Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe. maybe not.  While in 2000, the NPVIC would have worked to Gore's advantage, in both 2008 and 2012 it would have potentially worked to the advantage of the GOP assuming a uniform swing to a tight election.  So it makes some sense that GOP states would start to sign on, but also that some Democratic states would choose to leave it.

[windjammer]

Well, why would you want to end Electoral College. The United States of America is a federalist state, so this current electoral college is a good compromise.

[Franzl]

Well, why would you want to end Electoral College. The United States of America is a federalist state, so this current electoral college is a good compromise.

I don't see a connection between the two. Nothing about federalism would change under a fair electoral system.

[muon2]

Maybe. maybe not.  While in 2000, the NPVIC would have worked to Gore's advantage, in both 2008 and 2012 it would have potentially worked to the advantage of the GOP assuming a uniform swing to a tight election.  So it makes some sense that GOP states would start to sign on, but also that some Democratic states would choose to leave it.

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama. The buildup of overwhelming margins in the cities for Dems and their inroads with information economy voters in the traditionally GOP suburbs has shifted the structural advantage to the Dems. As a partisan activity, that should shift the interest in popular vote to the GOP.

I still think that the NPVIC remains flawed as long as it has no run-off for candidates who fail to get a majority on the initial ballot. The run off can be IRV or some other modern mechanism, but there's a reason why most countries use a run off for the direct election of their chief executive.

[TTS1996]

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama.

That's not evidence of a structural advantage: counting Gore as a southern Democrat, no non-southern Dem won the popular vote after Kennedy until Obama. No non-right-handed Republican won the presidency after Nixon until Bush Jr. - it's a structural advantage! Or, maybe, coincidence, or the way these things work.

[muon2]

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama.

That's not evidence of a structural advantage: counting Gore as a southern Democrat, no non-southern Dem won the popular vote after Kennedy until Obama. No non-right-handed Republican won the presidency after Nixon until Bush Jr. - it's a structural advantage! Or, maybe, coincidence, or the way these things work.

You reversed my two clauses and their dependency. The structural advantage is measured by how the EC would go if the vote shifted to an even split between the two candidates. Until the last decade that advantage was typically for the GOP and an even race would be expected to go for the GOP. Since a big piece of that base since 1960 was in the South, a southern candidate could swing regional votes and get a win like Carter did in 1976. Gore was not really considered a Southern candidate after his 8 years as VP.

[Mr. Morden]

Maybe. maybe not.  While in 2000, the NPVIC would have worked to Gore's advantage, in both 2008 and 2012 it would have potentially worked to the advantage of the GOP assuming a uniform swing to a tight election.  So it makes some sense that GOP states would start to sign on, but also that some Democratic states would choose to leave it.

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama. The buildup of overwhelming margins in the cities for Dems and their inroads with information economy voters in the traditionally GOP suburbs has shifted the structural advantage to the Dems. As a partisan activity, that should shift the interest in popular vote to the GOP.

That's part of it, but I actually think there's also an undercurrent of ideological disagreement on the issue, even though it doesn't seem like it should be a very ideological issue.  The GOP, as a party, voices more reverence for the original intent of the founders, and shows more hostility to more modern democratic innovations than the Dems.  This would probably apply to other electoral reforms as well.  For example, even if you could convince everyone that introducing IRV would give no net electoral advantage to either party, I bet you'd have more takers among Democrats than Republicans.

Republicans, on average, are also more likely to voice support for the virtues of the indirect character of American democracy.  Heck, some of them want to repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Nichlemn]

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama.

That's not evidence of a structural advantage: counting Gore as a southern Democrat, no non-southern Dem won the popular vote after Kennedy until Obama. No non-right-handed Republican won the presidency after Nixon until Bush Jr. - it's a structural advantage! Or, maybe, coincidence, or the way these things work.

