Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[muon2]

it was a purely partisan issue and Dems saw it as an advantage in the next one or two cycles and that was all that mattered.

Come on, you know that this is trivializing this whole issue. If there had been a uniform 2.2% swing to Kerry in the 2004 election, he would have won Ohio and the election while losing the popular vote. Nixon tried to get rid of the popular vote. This current Interstate Compact campaign has former Senator Garn R-UT,  former Senator Durenberger R-MN, former Rep. John Buchanan R-AL, former Rep. Tom Campbell R-CA, and Republican and then Independent John Anderson for it.

I understand the national interest in the plan that often brings bipartisan groups together. If there was a threshold for success, like the 40% level originally proposed for the amendment, I could view this idea favorably.

However, I can tell you that in the IL legislature it was a partisan vote seen as one with partisan advantage. There are only a handful of votes each year that split the House exactly along partisan lines. When it does you can be certain that it was viewed in terms of partisan advantage, not based on national policy.

A cynic might also note that a legislature could rescind participation. If the polls showed a year like 2004 in the offing, with the possibility of a D win in the EC while losing the popular vote, it wouldn't be surprising if IL backed out of the compact.

[muon2]

He waited until the last possible day, but Gov Blagojevich signed the NPV bill today. That adds IL to MD and NJ for a total of 46 committed EV to the compact.

[zorkpolitics]

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

[Χahar]

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

"Scheme"? It seems that rejection of this is a "scheme" to preserve the unfair influence of small states.

[Verily]

It's passed both houses in Vermont as well, just waiting on the governor. I've no idea what Jim Douglas's stance is, but it passed with veto-proof majorities.

By the way, polls have generally indicated overwhelming support for abolishing the EC, around 60-70% in favor, so calling this a "partisan scheme," especially when it's clear that it wouldn't benefit any party, is remarkably moronic.

[Χahar]

Oh, Verily, was that you who commented numerous times on the talk page of the Wikipedia article?

[I left.]

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

[Χahar]

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

Actually, it was a veto override.

[Joe Republic]

Forgive me if I've missed this, but is there a time limit for this compact to take effect?

[Χahar]

Forgive me if I've missed this, but is there a time limit for this compact to take effect?

Not that I know of.

[I left.]

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

Actually, it was a veto override.

Ahh..sorry then.

[Χahar]

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

Actually, it was a veto override.

Ahh..sorry then.

Her reason was the same stupid one Arnold gave, though.

[muon2]

Vermont's governor vetoed the NPV today. The legislature has adjourned so no override is possible.

[Kevinstat]

I wonder if that pocket veto (especially if he could have vetoed the bill when the Legislature was still in session to sustain or override it) could affect Douglas's reelection chances?

[Χahar]

I wonder if that pocket veto (especially if he could have vetoed the bill when the Legislature was still in session to sustain or override it) could affect Douglas's reelection chances?

Not likely. IMO, he's too popular in Vermot to let a little thing like this affect him.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

It's passed both houses in Vermont as well, just waiting on the governor. I've no idea what Jim Douglas's stance is, but it passed with veto-proof majorities.

By the way, polls have generally indicated overwhelming support for abolishing the EC, around 60-70% in favor, so calling this a "partisan scheme," especially when it's clear that it wouldn't benefit any party, is remarkably moronic.

     It's a shame that 60-70% of the public opposes interesting Presidential elections. When this thing reaches 270 EVs, I'll consider moving to Canada, France, or the UK, whichever one has the most interesting elections.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

Why is it more interesting in Canada, France, or the UK? America is ineresting but a rip off.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Why is it more interesting in Canada, France, or the UK? America is ineresting but a rip off.

     I was joking. If you must know though, I named those three countries because I already can speak English & French, which would allow me to get around those places without too much trouble.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

My bad you might want to write lol at the end.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     Except I wasn't laughing out loud. I did however use this: . I use that when I'm joking, along with this one: .

[bhouston79]

This is a ridiculous scheme.  We should stick with the current system.

