Could 2016 be the last year the electoral college will matter?

[edmund]

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has already been ratified by 10 states and the District of Columbia totaling 165 electoral votes.  If or when enough states have ratified it to equal 270 votes then all those states would be required to cast their electoral votes for whomever has won the national popular vote.  This could significantly change the way and places that candidates campaign.  If the compact were in effect now it is likely that Clinton and Trump would be campaiging in different areas of the country, possibly big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and New York to run up their popular vote margin.    Any ideas?

[Arbitrage1980]

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has already been ratified by 10 states and the District of Columbia totaling 165 electoral votes.  If or when enough states have ratified it to equal 270 votes then all those states would be required to cast their electoral votes for whomever has won the national popular vote.  This could significantly change the way and places that candidates campaign.  If the compact were in effect now it is likely that Clinton and Trump would be campaiging in different areas of the country, possibly big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and New York to run up their popular vote margin.    Any ideas?

Obviously switching to popular vote would have massive ramifications on electoral strategy. It would mean that candidates will spend virtually all their time in major cities and suburbs while virtually neglecting rural areas. California and New York will become battlegrounds again. It will force the GOP to aggressively court urban voters, minorities, college educated white collar professionals, traditional democratic voting blocs. Not sure how that will play out policy wise. Would the GOP just become Democratic lite, or will they figure out how to sell conservative policies that appeal to those blocs? Another consequence is that third party candidates such as Bloomberg will have a legitimate shot at the presidency since they just need to focus on getting more raw votes than anyone else, rather than reaching 270 electoral votes. Under this system, Bloomberg certainly would have ran and spent at least a billion dollars. More billionaires will take a shot at the Presidency, carpet bombing the major cities and surrounding suburbs with ads.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Important thing to note: The 100 most populated American cities, combined, contain only about 20% of the American population. So, while it is true that these cities would receive more attention in an NPV system than they do in an EV system, it's not as if a candidate could literally ignore the rest of the country.

[NHI]

Important thing to note: The 100 most populated American cities, combined, contain only about 20% of the American population. So, while it is true that these cities would receive more attention in an NPV system than they do in an EV system, it's not as if a candidate could literally ignore the rest of the country.

[Blair]

I never understand why people say 'oh if we have a popular vote everyone will only campaign in urban areas'... have you followed campaigns for the last 30 years it's been moving from city to city in swing state to swing state

[Cashew]

Unlikely. A few more states will join the compact by 2020 but I see no real momentum.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So far only safe Democratic States have ratified the NPVIC. Unless Trump wind the PV but loses the EV, there won't be any momentum in the next four years, tho it might get another State or two to adopt it.

[kohler]

The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

[kohler]

In a nationwide election, when every vote is equal and matters everywhere, because the candidate with the most votes wins, as in statewide elections for governor and U.S. Senators, and elections for President in battleground states, candidates would campaign everywhere in proportion to the number of votes.

In a truly nationwide election for President, candidates would campaign everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas—in proportion to the number of votes, just as they now do in only the handful of battleground states. 

A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.  In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.
      
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

[muon2]

Countries typically do not directly elect their chief executive by a simple plurality vote. There is usually some mechanism to force an outright majority. In parliamentary systems this is done by a majority of members, sometimes requiring a coalition of parties in parliament. In other countries like France the president requires a runoff vote so that a true majority of the vote is needed. Even in the US there are cities like Chicago and states like CA that have two rounds of voting to insure a majority is reached.

The US Constitution left it to the EC to create a majority, and if they couldn't come to a majority the selection would go to the House and they would need a majority of the states - a blending of popular vote and state vote. But in both rounds an outright majority is required. The defect of the NPVIC is that it permits the election of the national executive with a simple plurality of the vote. If the process included a provision whereby another round of voting would be required if no candidate for president got 50% of the vote it would be more consistent in terms of electing our chief executive.

[kohler]

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!
   
A presidential candidate could lose winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

The National Popular Vote bill ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.


With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes.

Since 1828, one in six states have cast their Electoral College votes for a candidate who failed to win the support of 50 percent of voters in their state

Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.
   
Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.--  including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

Americans do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Important thing to note: The 100 most populated American cities, combined, contain only about 20% of the American population. So, while it is true that these cities would receive more attention in an NPV system than they do in an EV system, it's not as if a candidate could literally ignore the rest of the country.

Not exactly relevent - these cities all have huge metro areas that comprise much more than 20% of the population.

[JoshPA]

no in your dreams the electoral college is never going away it being abolish is like al gore 2016.

[Goldwater]

Important thing to note: The 100 most populated American cities, combined, contain only about 20% of the American population. So, while it is true that these cities would receive more attention in an NPV system than they do in an EV system, it's not as if a candidate could literally ignore the rest of the country.

Not exactly relevent - these cities all have huge metro areas that comprise much more than 20% of the population.

It's not like all places in a large metro vote uniformly with each other anyway, and besides which many sates EVs can be won by just winning the largest metros, so it's not like an electoral college fixes any of these issues anyway.

[GlobeSoc]

If the democrats get 270 EVs in trifectas in 2018, almost certainly. So a wave for the dems should make it likely.

[Pericles]

Swing states will never ratify it so you need some red states to ratify it. If the Republicans hold an Electoral College advantage, or are perceived to do so, that will not happen. To have a hope of abolishing the Electoral College, the Republicans must have an election in which they win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College.

[Mr. Morden]

Swing states will never ratify it so you need some red states to ratify it.

