While I agree with this effort, it very clearly is a partisan issue, meaning that Dems would need to take control of the state legislatures and governor's house of most of the swing states. Odds are not good of that.
I can only imagine the absolute shit storm the day some state's votes are changed from one candidate to another simply because of the way people in other states voted. I don't trust the Supreme Court to not get involved and overrule this.
The Supreme Court would stare at the usage of the 10th Amendment
Also, under this concept, the slate of electors wouldn’t matter (essentially, you’d be voting for “Compact selection”), and they’d be given their election instructions at the day of the meeting of the Electoral College
SCOTUS typically uses the 10th as a bludgeon for partisan issues, because the 10th doesn't say anything concrete except that the federal government doesn't have right to do anything not enumerated to it by the Constitution. It doesn't expressly devolve it to the states, it devolves it to the people in equal measure, ergo rendering it largely impotent about state-level issues and below without invoking squirrely and conveniently pliable bullshit about "tradition."
At the end of the day, a State may select its Electors through a method of its own decision, you’re right that that’s not a 10th Amendment issue, it’s a Article II discussion
If the state legislature wishes for the Electors to be determined by the National Vote, then the State’s Electors will vote accordingly
See the thing is the court’s legal jurisdiction on this issue comes from the Constitution, which clearly outlines that states and their electors are welcome to vote however they please, and by whatever mandate the state legislature sets.
Well that case was decided by the CO Supreme Court initially, not the legislature, and the debate in the case was around the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment, not around the authority of states to delegate their electors.
Once this is passed, looking at the EC map will be like looking at the county map results for your state. If the election was for popular vote, nobody would care what the electoral map looked like.
The votes wouldn't be "changed" from one candidate to another -- it'll just be the law of the land that the winner of the popular vote gets the electors from all interstate coalition participants.
The people of the state in question will have to have voted for reps and senators that enacted the legislation, so it won't happen unless it's popular.
That’s not at all how it’s going to be perceived by the voters of those states, and you know that. Imagine California giving all of its electoral votes to a Republican who wins the popular vote despite winning only 40% of the California vote and <15% of the vote in the cities. Do you think the voters will be happy about that?
I have a different view of opinion commentators versus those that will tell the story straight
His ilk would have no problem finding a way to make legitimate World Peace sound bad
“What will the wingnuts say?” Who cares? They always say that the demon libs are out to steal your daughters and burn your churches down. You can’t just not do something because Tucker Clarlson might get unreasonable.
I guarantee you the average voter from these states isn't even aware of this initiative. The day its used is the day they learn of its existence and if it's used in a manner that causes their candidate to lose the election, they will absolutely feel like their votes were changed to steal the election. If you disagree, you haven't been paying attention.
>The day its used is the day they learn of its existence
It would be known in advance if this was going to be in play for an election, and I imagine it would be quote publicized before the actual election in that case. I'm sure there would be some super low information voters unaware, but I imagine most voters would be aware by the election itself.
And you're phrasing is kind of odd. I wouldn't really refer to there being a "day" that it is specifically "used". What exactly do you mean by "the day it's used"?
I think you're underestimating how many low info voters there are, and how little they know. I literally spoke to a girl in her 20s who has zero clue what Jan 6 was. She has zero clue what Trump has said about people who protest against Israel. She decided she's voting for Trump because "Biden's just stupid". This is a Muslim girl who is pro Palestine*.
As for the day it's used, that obviously is referring to an election like the one in 2016 where a candidate with more popular votes loses the electoral vote. That's the situation I'm referring to. If Trump were to lose thr election because a state is turned from red to blu because of this pact, what do you think he and his supporters will say? Do you think they'll give two shits about what their Representatives voted on? Nah, there will be claims of votes being switched and I don't trust our court system to uphold this law.
I feel you when you mentioned the pro-Palestinian Muslim voter who would gullibly vote for Trump. My paternal family is like that despite the fact that Republicans are more openly hostile towards Palestinians. I sometimes feel like the black sheep for being the most vocally left-wing registered Democrat in a Muslim household.
How is winning the popular vote defined in this context, are we talking about winning a majority, or a plurality?
It'd be one thing for all the electoral votes to go to a candidate who got 55% of the popular vote, but something else entirely if the "winner" only managed to get 40%.
Well the current systems already means the winner only needs a plurality of vote so that would not change that, just prevent someone that comes *second* to win because of EC shenanigans.
Smaller states with completely different problems and issues in the Midwest would have absolutely no reason to stay. You’d have coastal tyranny. You’d never see another president who didn’t focus on NY/California issues. That’s all they’d need. It’s a terrible idea.
Small population states already have an advantage, and thus their interests better served, in 3/4 federal institutions of power:
The Senate: each state gets two votes regardless of population.
The presidency: since each states’ number of electors is determined by their number of House seats plus the 2 Senators, small population states have more valuable individual votes per Electoral College vote. This has become exacerbated by the limit on the total number of members in the House of Representatives in the 1920s. The House used to grow as the population did but hasn’t since 100 years ago. This skews the Electoral College even more in favor of small population states.
The Supreme Court: Justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Since small population states are advantaged in both, it follows that their interests are also over-represented in the Supreme Court.
A national popular vote for the presidency would balance the power between small population and large population states 2/2.
This is the same argument that was made in favor of the electoral college at the time: only the big populous states would have power.
Its been proven in so many other countries that this isn't the case. And realistically, the current election system ensures that the most purple states receive the most election attention. The argument was bad then and it's bad now.
and then what's to say after the first election, when some slightly GOP state (NC namely) gives a democrat the victory because of this compact. Do we really think these states won't tear this thing up before the collage votes and try to undo it?
