National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[muon2]

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?

I wouldn't say that the states are irrelevant. You could claim that voters in states that are not competitive for a particular election may feel like they have less impact, but the EVs of the states certainly matter.

As for the non-signatory states, I would think that they would not be irrelevant either. They would be disenfranchised, since this is clearly a way to resolve a constitutional matter without amendment. That the compact has found a loophole that they believe can be exploited, does not make states who feel that the intent is otherwise feel any less disenfranchised.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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

The only reason why it's a "problem" is that it didn't let Gore win, and everyone knows that.

The real problem is how the states that form this compact still can't get over it, and just move on (it should be noted that all 5 states in this compact voted for Gore).

[Bo]

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

The only reason why it's a "problem" is that it didn't let Gore win, and everyone knows that.

The real problem is how the states that form this compact still can't get over it, and just move on (it should be noted that all 5 states in this compact voted for Gore).

Actually, a majority of the American people/voters supported getting rid of the EC as early as the 1940s. Oh, and both candiadtes would have ran different campaigns in 2000 if the goal was to win the PV.

[Senator Barnes]

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

The only reason why it's a "problem" is that it didn't let Gore win, and everyone knows that.

The real problem is how the states that form this compact still can't get over it, and just move on (it should be noted that all 5 states in this compact voted for Gore).

No, it's a problem because it's an outdated system made for an America 221 years ago, which is so different form the one today that it's not even funny. It's purpose is long gone. The last time it was even relevant was in the 1820s. What I mean by that, is since then, people started voting in every state (save South Carolina), and, the elector's job became one to cast a vote that was already predetermined. Not their original job of reviewing the candidates, and voting for the best interest of the country.

[I left.]

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

The only reason why it's a "problem" is that it didn't let Gore win, and everyone knows that.

The real problem is how the states that form this compact still can't get over it, and just move on (it should be noted that all 5 states in this compact voted for Gore).

incorrect, it's a problem because it's stupid.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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

The only reason why it's a "problem" is that it didn't let Gore win, and everyone knows that.

The real problem is how the states that form this compact still can't get over it, and just move on (it should be noted that all 5 states in this compact voted for Gore).

incorrect, it's a problem because it's stupid.

Again, the only reason why it's considered "stupid" (particularly, by the proponents of this bill) is that it prevented their candidate of choice from winning the presidency. We all know that no one was complaining about the electoral college before 2000, and in the (just as possible) event that Bush lost despite winning the popular vote, these same states would be the greatest proponents of the electoral college.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

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

The only reason why it's a "problem" is that it didn't let Gore win, and everyone knows that.

The real problem is how the states that form this compact still can't get over it, and just move on (it should be noted that all 5 states in this compact voted for Gore).

incorrect, it's a problem because it's stupid.

Again, the only reason why it's considered "stupid" (particularly, by the proponents of this bill) is that it prevented their candidate of choice from winning the presidency. We all know that no one was complaining about the electoral college before 2000, and in the (just as possible) event that Bush lost despite winning the popular vote, these same states would be the greatest proponents of the electoral college.

Nobody was complaining about the Electoral College before 2000 ?
Everybody knows it's retarded since a Century, but the obviously the Status Quo is stornger than any evidence, so that for three times we allowed the American People to be governed by someone they didn't want. I find really disturbing that you accuse liberals of being partisan while you are the one defending an unfair system that allowed your candidate to win.

[True Federalist]

The main problem with using the popular vote is that we don't have a national ballot with voter registration requirements that are the same everywhere.  Granted, voter eligibility more uniform than it was even fifty years ago. much less than at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but if ever want to go to the popular vote, we'd need to have it truly uniform.  The main problem with the electoral college can be solved by simply amending the Constitution so that the number of Electors each State gets is proportional to the umber of Representatives alone.

[Senator Barnes]

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

The only reason why it's a "problem" is that it didn't let Gore win, and everyone knows that.

The real problem is how the states that form this compact still can't get over it, and just move on (it should be noted that all 5 states in this compact voted for Gore).

incorrect, it's a problem because it's stupid.

