Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
taestell

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

can you explain how the popular vote results would differ from the interstate compact results? How could the end result differ?

@ryanlammi The disconnect I think is that you are solely focused on the results that will be achieved by the Interstate Compact. I do not contest that this will create the same result as a national popular vote, however, it is set up in a way that also could cause unintended consequences.

 

My point with the Popular Vote - As we agree, with a pure popular vote, we have 1=1 ratio. That is ideal. Now, the downside is that it would encourage people to spend time in the largest states and they would be rewarded with more outsized influence, but if that is the way the people wish, so be it. It is pure, it is simple, and the consequences are easy to understand. It is a race to 55 million. Everyone's vote stands on its own and your vote is either recognized as for a winner or loser.

 

The IC tries to create that same result through the Electoral College. The difference is that instead of the race to approx. 55 million votes, it is still a race to 270 and you have the Electoral college in place. You are still working under the confines of the old system where the winner of each state takes that state. Under the current EC, the majority of citizens in the state who vote for a candidate have their preference stated by having their state's electors cast the vote for the candidate of the majority's preference. The electors are doing the true will of the people in their state. When you change to the IC, you are still electing electors, but what you now have is that those electors are not acting according to the will of the people who sent them a mandate to vote for the losing candidate. In a state like California, for example, I ask is it fair and reasonable to the citizens of California who may vote overwhelmingly for the losing candidate to have their electors disregard their will and cast the vote for someone whom their citizens may have given 30% of the vote? In this case, the preferences of the majority who live in the state are ignored and the electors that are there to represent them are forced to vote for someone who may run contrary to the values of the citizenry of that state.  From a results standpoint, the same candidate wins the election as in the popular vote but in this case, the will of the people of that state is ignored and it is as if their vote did not count.

 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

This is false.

You can take whatever you want out of context, I know you are good at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a more pragmatic consideration than a philisophical one, but NPR this morning brought up the fact that trying to do a national-level recount of 100+ million ballots would be a complete nightmare unless/until we take the time to develop some mechanism for doing it efficiently and expidiciously. 


“To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. We have only seen a national popular vote fall within 1/2 of 1% two times. 1880 and 1960. That's often the threshold for a recount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You can take whatever you want out of context, I know you are good at that.

 

You said that for a pure popular vote to work we'd need to do away with the concept of states. Those are your exact words. How am I taking anything out of context? Please explain to me what you actually meant, if not exactly what you said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, there are already states whose electoral votes add up to 181 signed on with the NPVIC.  Colorado was the most noteworthy because it's the only one that is not a consistently blue state (though it's trending that way) signed on.  New Mexico, Oregon, and Delaware are also considering it.  This thing really only has teeth when you start adding red states or swing states - Florida, Ohio, North Carolina could tip it and all are considering it in state legislatures currently.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 11:46 AM, ryanlammi said:

I agree. We have only seen a national popular vote fall within 1/2 of 1% two times. 1880 and 1960. That's often the threshold for a recount.

 

Would the transition period be enough to recount all of these votes? 

 

The shortest possible transition period (Nov. 8th - Jan 20th) is still 73 days, idk but to me it seems like there's no reason all the votes couldn't be recounted in this period of time, even if there was 100% participation and the margin to win was razor thin.

What would worry me is if the two-party system fractures, we start electing politicians on a plurality, and don't do runoffs between the top two vote getters...

 

Trump essentially won the nomination because his coalition maintained a plurality during the Republican presidential debates.

The majority of Republicans did not support Trump at all but were fractured around a number of more traditional candidates (Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, etc.).

I can't imagine this contry being stable if it was ran by a continuous line of Trump-like politicians on various political spectrums.

 

A good throwback article (Jeb Bush led the primary in June 2015 with 22%, and Donald Trump only had 1% support!):

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bush-surges-lead-gop-pack-new-2016-poll

 

To me it seems pluralities push extremism unless kept in check... I'm not a fan of the Electoral college, it should be abolished, but I think these proposals need to consider how to make sure the Majority, not just a Plurality, of Americans pick their political leaders.

 

Edited by SWOH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it fair that Idaho has the same number of senators as California? Maybe that should be changed also????????? I think Idaho has less than 1/15th the population. Plus the Senate is a much more powerful chamber of Congress than the House. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 5:10 PM, dski44 said:

Is it fair that Idaho has the same number of senators as California? Maybe that should be changed also????????? I think Idaho has less than 1/15th the population. Plus the Senate is a much more powerful chamber of Congress than the House. 

Yes, it is fair, it was by design. Remember, It was the great compromise during the convention. Big states wanted proportional representation, small states wanted equal. The compromise that all could live with was 2 houses, one by proportional representation and one equal. They shared powers and they had to pass legislation equally. So while nobody got all they wanted, a fair and reasonable decision was crafted.    It is very fair because it addresses the states interests in standing equal to each other as individual states in the legislature, and also addresses the needs of larger states and encourages compromise. The thing about the Senate, and it may not seem that way in the media, is that there is still a lot of collegiality and compromise there. The egalitarian system helps with that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I made a poor attempt at sarcasm. The electoral college was another compromise between large and small states 200 years ago. In essence, the states elect the President of the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 8:36 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

Yes, it is fair, it was by design.

 

Also by design - slavery = legal, women = not allowed to vote

 

Using "it was by design" is a poor defense for a system that defies common sense.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Also by design - slavery = legal, women = not allowed to vote

 

Using "it was by design" is a poor defense for a system that defies common sense.

 

 

False Equivalency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair Equivalency.  Also, just because something was designed does not mean that it cannot be redesigned to be better and more fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said it is not fair. It was a fair compromised designed to take into account small state and large state interests. It was designed so that the mob of the majority would not overwhelm the mechanisms of good governance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Who said it is not fair. It was a fair compromised designed to take into account small state and large state interests. It was designed so that the mob of the majority would not overwhelm the mechanisms of good governance.

 

The current operation of the electoral college isn’t even remotely close to how it was originally designed (electors nominates by the States, voting however they choose), so I don’t know how you could possibly use that as supportive evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electors can still vote how they choose. Now there are some restrictions and a lot of pressure to go with the popular vote, but every year, in a close election, there is always pressure on one or two electors to switch their vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Electors can still vote how they choose. Now there are some restrictions and a lot of pressure to go with the popular vote, but every year, in a close election, there is always pressure on one or two electors to switch their vote.

 

67 faithless votes have been cast since the 1789, and it’s never affected the outcome of an election. 

 

You can’t use...this compromise was made when this country was founded...for support when the system isn’t working how it was designed when the country was founded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/oregon-electoral-college-popular-vote-law-election-gop-democrats-a8865301.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1554996010

 

Quote

Oregon set to become 15th state to award all its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner

 

Oregon's EVs would push the total to 196, 74 short of the 270 required.

 

There are about 3-4 states that could really tip this thing and get the momentum to 270 - Florida (in committee in both the House and Senate), Ohio (HB70 in committee), North Carolina (in committee in the Senate), as well as Arizona, Indiana, and Minnesota.  If Virginia Dems win a single seat this fall in the House of Delegates, they could re-introduce the bill as well.  There are six other states considering it, all with single digit EV totals.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.10tv.com/article/proposal-honor-ohio-popular-presidential-vote-withdrawn-2019-apr

 

Quote

A ballot measure proposing to give Ohio's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote has been withdrawn.

 

The proposed amendment would have forced lawmakers to assure the Electoral College's votes were delivered to whichever candidate won the most votes nationally, rather than the most votes within Ohio.

 


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...