National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[Blackjack200]

I'm Interested in what people think of the NPVIC.

Read about it: Text

I'm all for it; here my arguments:

- The vast majority of Americans support a popular vote election.

- Elections become harder to "fix"

- Candidates will be forced to broaden their campaigns and their appeal

- Dissenting constituents of "Safe" states will be given a voice (for example, a Republican in NY or a Democrat in NJ). This will almost certainly boost voter participation.

The principle argument against the compact is essentially an argument against the popular vote election itself - that candidates will ignore smaller states and concentrate on states with larger populations.

To me, this argument fails on two fronts. First of all, it is disingenuous. Most states are almost completely ignored because of their "safe" status. If your argument is that we need to be fair to all the states, then you should put forward a solution that will draw all 50 states into the campaigns.

Second, logic would suggest that while a large amount of campaign energy would be spent in large states, small states would not be ignored. If either candidate simply ignored the mountain states or the pacific northwest, his opponent would almost certainly gain a decisive advantage by campaigning in those very areas.

Currently, there are 4 states representing 50 electoral votes in the compact. If the compact reaches 270 states and becomes active, it will almost certainly face a constitutional legal challenge. Even so, this probably represents the best chance to move to a popular format in the Presidential Election, the majorities needed to amend the constitution are far too onerous.

 

[dmcowen674]

The current system is corrupt, therefore it will stay.

Only way to change the system is revolt.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Only way to change the system is revolt.

That's what the states are doing. They refuse to have their citizens silenced by unfair election rules, so they are revolting by creating this compact.

 

[frostedflakes]

I'd be for it, along with provisions for preferential voting.

 

[OFFascist]

The writers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they choose not to have the president elected by popular vote. We dont need only a handful of cities deciding who the president is going to be.

 

[frostedflakes]

Of course the Republicans don't want that. :laugh:

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
The writers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they choose not to have the president elected by popular vote. We dont need a majority of Americans deciding who the president is going to be.

Fixed.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
The writers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they choose not to have the president elected by popular vote. We dont need only a handful of cities deciding who the president is going to be.

I've read this a couple times now and my head hurts.

I had never heard of this before...might be an easier way than a constitutional amendment.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: OFFascist
The writers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they choose not to have the president elected by popular vote. We dont need a majority of Americans deciding who the president is going to be.

Fixed.

Our country is a union of several states, with representation by population and and by state, as such it would be wrong for a popular vote to select the president.

Also FWIW whoever wins the popular vote, still wont be selected by the majority of Americas as the majority of Americans dont vote.

 

[winnar111]

Won't happen.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: OFFascist
The writers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they choose not to have the president elected by popular vote. We dont need a majority of Americans deciding who the president is going to be.

Fixed.

Our country is a union of several states, with representation by population and and by state, as such it would be wrong for a popular vote to select the president.

Also FWIW whoever wins the popular vote, still wont be selected by the majority of Americas as the majority of Americans dont vote.

That hasn't really been true since the Civil War. Federal authority trumps state authority at almost every level. To take away the voice of millions of Americans in the selection of the President is unconscionable.

And FWIW, more people would vote if their votes mattered.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
That hasn't really been true since the Civil War. Federal authority trumps state authority at almost every level.

I disagree.

To take away the voice of millions of Americans in the selection of the President is unconscionable.

And FWIW, more people would vote if their votes mattered.

Everyone's vote matters, even if they dont decide who wins. They tell the rest of us, and our politicians how much support they have. Each vote represents a person who in theory cares enough that they could take up arms.

 

[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.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

It would change campaigning more to more densely populated areas. I hardly see how that's worse than what we have now. Our current system makes a president run on the issues that Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and one or two others care about. Everyone in a non-swing state is already disenfranchised now. While national popular vote is certainly not perfect, it's light years better than the retarded system we're using now.

I fully support this idea.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

It would change campaigning more to more densely populated areas. I hardly see how that's worse than what we have now. Our current system makes a president run on the issues that Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and one or two others care about. Everyone in a non-swing state is already disenfranchised now. While national popular vote is certainly not perfect, it's light years better than the retarded system we're using now.

I fully support this idea.

Me too.

The electoral college isn't working. First, it weights rural votes more heavily than urban votes. How is that fair? Furthermore, as Eskimo points out, the electoral college system disenfranchises states that are never in swing. For example, here in California, even though we have the most electoral votes of any state, we'll get a SINGLE visit from each candidate during an election cycle. That's about as much attention as they pay to this entire state. I believe Schwarzenegger once joked that we should all vote Republican to demonstrate that our electoral votes are up for grabs. Or at minimum, we should switch from a winner-take-all system to a system that allocating electoral votes based on the state's own popular vote within each district.

Perhaps then we'd get the feds to pay attention next time we need something.

 

[alphatarget1]

Keep electoral college but scrap winner takes all unless a candidate beats someone by 10+ points spread. That'll force candidates to pay more attention to "solid" red and blue states because they never get any attention. Politicians only go there to fundraise.

 

[Darwin333]

Haven't we torn up enough of the constitution?

 

[Craig234]

Interesting. I notice our democratic legislature in CA passed it but Arnold vetoed it.

 

[PottedMeat]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Keep electoral college but scrap winner takes all unless a candidate beats someone by 10+ points spread. That'll force candidates to pay more attention to "solid" red and blue states because they never get any attention. Politicians only go there to fundraise.

Why not just axe winner take all completely?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
-snip-
The electoral college isn't working. First, it weights rural votes more heavily than urban votes.

Nope.

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.

Fern

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
-snip-
The electoral college isn't working. First, it weights rural votes more heavily than urban votes.

Nope.

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.

Fern

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.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
The writers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they choose not to have the president elected by popular vote. We dont need only a handful of cities deciding who the president is going to be.

heh.

you realize that originally the electoral college was appointed by the respective state legislatures right? But i guess since the writers of the constitution knew what they were doing, we should go back to it.

 

[miketheidiot]

beaten :-\

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
-snip-
The electoral college isn't working. First, it weights rural votes more heavily than urban votes.

Nope.

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.

Fern

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.

Fern

 

[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?