270 EVs necessary to become effective. Personally, I feel quite optimistical about that : More than 60% of citizens support it, five States have already passed it and 7 others could follow. The 270 EVs target isn't impossible to reach, and the procedure is far more simple than a Constitutional amendment : though a simple State bill.

What do you think ?

[Χahar]

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36980.0

[RIP Robert H Bork]

It scares the hell out of me. Ideally, Congress would pass a law preventing this system.

If the electoral college must go, it would be better if we just abolished it. I won't support anything like this, however.

[Californian Tony]

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36980.0

Well, but that one has no poll.

It scares the hell out of me. Ideally, Congress would pass a law preventing this system.

This would make no sense. States are sovereign to choose the way they elect their Electors, passsing a bill against that would mean ruining the ewhole meaning of the Electoral college (thus making it even more silly than it already is).

[I left.]

It scares the hell out of me. Ideally, Congress would pass a law preventing this system.

If the electoral college must go, it would be better if we just abolished it. I won't support anything like this, however.

How exactly would a piece of legislation override the Constitution?


I tend to support this, btw. Even if it'd make presidential elections less interesting.

[zorkpolitics]

Given that the Constitution says:
"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.

How can this compact be enforceable without Congressional consent?  It effectively takes away the electoral votes of states not part of the compact

[I left.]

It effectively takes away the electoral votes of states not part of the compact

Not at all. They still retain all the electoral votes they previously had.

[Free Palestine]

Isn't that sort of what the current system is?  Each state's electoral votes going to the one with a plurality of the popular vote?

[I left.]

Isn't that sort of what the current system is?  Each state's electoral votes going to the one with a plurality of the popular vote?

Read about it again....

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

There's a lot of doubt in me that this would work, but it could, given that the required number (271) be reached within the next ten years.

However, such a situation isn't really a big possibility, and I feel that these measures have only been taken due to the Gore fiasco in 2000.

In conclusion, it could work, but it's not really necessary.

[Bo]

It scares the hell out of me. Ideally, Congress would pass a law preventing this system.

If the electoral college must go, it would be better if we just abolished it. I won't support anything like this, however.

This system wouldn't be activated until enough states with a combined majority of EVs ratify it. And once it gets ratified, it will essentially mean electing our President directly by PV. If this ever gets ratified and won't get overturned or ruled unconstitutional, except a formal repeal of the Electoral College to follow shortly afterwards. I don't see what's so scary about it, unless one of course supports the EC.

[muon2]

It scares the hell out of me. Ideally, Congress would pass a law preventing this system.

If the electoral college must go, it would be better if we just abolished it. I won't support anything like this, however.

This system wouldn't be activated until enough states with a combined majority of EVs ratify it. And once it gets ratified, it will essentially mean electing our President directly by PV. If this ever gets ratified and won't get overturned or ruled unconstitutional, except a formal repeal of the Electoral College to follow shortly afterwards. I don't see what's so scary about it, unless one of course supports the EC.

What bothers me is a popular vote without a runoff if no candidate reaches a majority. Non-parliamentary leadership posts, such as the President of France, face such a runoff. The EC provides for a runoff in the House. Even the constitutional amendment proposal of 1970 (Bayh-Cellar) to provide for direct election had a runoff provision is no candidate received 40%.

[Χahar]

I'm not sure that a runoff of the type that Bayh and Cellar proposed is better than no runoff at all.

[Californian Tony]

It scares the hell out of me. Ideally, Congress would pass a law preventing this system.

If the electoral college must go, it would be better if we just abolished it. I won't support anything like this, however.

This system wouldn't be activated until enough states with a combined majority of EVs ratify it. And once it gets ratified, it will essentially mean electing our President directly by PV. If this ever gets ratified and won't get overturned or ruled unconstitutional, except a formal repeal of the Electoral College to follow shortly afterwards. I don't see what's so scary about it, unless one of course supports the EC.

What bothers me is a popular vote without a runoff if no candidate reaches a majority. Non-parliamentary leadership posts, such as the President of France, face such a runoff. The EC provides for a runoff in the House. Even the constitutional amendment proposal of 1970 (Bayh-Cellar) to provide for direct election had a runoff provision is no candidate received 40%.

Anyways, no winning candidate has received less than 40% of PV since 1828.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

It scares the hell out of me. Ideally, Congress would pass a law preventing this system.

If the electoral college must go, it would be better if we just abolished it. I won't support anything like this, however.