Again, the only reason why it's considered "stupid" (particularly, by the proponents of this bill) is that it prevented their candidate of choice from winning the presidency. We all know that no one was complaining about the electoral college before 2000, and in the (just as possible) event that Bush lost despite winning the popular vote, these same states would be the greatest proponents of the electoral college.

Thanks for paying attention

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

The only reason why it's a "problem" is that it didn't let Gore win, and everyone knows that.

The real problem is how the states that form this compact still can't get over it, and just move on (it should be noted that all 5 states in this compact voted for Gore).

No, it's a problem because it's an outdated system made for an America 221 years ago, which is so different form the one today that it's not even funny. It's purpose is long gone. The last time it was even relevant was in the 1820s. What I mean by that, is since then, people started voting in every state (save South Carolina), and, the elector's job became one to cast a vote that was already predetermined. Not their original job of reviewing the candidates, and voting for the best interest of the country.

[I left.]

Perhaps we can say it like this, TC: The election of 2000 only highlighted a big problem that was bound to happen again in modern times eventually. I don't care one bit about Gore, it's just an inherently flawed system.

[defe07]

Here's what I propose. Have a national popular vote plan with weighted votes. All the voters vote as usual. However, the smallest state is the most important. Here's why: a state has 30,000,000 votes and the smallest state has 600,000 votes, this means that the smallest state has a voting power of 50. So, what do we do? Take any state and calculate its votes by dividing the state's votes by the smallest state's votes and you get a result. Now, each candidate "loses" its voting power by dividing its votes by the result and you get a weighted vote.

In state A, with 30,000,000 votes, you have the Democrat getting 18,000,000, the Republican getting 10,000,000 and the Independent 2,000,000. In state B, with 600,000 votes, the Republican gets 350,000, the Independent gets 150,000 and the Democrat gets 100,000. But, all the votes for state B, which is the smallest state of the country, stay the same. The other 49 states have less votes.  So, in state A, the Democrat gets 360,000, the Republican gets 200,000 and the Independent gets 40,000 votes. 

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

I don't see why underenfranchising voters is a good thing.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

I don't see why underenfranchising voters is a good thing.

Indeed. It would just replace a system which indirectly violates the "one man one vote" principle with a system that blatantly violates it.

[defe07]

True, that's not my intention! We need the one man, one vote principle!

[Formerly Californian Tony]

True, that's not my intention! We need the one man, one vote principle!

Except that with your system a vote from one Wyoming guy has 72 more weigh than one of a Californian.

[defe07]

True, that's not my intention! We need the one man, one vote principle!

Except that with your system a vote from one Wyoming guy has 72 more weigh than one of a Californian.

What about nowadays? Don't the small states have more voting power than the large states? WY has 3 EV and CA has 55. That means that WY has 17 times more the voting power of CA.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

True, that's not my intention! We need the one man, one vote principle!

Except that with your system a vote from one Wyoming guy has 72 more weigh than one of a Californian.

What about nowadays? Don't the small states have more voting power than the large states? WY has 3 EV and CA has 55. That means that WY has 17 times more the voting power of CA.

If you correctly read my previous post, that's exactly what I said.

[Tender Branson]

This is pretty damn stupid, especially considering the loser of the popular vote has only been elected President once in the past 130 years.  Plus ... I know all you liberals who want big cities to elect the President are supporting this, but think about it.  No more "Electoral College Calculator".  "Discuss with maps" will become an anachronism.  Is electing a President who shares your ideological beliefs really more important than having fun, exciting elections with maps?

If you answer yes, you're not a true political junkie.

[I left.]

This is pretty damn stupid, especially considering the loser of the popular vote has only been elected President once in the past 130 years.  Plus ... I know all you liberals who want big cities to elect the President are supporting this, but think about it.  No more "Electoral College Calculator".  "Discuss with maps" will become an anachronism.  Is electing a President who shares your ideological beliefs really more important than having fun, exciting elections with maps?

If you answer yes, you're not a true political junkie.

One would think that having a fair electoral system would be more important than drawing colorful maps...

