- May 28, 2007
- 15,995
- 1,685
- 126
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.
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.