Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[Mr. Morden]

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

Bush 2000 is most likely the biggest reason for the partisan divide.  But I do think there's a bit of an ideological division as well.  Republicans in general seem to be more wedded to the old constitutional order, with many movement conservatives even favoring the repeal of the 17th Amendment.  They're more likely to think that something is gained via the indirect nature of American democracy.  And they're more likely to favor a system that treats the states as states.  Democrats seem more likely to be open to experimenting with more modern electoral innovations.

For example, even if you showed them that it would make absolutely no difference in terms of the relative strengths of the two major parties, I bet you'd be able to get more Democrats than Republicans in favor of something like IRV.

[greenforest32]

I'm pretty sure voter turn-out influences their opposition as well. Just in the last few years we've seen Republicans vote to keep ex-felons disenfranchised, cut early/weekend/absentee voting, repeal same-day registration, oppose automatic voter registration, etc.

When you have a national popular vote it's theoretically possible to offset those reductions in other states which is different than how it is now; under the current system of state > people an adoption of same-day registration in Connecticut and California cannot offset a repeal of it in Ohio and North Carolina. The Electoral College indirectly empowers voter suppression.

[Citizen Hats]

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.

Then why does the constitution explicitly give states the right to dole out their electoral votes however they choose?

[Joe Republic]

Hypothetical question, that I probably already know the answer to...

Let's say enough states enact the law to enable it to take effect, but only just enough, say 272 electoral votes.  A presidential election takes place using this new system.  Then the census takes place, followed by reapportionment, and suddenly the collective number of electoral votes drops to 266 or something.  Do we then go back to the current state of things, until more states opt in?

[Bacon King]

Hypothetical question, that I probably already know the answer to...

Let's say enough states enact the law to enable it to take effect, but only just enough, say 272 electoral votes.  A presidential election takes place using this new system.  Then the census takes place, followed by reapportionment, and suddenly the collective number of electoral votes drops to 266 or something.  Do we then go back to the current state of things, until more states opt in?

Article III, Clause 9 of the Compact:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

so yep, it reverts back without a majority

[Mr. Morden]

According to this:

http://ballot-access.org/2016/01/20/arizona-legislature-gives-substantial-support-to-national-popular-vote-plan/

the NPV has been introduced in the Arizona legislature, where it has overwhelming bipartisan support.  If passed, Arizona would be the first state with a GOP majority in both houses to pass the NPV.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

Well, Trump says he supports deciding the election via the popular vote:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/26/trump-electoral-college-popular-vote-555148

So maybe this'll get some traction in Republican states now? 

[Progressive Pessimist]

*bump*

Well, Drumpf says he supports deciding the election via the popular vote:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/26/trump-electoral-college-popular-vote-555148

So maybe this'll get some traction in Republican states now? 

That would be amazing if we could manipulate Trump into supporting the Electoral College's nullification. We just have to patronize him that he can win it and by getting rid of the Electoral College he is putting his money (even the amounts loaned from Russia) where his mouth is.

[zorkpolitics]

Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html

[ON Progressive]

Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) You can theoretically win with 27% of the vote under the electoral college already
2) The two party system would still be a thing as long as first past the post is used.
3) I fail to see how it's a bad thing if third parties become relevant.

[catographer]

Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) You can theoretically win with 27% of the vote under the electoral college already
2) The two party system would still be a thing as long as first past the post is used.
3) I fail to see how it's a bad thing if third parties become relevant.

You're absolutely right. Two party system would be in tact. Think about it this way: we already elect all 50 state governors by a simple FPTP plurality vote. It would be exactly the same, but if the entire country was a state. Gubernatorial elections are almost exclusively two party affairs where the winner often has an overall majority.

[muon2]

Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) You can theoretically win with 27% of the vote under the electoral college already
2) The two party system would still be a thing as long as first past the post is used.
3) I fail to see how it's a bad thing if third parties become relevant.

It's not about third parties being relevant, it's about fringe parties winning with well less than a majority. Though one could theoretically win the EC with 27% of the vote, one needs to win the plurality in all those states to get a majority of the EV. A few regional candidates in a large field would probably block any fringe candidate in the states where the regional candidates are strong.

Similarly in a many-party parliamentary system, one party may win the popular vote with well less than a majority, but without a majority of parliamentary seats they will fail to win the government outright. It takes a broad-based party that can win a majority of seats on a national scale to prevail. The EC simply replaces the parliament with a temporary body to select the executive.

For those nation's that directly elect their executive, the best model is to use a run off, like in France. That way a fringe candidate can get blocked when a coalition of voters representing opposing parties selects the more mainstream candidate. Fifty years ago Congress considered an amendment that would move the US to a directly elected president, and it included a run off provsion if the winner was too far under 50%. That is a far better solution than NPVIC which lacks any protective run off.

[muon2]

Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) You can theoretically win with 27% of the vote under the electoral college already
2) The two party system would still be a thing as long as first past the post is used.
3) I fail to see how it's a bad thing if third parties become relevant.