What if Dems conclude that the electoral college puts them at a structural disadvantage (based on, among other things, the 2016 result)?  It would then be a partisan issue in swing states as well as safe states, even though the state as a whole would be seen as a potential loser.  Then couldn't you imagine a scenario where at least some swing states pass it at some point in the next ~10-15 years, at some point when the Dems are riding high and have control of both houses of the legislature in more than a few swing states?

That could still leave you a few states short, but there's also the possibility of it passing by referendum in a handful of states necessary to put it over the top.  No, all of this isn't going to happen by 2020, but could it happen by the 2030s?  I think it's entirely possible.

[The Mikado]

While I'd prefer either a top-two runoff or IRV for the Presidency, a national popular vote would be an improvement.

Top two runoff wouldn't be very popular, given how ridiculously long our campaigns are...

Unless it was done Louisiana/California style where instead of "primaries" we had one national jungle primary where the top-two vote-getters faced off one-on-one in November.

That'd be something.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Important thing to note: The 100 most populated American cities, combined, contain only about 20% of the American population. So, while it is true that these cities would receive more attention in an NPV system than they do in an EV system, it's not as if a candidate could literally ignore the rest of the country.

Not exactly relevent - these cities all have huge metro areas that comprise much more than 20% of the population.

It's not like all places in a large metro vote uniformly with each other anyway, and besides which many sates EVs can be won by just winning the largest metros, so it's not like an electoral college fixes any of these issues anyway.

Exactly. One could easily argue that the EC exacerbates the disenfranchisement of rural America by ensuring that rural voters in upstate New York and downstate Illinois never matter.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Countries typically do not directly elect their chief executive by a simple plurality vote. There is usually some mechanism to force an outright majority. In parliamentary systems this is done by a majority of members, sometimes requiring a coalition of parties in parliament. In other countries like France the president requires a runoff vote so that a true majority of the vote is needed. Even in the US there are cities like Chicago and states like CA that have two rounds of voting to insure a majority is reached.

The US Constitution left it to the EC to create a majority, and if they couldn't come to a majority the selection would go to the House and they would need a majority of the states - a blending of popular vote and state vote. But in both rounds an outright majority is required. The defect of the NPVIC is that it permits the election of the national executive with a simple plurality of the vote. If the process included a provision whereby another round of voting would be required if no candidate for president got 50% of the vote it would be more consistent in terms of electing our chief executive.

I believe the states are supposed to have completed the process to choose their electors by election day. Note that this isn't the deadline to finish counting the votes. Anyways, they'd either have to have an earlier 1st round or something like IRV or condorcet.

[ApatheticAustrian]

I never understand why people say 'oh if we have a popular vote everyone will only campaign in urban areas'.

only americans are saying that.

europe isn't playing out like that, even or especially now that the urban-rural divide gets bigger and more polarized.

[Nichlemn]

Countries typically do not directly elect their chief executive by a simple plurality vote. There is usually some mechanism to force an outright majority. In parliamentary systems this is done by a majority of members, sometimes requiring a coalition of parties in parliament. In other countries like France the president requires a runoff vote so that a true majority of the vote is needed. Even in the US there are cities like Chicago and states like CA that have two rounds of voting to insure a majority is reached.

The US Constitution left it to the EC to create a majority, and if they couldn't come to a majority the selection would go to the House and they would need a majority of the states - a blending of popular vote and state vote. But in both rounds an outright majority is required. The defect of the NPVIC is that it permits the election of the national executive with a simple plurality of the vote. If the process included a provision whereby another round of voting would be required if no candidate for president got 50% of the vote it would be more consistent in terms of electing our chief executive.

This seems like a pretty silly critique when the Electoral College can elect candidates who don't even win a plurality of the popular vote.  The "Electoral College majority" is just an artificial method of creating a so-called "majority". Electoral College majorities would still exist under the NPVIC, they'd just be meaningless.

[muon2]

Countries typically do not directly elect their chief executive by a simple plurality vote. There is usually some mechanism to force an outright majority. In parliamentary systems this is done by a majority of members, sometimes requiring a coalition of parties in parliament. In other countries like France the president requires a runoff vote so that a true majority of the vote is needed. Even in the US there are cities like Chicago and states like CA that have two rounds of voting to insure a majority is reached.

The US Constitution left it to the EC to create a majority, and if they couldn't come to a majority the selection would go to the House and they would need a majority of the states - a blending of popular vote and state vote. But in both rounds an outright majority is required. The defect of the NPVIC is that it permits the election of the national executive with a simple plurality of the vote. If the process included a provision whereby another round of voting would be required if no candidate for president got 50% of the vote it would be more consistent in terms of electing our chief executive.

This seems like a pretty silly critique when the Electoral College can elect candidates who don't even win a plurality of the popular vote.  The "Electoral College majority" is just an artificial method of creating a so-called "majority". Electoral College majorities would still exist under the NPVIC, they'd just be meaningless.

There are examples in parliamentary democracies where the winning party did not win a plurality of the vote. Like the EC this happens when the more popular party is overconcentrated in relatively few districts. I could argue that the EC is a substitute parliament that exists for only one task - selecting the president.

[ApatheticAustrian]

yes, there are systems which make a narrow majority more stable ...the EC can easily create the opposite, which is imho in the long run a good method to undermine democratic standards in the eyes of many.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, because it will be the last time a GOP president wins the electoral college and losing the popular vote.

Cory Booker will be the universal president with a united Democratic front in 2020, Dems win the House in 2018 and the Senate in 2020 and after reapportionment, enough states, once Puerto Rico becomes a state, hopefully by then will move to proportional voting. And it will be along time after Trump that GOPer will get the presidency.