National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[Antonio the Sixth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

While wandering around Wikipedia, I found this pretty interesting initiative, or "how to get rid of the Electoral college without amending the constitution". Here I don't wont to start another Electoral College vs Popular Vote debate, we already have enough.
What I find interesting is having you opinion about whether or not it could realistically reach the 270 EVs necessary to become effective. Personally, I feel quite optimistical about that : More than 60% of citizens support it, five States have already passed it and 7 others could follow. The 270 EVs target isn't impossible to reach, and the procedure is far more simple than a Constitutional amendment : though a simple State bill.

What do you think ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36980.0

Well, but that one has no poll.

It scares the hell out of me. Ideally, Congress would pass a law preventing this system.

This would make no sense. States are sovereign to choose the way they elect their Electors, passsing a bill against that would mean ruining the ewhole meaning of the Electoral college (thus making it even more silly than it already is).

[Antonio the Sixth]

It scares the hell out of me. Ideally, Congress would pass a law preventing this system.

If the electoral college must go, it would be better if we just abolished it. I won't support anything like this, however.

This system wouldn't be activated until enough states with a combined majority of EVs ratify it. And once it gets ratified, it will essentially mean electing our President directly by PV. If this ever gets ratified and won't get overturned or ruled unconstitutional, except a formal repeal of the Electoral College to follow shortly afterwards. I don't see what's so scary about it, unless one of course supports the EC.

What bothers me is a popular vote without a runoff if no candidate reaches a majority. Non-parliamentary leadership posts, such as the President of France, face such a runoff. The EC provides for a runoff in the House. Even the constitutional amendment proposal of 1970 (Bayh-Cellar) to provide for direct election had a runoff provision is no candidate received 40%.

Anyways, no winning candidate has received less than 40% of PV since 1828.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is quite a convoluted solution to fixing quite a retarded problem.

You summed it up very well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is quite a convoluted solution to fixing quite a retarded problem.

The only reason why it's a "problem" is that it didn't let Gore win, and everyone knows that.

The real problem is how the states that form this compact still can't get over it, and just move on (it should be noted that all 5 states in this compact voted for Gore).

incorrect, it's a problem because it's stupid.

Again, the only reason why it's considered "stupid" (particularly, by the proponents of this bill) is that it prevented their candidate of choice from winning the presidency. We all know that no one was complaining about the electoral college before 2000, and in the (just as possible) event that Bush lost despite winning the popular vote, these same states would be the greatest proponents of the electoral college.

Nobody was complaining about the Electoral College before 2000 ?
Everybody knows it's retarded since a Century, but the obviously the Status Quo is stornger than any evidence, so that for three times we allowed the American People to be governed by someone they didn't want. I find really disturbing that you accuse liberals of being partisan while you are the one defending an unfair system that allowed your candidate to win.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't see why underenfranchising voters is a good thing.

Indeed. It would just replace a system which indirectly violates the "one man one vote" principle with a system that blatantly violates it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

True, that's not my intention! We need the one man, one vote principle!

Except that with your system a vote from one Wyoming guy has 72 more weigh than one of a Californian.

[Antonio the Sixth]

True, that's not my intention! We need the one man, one vote principle!

Except that with your system a vote from one Wyoming guy has 72 more weigh than one of a Californian.

What about nowadays? Don't the small states have more voting power than the large states? WY has 3 EV and CA has 55. That means that WY has 17 times more the voting power of CA.

If you correctly read my previous post, that's exactly what I said.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is pretty damn stupid, especially considering the loser of the popular vote has only been elected President once in the past 130 years.  Plus ... I know all you liberals who want big cities to elect the President are supporting this, but think about it.  No more "Electoral College Calculator".  "Discuss with maps" will become an anachronism.  Is electing a President who shares your ideological beliefs really more important than having fun, exciting elections with maps?

If you answer yes, you're not a true political junkie.

One would think that having a fair electoral system would be more important than drawing colorful maps...

Indeed. If I were a petty selfish political junkie, I'd obviously support the Electoral College. But I like to think I'm a political junkie who cares about justice.
Of course, Vander blubb has a valid point there.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Good, if only California could join them they'd be almost at the half of their path.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Mass becomes the 6th state to join this unconstitutional compact, the 6 states account for 73 of the 270 EV needed to bring the compact into force.

I wonder how they would feel about their electors going to a President-elect Palin

I've long thought the same thing, but applied to a situation where Obama might lose in 2012. Would IL really be willing to see its electors go against the favorite son?

In a right world, any State should be willing to "give" his electors to the candidate the people has chosen.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Maybe, but the Presidential election isn't a legislative election. The Electoral College isn't a permanent body with legislative power, it's made simply for the sake of electing the President. And I don't see why the people shouldn't be able to choose its president directly. The reason given by founding fathers made sense at the time, as the people probably wasn't mature enough for direct democracy, and electors could be a mitigating factor. But now, there aren't anymore : they simply reflect the will of the people in their State. Or more exactly they unexactly represent the will of a more or less great plurality of the voters of each State. What's the point of that ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Maybe, but the Presidential election isn't a legislative election. The Electoral College isn't a permanent body with legislative power, it's made simply for the sake of electing the President. And I don't see why the people shouldn't be able to choose its president directly. The reason given by founding fathers made sense at the time, as the people probably wasn't mature enough for direct democracy, and electors could be a mitigating factor. But now, there aren't anymore : they simply reflect the will of the people in their State. Or more exactly they unexactly represent the will of a more or less great plurality of the voters of each State. What's the point of that ?

And my answer remains that a directly elected president should come with a majority vote requirement and a runoff of the top two in case of no majority. Either the system is modeled on delegate selection like the current EC, or it should be a true majority vote system like France. I find the NPVIC to be the worst of both worlds.

NPVIC is inperfect, but still a progress compared to the current electoral college. But once it will be passed, I'd not be surprised than after a couple of decades an Amendment establishing national popular vote will be ratified, probably with a runoff provision.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Since you bother posting the same thing twice, I will too.

That's a totally fallacious argument. If passed, the NPVIC would de facto nullify the 12th Amendment, but absolutely nothing in the NPVIC is explicitely contrary to the 12th Amendment. The 12th Amentment never states that there must be cases where its provision applies. Imagine the constitution says "any flying pig shall have its wings cut". If you interpret it the same way you interpret the 12th Amendment, it would imply "flying pigs shall exist".