This system wouldn't be activated until enough states with a combined majority of EVs ratify it. And once it gets ratified, it will essentially mean electing our President directly by PV. If this ever gets ratified and won't get overturned or ruled unconstitutional, except a formal repeal of the Electoral College to follow shortly afterwards. I don't see what's so scary about it, unless one of course supports the EC.

What bothers me is a popular vote without a runoff if no candidate reaches a majority. Non-parliamentary leadership posts, such as the President of France, face such a runoff. The EC provides for a runoff in the House. Even the constitutional amendment proposal of 1970 (Bayh-Cellar) to provide for direct election had a runoff provision is no candidate received 40%.

Anyways, no winning candidate has received less than 40% of PV since 1828.

Lincoln received 39.7% of the PV in 1860, and in 1828, Jackson won with 55.9%, not less than 40%.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Anyway, I think this system is wrong, because if it gets passed (which I doubt it will), the states that haven't signed the compact are going to be totally irrelevant to the election.

[I left.]

Anyway, I think this system is wrong, because if it gets passed (which I doubt it will), the states that haven't signed the compact are going to be totally irrelevant to the election.

Incorrect, it changes absolutely nothing. Every state still retains their electoral votes and they are all able to distribute them as they see fit.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Anyway, I think this system is wrong, because if it gets passed (which I doubt it will), the states that haven't signed the compact are going to be totally irrelevant to the election.

Incorrect, it changes absolutely nothing. Every state still retains their electoral votes and they are all able to distribute them as they see fit.

     While they do get to distribute them as they see fit, it seems rather disingenuous to me to say that it changes absolutely nothing. As Rochambeau pointed out, this would be essentially the same thing as replacing the electoral college with a nationwide popular vote; in other words, how the other states distribute their electoral votes would be rendered trivial. Maybe it wouldn't make a difference most of the time, but it would make a difference in elections like 2000.

[I left.]

Anyway, I think this system is wrong, because if it gets passed (which I doubt it will), the states that haven't signed the compact are going to be totally irrelevant to the election.

Incorrect, it changes absolutely nothing. Every state still retains their electoral votes and they are all able to distribute them as they see fit.

     While they do get to distribute them as they see fit, it seems rather disingenuous to me to say that it changes absolutely nothing. As Rochambeau pointed out, this would be essentially the same thing as replacing the electoral college with a nationwide popular vote; in other words, how the other states distribute their electoral votes would be rendered trivial. Maybe it wouldn't make a difference most of the time, but it would make a difference in elections like 2000.

Still, the system remains identical. Each state will have a method for determining electors (in this case a majority going to the natinoal popular vote). That doesn't make any state any more irrelevant that it already was.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Anyway, I think this system is wrong, because if it gets passed (which I doubt it will), the states that haven't signed the compact are going to be totally irrelevant to the election.

Incorrect, it changes absolutely nothing. Every state still retains their electoral votes and they are all able to distribute them as they see fit.

     While they do get to distribute them as they see fit, it seems rather disingenuous to me to say that it changes absolutely nothing. As Rochambeau pointed out, this would be essentially the same thing as replacing the electoral college with a nationwide popular vote; in other words, how the other states distribute their electoral votes would be rendered trivial. Maybe it wouldn't make a difference most of the time, but it would make a difference in elections like 2000.

Still, the system remains identical. Each state will have a method for determining electors (in this case a majority going to the natinoal popular vote). That doesn't make any state any more irrelevant that it already was.

     In theory the system remains identical. In practice it is being traded out for a nationwide popular vote, because the same system will now produce a result according to that criterion. It is like taking a soda machine outside of a gas station, stocking it with candy instead, & then insisting that the machine is identical & therefore nothing is changed.

     My point is that it may be the case that it in fact does not make any state any more or less relevant (though that seems highly doubtful). Any idea of the system remaining unchanged is a red herring, though.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Anyway, I think this system is wrong, because if it gets passed (which I doubt it will), the states that haven't signed the compact are going to be totally irrelevant to the election.

^^^^

[Senator Barnes]

This is quite a convoluted solution to fixing quite a retarded problem.

[Californian Tony]

This is quite a convoluted solution to fixing quite a retarded problem.

You summed it up very well.

[I left.]

Anyway, I think this system is wrong, because if it gets passed (which I doubt it will), the states that haven't signed the compact are going to be totally irrelevant to the election.

^^^^

Not any less relevant than states now that vote for the loser.

Actually, under this system, even a vote in Utah matters.

[Sasquatch]

Anyway, I think this system is wrong, because if it gets passed (which I doubt it will), the states that haven't signed the compact are going to be totally irrelevant to the election.

Aren't 35 of the states already irrelevant to the election already?