What happens if Trump/Republicans keep winning while losing the PV?

[Nichlemn]

Let's say it's also happening at the Congressional level - Ds have also won the House PV but failed to win the House, and also the overall Senate PV, but failed to win the Senate. It happens in 2020. And then again in 2024.

Does anything happen other than Democrats making a noise and then everyone else forgetting about it? Or does it start a real push for electoral reform?

[Xing]

As long as Republicans hold power and benefit from the electoral college, they won't stand for doing away with it.

[BaldEagle1991]

I think it won't change anything in the short term, but it will make the elimination or reformation of the electoral college a major political issue. It'll be on the same level of high priority much like Obamacare is now.

[ApatheticAustrian]

if this keeps happening, every democrat-governed state is going to going to "opt out" of the EC system on the long run, imho.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is less likely to happen, because 2020 is a reapportionment year and WI, PA and MI will be Democratic states again due to the minority vote of Latinos and Blacks.

[MarkD]

This is less likely to happen, because 2020 is a reapportionment year and WI, PA and MI will be Democratic states again due to the minority vote of Latinos and Blacks.

Reapportionment will occur after the election of 2020. And I don't think that minorities will turn out again in 2020 like they did in 2008 and 2012 unless the Dems nominate a minority.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Won't happen, NM and OH are bellweathers and only 2 times did they vote incorrectly. in 2000 and 2016 when NM picked the popular vote winner and OH voted for the electoral college winner. 2020 is likely to be a Democratic lean year

[Lincoln Republican]

Democrats would have to learn to live with it, you know, like it or lump it.

A constitutional amendment in this matter would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

So good luck.

[The_Doctor]

A continued Republican electoral college advantage (which doesn't exist by the way) while losing the popular vote would actually hurt the Republican Party by creating weakened Presidencies like the Trump Administration. The Trump Administration is already so weak becausr of the popular vote loss. And that loss has shown Congress how weak the president is.

So it's not actually in the Republican Party's interests to solely focus on the electoral college. They need a President who can command 55% of the country and create a broad mandate.

[Stranger in a strange land]

A continued Republican electoral college advantage (which doesn't exist by the way) while losing the popular vote would actually hurt the Republican Party by creating weakened Presidencies like the Trump Administration. The Trump Administration is already so weak becausr of the popular vote loss. And that loss has shown Congress how weak the president is.

So it's not actually in the Republican Party's interests to solely focus on the electoral college. They need a President who can command 55% of the country and create a broad mandate.

Yes, eventually the situation won't hold because weak incompetent presidents like Bush and Trump will turn ever more young voters against the Republican Party. Also, long-term, more and more states will sign on to the NPVIC.

[peterthlee]

Democrats will cry foul and push for NPVIC no longer than 2028. By that time, due to midterm climate, they already have an impenetrable majority in both houses of the Parliament.

[Ridge]

Revolt and more whining, of course. Democrats know the rules before they play, but then try to win by running up the vote in Philly, Cleveland, Detroit, and Miami and flipping off rural voters. Then, when they start losing elections, they point to the popular vote as proof they "should have won".

[krazen1211]

Revolt and more whining, of course. Democrats know the rules before they play, but then try to win by running up the vote in Philly, Cleveland, Detroit, and Miami and flipping off rural voters. Then, when they start losing elections, they point to the popular vote as proof they "should have won".

Lol. You know it!

They didn't even succeed in doing that. Detroit turnout plummeted in the 2016 election. And here in Philadelphia Trump gained 12k votes over Romney.


Smart move would be for the US Congress to nullify this NPV hoopla with legislation.

[Hammy]

One of two things would happen--either moderate Republicans and/or swing voters who want a fair win would stop showing up, which would lead to the Dems eventually winning, or the Dems would simply feel disillusioned and quit showing up, leading to GOP PV wins--it wouldn't be a continuous cycle for that long.

[Skill and Chance]

If it happened several times in a row, there is no doubt in my mind that the Dems would create several new states (requires only the majority consent of congress and of the relevant state legislature) when they finally got back in power after economic crash or an impeachment level scandal.  See also: Nebraska being admitted as a separate state from Kansas, Colorado being admitted while severely underpopulated and the splitting of the Dakotas.