You reversed my two clauses and their dependency. The structural advantage is measured by how the EC would go if the vote shifted to an even split between the two candidates. Until the last decade that advantage was typically for the GOP and an even race would be expected to go for the GOP. Since a big piece of that base since 1960 was in the South, a southern candidate could swing regional votes and get a win like Carter did in 1976. Gore was not really considered a Southern candidate after his 8 years as VP.

No, there wasn't. From 1960 to 2004, Republicans had the theoretical EC edge six times (1968, 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 2000) while Democrats had it the other six times (1960, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1996, 2004). There appears to be no consistent pattern in the EC advantage.

[politicallefty]

I don't think either party is considering the current bias in the Electoral College. Democrats seem to almost unanimously support adopting the popular vote for electing the President. With Republicans, it seems to be based on the state. From what I've seen, you have both Oklahoma Republicans and New York Republicans both in favour of the NPVIC. I wish more states would realize that they are ignored by the current system. There's no reason at all why a state like Texas shouldn't support the NPVIC. As long as we have the Electoral College in place as is, only the very few swing states will get the attention during a presidential election.

[Mechaman]

Good lord the NVPIC is a retard's idea.

Why don't you just end the Electoral College?

[politicallefty]

Good lord the NVPIC is a retard's idea.

Why don't you just end the Electoral College?

I won't deny the fact that it's essentially a loophole in the Constitution, but I don't think it's any more flawed than the current system. Abolishing the Electoral College once and for all requires 290 votes in the House, 67 votes in the Senate, and 38 states. The first two could happen under the right circumstances, but I have a hard time ever seeing 38 states voluntarily abolishing the Electoral College. If the NPVIC is adopted, I could see it basically forcing action on a constitutional amendment.

[Vega]

Fantastic!

[SteveRogers]

I'd support doing away with the electoral college, but I can't bring myself to support the NPVIC because ironically enough that would entail a minority of the population forcing a dramatic change on the rest of the country. If we're going to repeal the electoral college, then we should do it through the proper channels.

[Bojack Horseman]

And what State politician in his right mind is going to pass this?  No safe State is going to give the opposing party the chance to claim its electoral votes, and no swing State is going to want Presidential attention diffused away from it.  Possibly this might sneak in via a referendum in a few states, but not enough to reach the 270 electoral vote margin to make this work.

California has. So has Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, Washington DC, Massachusetts, and Hawaii.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll admit that this has done much better than I thought it would, but it's still at only 136 EV and there are no signs it has any chance of going into force in time for 2016.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama.

That's not evidence of a structural advantage: counting Gore as a southern Democrat, no non-southern Dem won the popular vote after Kennedy until Obama. No non-right-handed Republican won the presidency after Nixon until Bush Jr. - it's a structural advantage! Or, maybe, coincidence, or the way these things work.

You reversed my two clauses and their dependency. The structural advantage is measured by how the EC would go if the vote shifted to an even split between the two candidates. Until the last decade that advantage was typically for the GOP and an even race would be expected to go for the GOP. Since a big piece of that base since 1960 was in the South, a southern candidate could swing regional votes and get a win like Carter did in 1976. Gore was not really considered a Southern candidate after his 8 years as VP.

No, there wasn't. From 1960 to 2004, Republicans had the theoretical EC edge six times (1968, 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 2000) while Democrats had it the other six times (1960, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1996, 2004). There appears to be no consistent pattern in the EC advantage.

Indeed. FTR, here's the structural advantage (measured as the difference in winning margins between the national popular vote and the popular vote in the decisive State) from 1932 to 2012:

1932: R+0.05
1936: R+3.69
1940: R+3.06
1944: R+2.48
1948: R+3.64
1952: R+0.62
1956: D+0.86
1960: D+0.64
1964: D+2.01
1968: R+1.58
1972: D+0.88
1976: R+0.38
1980: D+1.81
1984: R+0.77
1988: R+0.17
1992: R+0.91
1996: D+0.68
2000: R+0.53
2004: D+0.35
2008: D+1.98
2012: D+1.52

No clear pattern here, except maybe that Republicans had a structural advantage in the years of the Solid South, as Democrats wasted a sh*tload of votes there (but this would require going farther back to confirm).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Solid South wasn't as much as a help to the Democrats in the PV as one might think as the vote in the general election tended to be suppressed both because of institutional reasons but also voter apathy.

