• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


Apr 25, 2001
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The electoral college isn't working. First, it weights rural votes more heavily than urban votes.

Other than the electoral college votes for each states' 2 senators, electoral college votes are based on the number of Representatives (House members).

The number of Representives are based on population. There is no advantage to rural over urban.

When the system was set up, the 2 votes for senators was added in to hep smaller states. And back then when weren't many House members the votes for senators had a much bigger eefect. As time has passed and the number of Reps has shot up the value of the senator/electoral votes has substantially diminshed. As regards electoral votes, we are very very close to a popular vote system anyway.

What's more troubling to me is the states' policy of winner-take-all electoral votes. How can a vote split like 49.5% v 50.5% result in 100% of the electoral votes for the winning candidate be fair? Fixing that doesn't require changing the electoral system at all.

Alaska has 3 electoral votes for 670,000 people. That equates to one electoral vote per 223,333 people.

California has 55 electoral votes for 36,457,000 people. That equates to one electoral vote per 662,864 people.

An Alaskan voter has 3 times as much say as a voter in California.
Yes, you've chosen the most extreme example by choosing to compare the most populaced state with the least.

It is the (statistical) distortion cause by electoral college votes for senators.

The *senate* caused (statistical) distortion is ever diminishing as our population grows and more Reps (and thus electoral votes) are added.

Besides, IMO it's d@mn hard to say that CA is gettiing *hosed*, they have 55 votes to 3?

I say let the little states have their 3 votes, it's not like they count for much anyway.

If you really wanna talk about whose say in voting doesn't count - yes think of CA. Because it has the winner-take-all rule anybody but a Dem vote is meaningless.

It's an extreme example because it makes the point the most obvious, but that doesn't mean it's NOT a valid point when comparing any other two states. I'm not sure why you think it being a statistic distortion makes it unimportant, but it does result in Americans having an uneven voice in choosing the President.

But as you said, the real problem with our system is the winner take all system of most states. A Republican vote in CA or a Democratic vote in TX is like having no voice at all. That problem, IMHO, far eclipses the problem that folks in Wyoming get 4 times the sway on an electoral vote than folks in California do.


Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sactoking
The United States is a democratic Republic. As a Republic, a direct popular vote is entirely off-limits.

Going to a direct vote would only accomplish 1 thing: disenfranchising everyone who does not live in New York, Boston, Chicago, LA, San Diego, and San Francisco/CA Bay Area.
So a better system disenfranchises the millions of Americans who live in those areas in favor of making sure 6 guys in Wyoming get a louder voice?

It is true that a direct popular vote would result in a louder voice for denser concentrations of people (this could be ideological concentration too though, not just geographic), but so what? If a lot of people care about certain issues, shouldn't that result in those issues being addressed? I don't quite get the logic of a system that, by definition, makes sure that the concerns of SMALLER groups of people are given priority over concerns of larger groups. Are the importance of your concerns determined by how close your neighbors are?
It's no different than Amendments to the Constitution. The United States is a Republic. When national issues arise, each member state in the Republic casts its vote (presumably) how its members wish it to. The national result is a direct result of the wishes of the states.

When the Constitution is amended, a majority of STATES must ratify the Amendment. There is no popular vote.

Think about national elections for a second. Name ONE position in the Federal government that is elected as a direct vote. There aren't any. That's because when the country was founded it was established that the States represent the people and the Federal government represents the States. All Federal positions are either appointed or elected by the States, none are elected by the people as a whole. That is the way it always has been in the US and the way it always should be.

Now, if you take issue with how a specific State or group of States uses their electoral votes, that is a separate issue. But to the topic at hand, a direct vote is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.