Note that the UK had a long tradition of treating its oldest 10 or so universities as local governments with special representation in Parliament.  If the left really wanted to take revenge, they could theoretically start admitting some college towns as their own states.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I don't know why, pundits think that 2016 will happen again.  Due to the very nature of the way the states are moving.  WI, PA, MI, VA, NH, NM, CO and NV will be Democratic again in 2020, due to the way 2018 will fall with the districts lines being moved once Dems take the majority and the Gov mansions will  fall.

Except for maybe WI, but Dems are numerous in WI, all the others will have Democratic Govs

[The Arizonan]

If it happened several times in a row, there is no doubt in my mind that the Dems would create several new states (requires only the majority consent of congress and of the relevant state legislature) when they finally got back in power after economic crash or an impeachment level scandal.  See also: Nebraska being admitted as a separate state from Kansas, Colorado being admitted while severely underpopulated and the splitting of the Dakotas.

Note that the UK had a long tradition of treating its oldest 10 or so universities as local governments with special representation in Parliament.  If the left really wanted to take revenge, they could theoretically start admitting some college towns as their own states.

The Dakotas were split due to a heated rivalry between the two regions and Nebraska and Kansas were admitted as separate states because they were separate territories organized from the Louisiana Purchase territory because the North wanted to build a railroad that didn't go through the South.

[The Mikado]

I actually agree that this situation would likely see Democrats start pushing for some various things to game the system, like splitting up California or trying to admit Puerto Rico as a state, for transparently partisan reasons.

[Virginiá]

I actually agree that this situation would likely see Democrats start pushing for some various things to game the system, like splitting up California or trying to admit Puerto Rico as a state, for transparently partisan reasons.

At this point, I'm all for Democrats admitting Puerto Rico, and I'd hope, DC, for transparently partisan reasons, not necessarily for the political benefits but rather for the fact that partisan hackery is the best chance these regions have at getting proper representation. I'm not sure if I can say this for PR, but at least for DC the resistance to statehood or at least 2 Senators/1 Rep are themselves transparently partisan, so I feel no shame in my position.

I'm not sure about California - I do think it should probably be at least 2 states, but that's really up to them. I'd have to think that, regardless of what Democrats want to do in a shameless reach for power, something like splitting up CA wouldn't be possible without significant popular support.

[Skill and Chance]

I actually agree that this situation would likely see Democrats start pushing for some various things to game the system, like splitting up California or trying to admit Puerto Rico as a state, for transparently partisan reasons.

Yes, however you cut it, there would be a growing movement to "gerrymander" the states at the left's next opportunity.  During a Dem wave midterm year, they could also propose state constitutional amendments by initiative to bind state electors to the NPV winner in any R-leaning swing states that have the initiative (MI, AZ, OH, and FL do, which would have been enough EV to flip the 2016 result).  The constitutional issues only come into play when multiple states enter a binding compact with each other.  An individual state can assign its electors however it likes.

I suppose the most obvious strategy would be to mass-admit all of the offshore US territories as states the next time they have a trifecta.  All except American Samoa (as Mormon as Idaho) should reliably elect Dems.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Nothing will change.

[Beet]

Let's say it's also happening at the Congressional level - Ds have also won the House PV but failed to win the House, and also the overall Senate PV, but failed to win the Senate. It happens in 2020. And then again in 2024.

Does anything happen other than Democrats making a noise and then everyone else forgetting about it? Or does it start a real push for electoral reform?

What would a real push for electoral reform look like?

[Skill and Chance]

Let's say it's also happening at the Congressional level - Ds have also won the House PV but failed to win the House, and also the overall Senate PV, but failed to win the Senate. It happens in 2020. And then again in 2024.

Does anything happen other than Democrats making a noise and then everyone else forgetting about it? Or does it start a real push for electoral reform?

What would a real push for electoral reform look like?

Probably a combination of proportional representation in the House and a requirement that all states with more than 5-10X the population of Wyoming must be split into smaller parts at the next census.  The latter would require a constitutional amendment though.  Or maybe a future activist SCOTUS could find a way to apply the logic of Reynolds v. Sims to put a legal limit on population disparities between states?

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Revolt and more whining, of course. Democrats know the rules before they play, but then try to win by running up the vote in Philly, Cleveland, Detroit, and Miami and flipping off rural voters. Then, when they start losing elections, they point to the popular vote as proof they "should have won".

Yeah, those loudmouth Democrats and their... democracy...

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Once PR becomes a state and add 5 electors when Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker again, this will be null and void because 265+5=270 and hopefully it will come in 2019