[muon2]

What Antonio's fine work suggests to me is that from 1964-80 there was no clear advantage to either party in the EC. After the reapportionment of 1980, there seems to be a Pub advantage through 2000 with 4 of 5 elections having an R lean. After 2000 the EC seems to shift to the Dems, so it will be interesting to see if that continues for the remaining elections this decade.

[Skill and Chance]

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama.

That's not evidence of a structural advantage: counting Gore as a southern Democrat, no non-southern Dem won the popular vote after Kennedy until Obama. No non-right-handed Republican won the presidency after Nixon until Bush Jr. - it's a structural advantage! Or, maybe, coincidence, or the way these things work.

You reversed my two clauses and their dependency. The structural advantage is measured by how the EC would go if the vote shifted to an even split between the two candidates. Until the last decade that advantage was typically for the GOP and an even race would be expected to go for the GOP. Since a big piece of that base since 1960 was in the South, a southern candidate could swing regional votes and get a win like Carter did in 1976. Gore was not really considered a Southern candidate after his 8 years as VP.

No, there wasn't. From 1960 to 2004, Republicans had the theoretical EC edge six times (1968, 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 2000) while Democrats had it the other six times (1960, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1996, 2004). There appears to be no consistent pattern in the EC advantage.

Indeed. FTR, here's the structural advantage (measured as the difference in winning margins between the national popular vote and the popular vote in the decisive State) from 1932 to 2012:

1932: R+0.05
1936: R+3.69
1940: R+3.06
1944: R+2.48
1948: R+3.64
1952: R+0.62
1956: D+0.86
1960: D+0.64
1964: D+2.01
1968: R+1.58
1972: D+0.88
1976: R+0.38
1980: D+1.81
1984: R+0.77
1988: R+0.17
1992: R+0.91
1996: D+0.68
2000: R+0.53
2004: D+0.35
2008: D+1.98
2012: D+1.52

No clear pattern here, except maybe that Republicans had a structural advantage in the years of the Solid South, as Democrats wasted a sh*tload of votes there (but this would require going farther back to confirm).

It's fascinating that 2000 and 1960 (PV winner disputed based on allocation in AL) actually were not years with large biases.  A serious 3rd party candidate also seems to result in additional bias.

[Skill and Chance]

What Antonio's fine work suggests to me is that from 1964-80 there was no clear advantage to either party in the EC. After the reapportionment of 1980, there seems to be a Pub advantage through 2000 with 4 of 5 elections having an R lean. After 2000 the EC seems to shift to the Dems, so it will be interesting to see if that continues for the remaining elections this decade.

More data is needed, but one could argue that a Solid South effect is now developing for the GOP.

[Bojack Horseman]

I might be able to support a popular vote but only if it were accomplished the intended way: A constitutional amendment. If I was a governor and this bill hit my desk, I'd veto it. I think that's an abuse of the federalist idea of giving the states the right to dole out their electoral votes however they choose.

[greenforest32]

The NY legislature just approved the compact.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2014/03/8542603/legislature-approves-national-popular-vote

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[greenforest32]

Cuomo signed it: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/04/15/gov-andrew-cuomo-signs-national-popular-vote-bill/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

The four most populous states where this hasn't yet been enacted are now TX, FL, PA, and OH.  If it passed in all four states, then it would reach 270, and would go into effect.  So in principle, it's "only" four states away from passage now, if the big ones were to do it.

But I'm not holding my breath on that. 

[Nichlemn]

Is Bush 2000 the only reason it's only Democratic states signing on? Or is there some kind of status quo conservatism involved?

In theory, it shouldn't be too hard to sell to Texas, if you focused on it being the second-largest state but ignored by Presidential campaigns, and maybe tried a "Democrats have a structural advantage in the Electoral College now" argument, even though that's not true.