[Formerly Californian Tony]

This is pretty damn stupid, especially considering the loser of the popular vote has only been elected President once in the past 130 years.  Plus ... I know all you liberals who want big cities to elect the President are supporting this, but think about it.  No more "Electoral College Calculator".  "Discuss with maps" will become an anachronism.  Is electing a President who shares your ideological beliefs really more important than having fun, exciting elections with maps?

If you answer yes, you're not a true political junkie.

One would think that having a fair electoral system would be more important than drawing colorful maps...

Indeed. If I were a petty selfish political junkie, I'd obviously support the Electoral College. But I like to think I'm a political junkie who cares about justice.
Of course, Vander blubb has a valid point there.

[beneficii]

This is pretty damn stupid, especially considering the loser of the popular vote has only been elected President once in the past 130 years.  Plus ... I know all you liberals who want big cities to elect the President are supporting this, but think about it.  No more "Electoral College Calculator".  "Discuss with maps" will become an anachronism.  Is electing a President who shares your ideological beliefs really more important than having fun, exciting elections with maps?

If you answer yes, you're not a true political junkie.

That doesn't mean the fact that we have an electoral college (EC) instead of a national popular vote (NPV) doesn't affect elections in other ways.  Yes, it's true, the 2000 election was the first since 1888 where the winner of the NPV lost the EC, but in 2004 the winner of the NPV came within 60,000 votes of one state (Ohio) of losing the EC, and similar outcomes occurred in 1976 and 1960.  With the elections turning on just a couple of states like that, don't you think that means campaigners will tend to focus on those states more, to the detriment of "safe states"?

Indeed, even in elections that aren't so close, we still get a major emphasis in campaigning on these "swing states," where almost the entire focus of the campaign is just winning those few states, to the detriment of the voters of all others.  There is no incentive to try to turn out the vote in safe states.

Here's what has happened in recent elections:

http://archive.fairvote.org/tracker/?page=27&pressmode=showspecific&showarticle=230

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/20070820155635bpuh0.4478418.html

As for the Framers, a lot of them did favor an NPV system, but there was an issue with the southern states wanting representation for their free blacks and slaves, without having to let them vote:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/elector1787.html

James Madison on his views at the Convention (he referred to himself in third person):

The people at large was in his
    opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive
    Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen
    whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty
    however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was
    much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in
    the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and
    seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

This is a good source on the issue:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/electoralcoll.htm

[Nym90]

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%.

True, it's a potential problem in that more extreme candidates could win with a small percentage of the vote in a 3 or 4 or more major candidate race, but such problems have rarely befallen governor's races, senate races, house races, state legislative races, etc. Every other election in the US almost without exception uses the popular vote, so I don't see how the Presidency is unique enough to need its own separate system of election.

And to the extent that it does need a unique system, I don't see what's so special about geographical boundaries on a map that makes that a better way of classifying the importance of one's vote as opposed to any other characteristic. Why not have each race, gender, religion, class, etc. have a certain number of electoral votes?

[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%.

True, it's a potential problem in that more extreme candidates could win with a small percentage of the vote in a 3 or 4 or more major candidate race, but such problems have rarely befallen governor's races, senate races, house races, state legislative races, etc. Every other election in the US almost without exception uses the popular vote, so I don't see how the Presidency is unique enough to need its own separate system of election.

And to the extent that it does need a unique system, I don't see what's so special about geographical boundaries on a map that makes that a better way of classifying the importance of one's vote as opposed to any other characteristic. Why not have each race, gender, religion, class, etc. have a certain number of electoral votes?

I think that the presidency is unique compared to other offices in the country. It's the top executive post, and as I point out many other countries recognize that it's wise to require the national executive to command a majority.

Parliamentary democracies don't have direct election of the prime minister, but do require a majority of member votes. The EC in many ways acts like a parliament electing a prime minister with a majority required. If that fails the top candidates face a runoff in Congress.

Just because FPTP is adequate for representative seats does not make it the best model for the chief executive. For those with concerns about the extra election cycle, a modern runoff can use IRV to accomplish the same goal without the extra cycle.

[zorkpolitics]

Mass becomes the 6th state to join this unconstitutional compact, the 6 states account for 73 of the 270 EV needed to bring the compact into force.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Good, if only California could join them they'd be almost at the half of their path.