National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[Godwynn]

Has anyone heard of this? From what I understand if it is passed by states who electoral votes surpass 270 it would change the way presidents are elected from an electoral college to a complete popular vote.

The idea seems to be gaining ground. It passed both houses of California but vetoed by Schwarzenegger.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I've heard of it, but don't like it. America is a Democratic REPUBLIC made up of States. I don't think the current system should be changed, but of course the States can change the way if they choose to do so.

 

[bhsup]

Good Lord! I just looked it up. What a horrible idea. Any politician in Missouri who endorses this is immediately on my loser list, permanently. I'll never support them in anything, even if I agree with them 100% on every other issue. That about utterly usurping the will of the people.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Yeah, its been going for a while. Its the perfect approach, if you ask me. Effectively we will get election by popular vote, while at the same time protecting the state's ability to choose electors. They can always withdraw and decide to give their votes the old way if they change their mind.

Plus, it prevents a constituitional debalce and a requirment of amendment, which would take forever.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I heard of it a while ago, but haven't learned of any news on it since I read that it was vetoed by Schwarzenegger. I'm not even sure if there are plans to bring the proposal to a vote in other states. Regardless, I don't think that it will get passed.

 

[North King]

That about utterly usurping the will of the people.

How, exactly, do you figure that? Popular vote is usurping the will of the people?

 

[Godwynn]

I'm not even sure if there are plans to bring the proposal to a vote in other states.

There is, there is a map on Wiki about it.

Brown States have it planned to be proposed in 2007. Yellow is introduced in one house, red is passed both houses, and orange is passed in one house.

 

[JollyRoger]

Just think if you were in one of the states not in the compact. Your states electoral votes would not make a difference and there would be no incentive for a Presidential candidate or a President who plans to run again to consider your state's needs.

 

[malclave]

How, exactly, do you figure that? Popular vote is usurping the will of the people?

It doesn't propose to do that.

The proposed interstate compact implements nationwide popular election of the President by having states agree to jointly award all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/

If that is actually how it would work, it would have completely broken down multiple times in recent history when no candidate won a majority of the popular vote... 1968, 1992, 1996, and 2000 in the last four decades.

The citizens of a state which votes decisively for the candidate who does not win the popular vote would have their votes overturned by this agreement.

If people want to change to a popular vote election, I think the proper route would be to try to amend the Constitution. If more states divided their electoral votes based on how their populations voted, rather than the "winner takes all" method most currently use, that would also be progress.

 

[Cuivienen]

It doesn't propose to do that.

Sure it does, just indirectly. It makes the Electoral College bow to the will of the national popular vote, which is essentially the same thing as a national popular vote. (It's a patch where a solution would be better, but it works.)

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/

If that is actually how it would work, it would have completely broken down multiple times in recent history when no candidate won a majority of the popular vote... 1968, 1992, 1996, and 2000 in the last four decades.

No, then the plurality winner would win the electoral vote. Nixon, Clinton, Clinton, Gore.

The citizens of a state which votes decisively for the candidate who does not win the popular vote would have their votes overturned by this agreement.

No; their votes count to the national popular vote. The winner of the national popular vote (which is plurality, not majority) wins the Electoral College. Which states give which electoral votes doesn't matter at all.

 

[Perfection]

That's ingenious lawmaking! I hope it works! It would be hella cool.

 

[malclave]

No, then the plurality winner would win the electoral vote. Nixon, Clinton, Clinton, Gore.

Oops, you're right... I guess I shouldn't post when distracted by other stuff, I'd misread the text which I cited.

No; their votes count to the national popular vote. The winner of the national popular vote (which is plurality, not majority) wins the Electoral College. Which states give which electoral votes doesn't matter at all.

This I still disagree with, but that goes back to the concept of state's rights.

 

[Cuivienen]

Seems like Colorado has been awfully slow in introducing it in the lower house; the Colorado Senate passed it in April, and California has passed it in both houses and had it vetoed by the governor since then. (I believe Schwarzenegger said something about wanting a public referendum on the issue, as he did with gay marriage. Harmless, I suppose, if time wasting; California residents will almost certainly approve both.)

 

[MobBoss]

This would radically disenfranchise a huge number of voters from small states. Basically all the politicians would care about are the urban population centers with the most people.

 

[North King]

This would radically disenfranchise a huge number of voters from small states. Basically all the politicians would care about are the urban population centers with the most people.

Ridiculous. If this logic works at all, then candidates would never campaign in any state under 10 electoral votes: this simply is not the case. Certainly they focus on the 20-vote swing states, but they also do not focus on the largest states, because they are typically already in the bag, and so it would be with urban areas: they almost always vote Democratic. The real battle would be for the suburbs.

 

[Cuivienen]

This would radically disenfranchise a huge number of voters from small states. Basically all the politicians would care about are the urban population centers with the most people.

Quite simply, no. This a common argument and an utterly fallacious one. (Do the French campaign only in big cities? [France is the only other major democracy with a separately elected executive.]) For one, less than a quarter of the US population lives in cities, hardly enough to win an election. Most of the population lives in the suburbs, which is where most campaigning happens now, anyway. In any case, even if what you allege were true, I would hardly think politicians ignoring the people of New York and Texas any more fair.

 

[amadeus]

Either make it a direct election or don't; don't fart around the issue.

 

[bhsup]

How, exactly, do you figure that? Popular vote is usurping the will of the people?

Quite simple. This is how our Presidential election works. The people of a State go to the polls and vote how they want the State to vote for President. Majority wins, and determines which Presidential candidate the State will vote for in the Electoral College. Follow so far? Therefore, the will of the people is expressed when the State votes for the Presidential candidate the people picked the State to vote for.

This horrible idea guts the will of the people. Suppose the great citizens of the Sovereign State of Missouri voted 65% for Lucius Vorenus and 35% for Titus Pullo (can you tell what I've rented and am watching again before season 2 airs? ). The will of the people of Missouri is for the State to vote for Lucius Vorenus in the Electoral College. But if Titus Pullo had the most votes cast for him nationwide, and Missouri adopted this asinine plan, the will of the people of the State of Missouri has just been pissed down the drain, along with the future of the Republic.

 

[Gilder]

This would radically disenfranchise a huge number of voters from small states. Basically all the politicians would care about are the urban population centers with the most people.

That's what happens now.

 

[Cannae]

they almost always vote Democratic.

I think that's why VRWCAgent and MobBoss are against it.