And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

So you really think that states have more "voting power" under our current scheme.  People in Utah, Vermont, Idaho, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Massachussets, California, ect. ect. really have a lot of say in our Presidential election these days.  They get a lot of attention from the candidates don't they?  How many times did Obama and McCain visit California, the most populous state in the union during the general election.  Probably a fraction of the number of times that they visited the Nevada, which is a state that is a fraction of the size of California in terms of population.  But I guess that that makes sense to you.  It's OK for all of our voting power in Presidential elections to be concentrated in the hands of only a handful of "swing states."  It's alright by you if the votes of the people of Utah or Massachussets are virtually meaningless while the votes of the people of the state of Florida or Ohio are each of crucial importance.  Why not have a system where every vote in every state counts equally, period.  Candidates couldn't simply focus all of their time on only a handful of swing states.  They would need to visit every state because even if they weren't competitive in a state, it would still be important for that candidate to cut down on the size of their defeat in that state.  Similarly, even if a candidate was sure to win a state, it would still be crucially important for that candidate to visit the state in order to maximize their margin of victory in the state. 

[blagohair.com]

Republicans who oppose this because "Democrats came up with the idea first, so it must be a partisan-scheme" are as ridiculous as those who deny the human factor's negative influence on the environment because Al Gore was the first to talk about it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republicans who oppose this because "Democrats came up with the idea first, so it must be a partisan-scheme" are as ridiculous as those who deny the human factor's negative influence on the environment because Al Gore was the first to talk about it.

That's funny becuase in the last 2 Presidential elections, the Democrat did better in the critical swing state than the nation-wide popular vote


2008: Obama wins nationwide by 7.25%, Iowa by 9.53%
2004: Kerry loses nationwide by 2.46%, Ohio by 2.10%.

[dead0man]

This is a ridiculous scheme.  We should stick with the current system.

And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

So you really think that states have more "voting power" under our current scheme.  People in Utah, Vermont, Idaho, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Massachussets, California, ect. ect. really have a lot of say in our Presidential election these days.  They get a lot of attention from the candidates don't they?  How many times did Obama and McCain visit California, the most populous state in the union during the general election.  Probably a fraction of the number of times that they visited the Nevada, which is a state that is a fraction of the size of California in terms of population.  But I guess that that makes sense to you.  It's OK for all of our voting power in Presidential elections to be concentrated in the hands of only a handful of "swing states."  It's alright by you if the votes of the people of Utah or Massachussets are virtually meaningless while the votes of the people of the state of Florida or Ohio are each of crucial importance.  Why not have a system where every vote in every state counts equally, period.  Candidates couldn't simply focus all of their time on only a handful of swing states.  They would need to visit every state because even if they weren't competitive in a state, it would still be important for that candidate to cut down on the size of their defeat in that state.  Similarly, even if a candidate was sure to win a state, it would still be crucially important for that candidate to visit the state in order to maximize their margin of victory in the state. 

And if we went to a popular vote system the candidates would never get away from the coasts at all.  How would that be better?

[I left.]

This is a ridiculous scheme.  We should stick with the current system.

And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

So you really think that states have more "voting power" under our current scheme.  People in Utah, Vermont, Idaho, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Massachussets, California, ect. ect. really have a lot of say in our Presidential election these days.  They get a lot of attention from the candidates don't they?  How many times did Obama and McCain visit California, the most populous state in the union during the general election.  Probably a fraction of the number of times that they visited the Nevada, which is a state that is a fraction of the size of California in terms of population.  But I guess that that makes sense to you.  It's OK for all of our voting power in Presidential elections to be concentrated in the hands of only a handful of "swing states."  It's alright by you if the votes of the people of Utah or Massachussets are virtually meaningless while the votes of the people of the state of Florida or Ohio are each of crucial importance.  Why not have a system where every vote in every state counts equally, period.  Candidates couldn't simply focus all of their time on only a handful of swing states.  They would need to visit every state because even if they weren't competitive in a state, it would still be important for that candidate to cut down on the size of their defeat in that state.  Similarly, even if a candidate was sure to win a state, it would still be crucially important for that candidate to visit the state in order to maximize their margin of victory in the state. 

And if we went to a popular vote system the candidates would never get away from the coasts at all.  How would that be better?

The problem is....that isn't true. Votes could be gained everywhere in a popular vote system. How about visiting Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix...and sure, the coasts would also be popular to visit (rightly so, as they have more residents)...but the point is that votes could be gained everywhere, and at places that are currently out of play to the Electoral College.