You're absolutely right. Two party system would be in tact. Think about it this way: we already elect all 50 state governors by a simple FPTP plurality vote. It would be exactly the same, but if the entire country was a state. Gubernatorial elections are almost exclusively two party affairs where the winner often has an overall majority.

That's not quite true. A number of states use a run off system. That can either be a direct run off, or a de facto run off in the form of a top two primary.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html

That is definitely a possibility worth keeping in mind but I don't see it happening for quite awhile. This article assumes that  the two major parties would somehow lose their institutional credibility, it could happen down the line as third parties end up becoming more established. But the Democratic and Republican parties will not lose their fundraising capabilities or ubiquity enough for third parties to come in and take advantage of a further divided electorate. The two major parties will also have a better and more impressive pool of candidates compared to third parties and that may never change. If it does come down to a third party eking out a plurality though, maybe a national runoff election should be considered under those circumstances.
 I don't know, I'm still with the NPVIC. It's an attempt at change and if it needs to be changed too down the line, so be it.

[Karpatsky]

A good popular vote system needs some sort of runoff, whether instant or second-round. That said, even FPP would be better than what the US has now.

[ON Progressive]

Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html

That is definitely a possibility worth keeping in mind but I don't see it happening for quite awhile. This article assumes that  the two major parties would somehow lose their institutional credibility, it could happen down the line as third parties end up becoming more established. But the Democratic and Republican parties will not lose their fundraising capabilities or ubiquity enough for third parties to come in and take advantage of a further divided electorate. The two major parties will also have a better and more impressive pool of candidates compared to third parties and that may never change. If it does come down to a third party eking out a plurality though, maybe a national runoff election should be considered under those circumstances.
 I don't know, I'm still with the NPVIC. It's an attempt at change and if it needs to be changed too down the line, so be it.

Yeah. A nationwide popular vote system wouldn't change the reality that third parties would still have huge disadvantages in pretty much anything from fundraising ability to candidate quality. They're also the two parties that the vast majority of people have consistently voted for, and that can't be ignored.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html

That is definitely a possibility worth keeping in mind but I don't see it happening for quite awhile. This article assumes that  the two major parties would somehow lose their institutional credibility, it could happen down the line as third parties end up becoming more established. But the Democratic and Republican parties will not lose their fundraising capabilities or ubiquity enough for third parties to come in and take advantage of a further divided electorate. The two major parties will also have a better and more impressive pool of candidates compared to third parties and that may never change. If it does come down to a third party eking out a plurality though, maybe a national runoff election should be considered under those circumstances.
 I don't know, I'm still with the NPVIC. It's an attempt at change and if it needs to be changed too down the line, so be it.

Yeah. A nationwide popular vote system wouldn't change the reality that third parties would still have huge disadvantages in pretty much anything from fundraising ability to candidate quality. They're also the two parties that the vast majority of people have consistently voted for, and that can't be ignored.

And beyond that, there are institutional incentives for the President to belong to the same party as a significant portion of Congress.

[SingingAnalyst]

Not sure this is a good idea, but it's good that it's being talked about. IRV is not perfect but I would like to see it implemented more. And, if we had proportional representation in Congress based on the Presidential vote, our Congress would have 14 Libertarians, 5 Greens, and 7 others (a situation I would consider desirable).

[StateBoiler]

Not sure this is a good idea, but it's good that it's being talked about. IRV is not perfect but I would like to see it implemented more. And, if we had proportional representation in Congress based on the Presidential vote, our Congress would have 14 Libertarians, 5 Greens, and 7 others (a situation I would consider desirable).

We don't vote for president based on who we want our representatives in Congress to be. If we did, I would've changed my vote for president in 2016.

I like the Argentine system actually.

Round 1 - simultaneous all-party primary on the same ballot, candidates signify what party they're wanting to represent, whoever gets most votes in a party's primary represents that party in Round 2, a party to be on the Round 2 ballot has to meet a minimum threshold (in Argentina's case, 1.5 to 2 percent).
Round 2 - all remaining candidates run, anyone gets more than 50% is declared winner, no one gets to 50% you have a runoff between the top 2 candidates

[Filinovich]

I like the Argentine system actually.

Round 1 - simultaneous all-party primary on the same ballot, candidates signify what party they're wanting to represent, whoever gets most votes in a party's primary represents that party in Round 2, a party to be on the Round 2 ballot has to meet a minimum threshold (in Argentina's case, 1.5 to 2 percent).

What you've described here is what's known as a "blanket primary". While it's definitely an interesting system, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that it violates the 1st Amendment (See: California Democratic Party v. Jones).
Some similar alternatives that are permitted include the Top-Two Primary and the Top-Four primary (the latter being advocated by FairVote).

[Intell]

I really hope the Democratic candidate wins despite losing the popular vote in 2020 so the Electoral College is nullified

[Progressive Pessimist]

I really hope the Democratic candidate wins despite losing the popular vote in 2020 so the Electoral College is nullified

That is probably not what would happen. Somehow Republicans would finagle their way into nullifying the election before getting rid of the Electoral College.