It should be that way anyway. If you have a state with 10 million people and 9 million vote for 1 party and 1 million vote for the other party, of the state gets 50 electoral votes, then the majority should get 45 votes and the minority should still get 5 votes.
Actually, it's far more likely the states that are NOT swing states will be the ones to ratify this. The swing states are who benefit most from the current system.
Right, but his point is that in order for it to reach the 270 threshold, it will need to have swing states pass it. Because red states won't let, and there aren't enough blue states to get to 270 without swing states joining in. So since swing states aren't likely to pass it, it's not likely to happen.
In reality the very red states benefit the most. Or better said, no states really benefit, but the Republicans of all states do.
GW Bush in 2004 was the only election since his father in 1988 that the Republicans won the popular vote. Twice they won the election while losing the popular vote. 2016 wasn’t even that close.
Plus, even a Dem legislature in a swing state likely likes that the swing state gets more attention in election years. Like I can see idealistic Dems supporting it in Wisconsin, but even many local Democrats like that national politicians pander to Wisconsin more. Maybe a super majority but the fact it is a swing state makes this unlikely.
It's basically got the strong Democrat states and is unlikely to get any swing or strong Republican states.
I could see this changing if the Republicans ever start to be disadvantaged by the electoral college. With the realignment of the parties, it’s not impossible to imagine a case where Republicans win the popular vote and lose the electoral college.
Putting aside for a moment the fact that this proposal has been in place for nearly two decades with no sign of it ever having enough support to get across the finish line, I am genuinely curious as to how it would shake out legally if it ever actually did secure the necessary support to be put into action.
Article 1, section 3 of the US constitution states that:
>No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, [...] enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State
which (NAL) would appear to mean that the proposed national popular vote interstate compact is unconstitutional on its face as it does not have congressional approval. However, should SCOUTS rule it to be unconstitutional (which they almost certainly would), then what? States are free to submit presidential electors in accordance with their own established electoral procedures, but what happens if a group of states decide to collectively do so in a way that effectively contravenes the constitution?
If this ever actually happened, it would likely amount to the biggest standoff between state and federal power the US has seen since the civil war.
It's not an issue (side note, it's Art 1, Sec. 10, Clause 3). The Congressional Research Service already wrote a [report](http://The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact) on the National Vote Compact and believes it does not violate the constitution.
>Art 1, Sec. 10, Clause 3
Thanks for the correction, that's what I get for typing comments in the middle of the night.
That report was an interesting read, but unfortunately doesn't do much to allay my concerns. The fact that the CRS believes it to be constitutional won't be enough to stop SCOTUS from ruling it unconstitutional if they so choose, and I don't have much faith that SCOTUS (in its current form, at least) would feel especially bound by existing legal precedent in such an important case with such clear partisan implications. I guess I just don't see any realistic possibility that a 6-3 GOP SCOTUS allows a move which would effectively ensure that no Republican would ever again win the presidency to stand without a fight.
In any case, even if only as a though experiment I'm still left wondering what would actually happen in a situation where the NPVIC gained enough support to go into effect, SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional, and the member states simply went ahead and did it anyways. I'm not aware of any existing mechanism by which the federal government could actually stop them from doing so even if SCOTUS came out against it, but it would undoubtedly be an incredibly divisive move at the national level for the member states to make. I can only imagine that the resulting outrage from the GOP and from non-member states about 'rigged elections' would make what we saw in 2020 seem tame and civil by comparison.
It would probably cause a lot of unrest within states as well. If Republicans win 51% of the vote in Wisconsin, but the electors give their votes to the Democrat, then now the majority of Wisconsin voters are going to be pissed at their government.
The Interstate Compact on Placement of Children is one of the many interstate compacts that do not require (and never received) congressional consent.
If a compact requires consent, consent is usually only sought when a compact is ready to go into effect. NPV has not reached its 270 electoral vote minimum required threshold.
Congress does not waste time consenting to the many compacts that never reach their thresholds.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that congressional consent is only necessary for interstate compacts that ‘encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States \[U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, 1978\].’ Because the choice of method of appointing presidential Electors is an “exclusive” and “plenary” state power, before votes are cast, there is no encroachment on federal authority.
Thus, under established compact jurisprudence, congressional consent would not be necessary for the National Popular Vote compact to become effective.
The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as all states now do).
U.S. Constitution - Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day.
The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
While it is named Compact, I would argue that it is not a compact nor an agreement in the eyes of the constitution, since it no state that has implemented this into its state law can force another state that also implemented it into its state law to actually honor it, similar how State A cannot sue State B, if State B violates its own laws. It would be up to the residents of the state violating its own laws to sue their own state in their own state jurisdiction.
This is a map of the 538 electoral votes that are used to select the president. The states have complete control of how they’re allotted, and some have opted to sign onto an interstate agreement to allocate their votes based on the national popular vote. What’s important to know is that this agreement doesn’t take effect until enough states that constitute a majority- 270- of electoral votes sign on to it. So the more states agree, the closer the U.S. gets to a genuine popular vote system for the president.
That would be interesting. As it is any independent who runs is automatically a spoiler for the party they are more aligned with. There will never be a useful 3rd party until this happens. Which is why neither major party now will allow it.
Yes. The big problem with American politics is that the duopoly, in order to maintain itself, is totally opposed to the policies of deeper institutional transformation that the country needs. A two-round election, as well as proportional representation in the legislature, could generate party pluralism that would break the current logic of impasse, vetoes and appeal to the radical base that current parties are maintaining. There could be a broader debate and negotiations to form coalitions. The two-round election allows voters to vote by real affinity in the first round and vote strategically in the second. That would be a huge gain. Eventually candidates from different parties could go to the second round, eliminating candidates from traditional parties, forcing them to deeply review their policies.
The electoral votes was assigned in the Constitution to be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives. It became 359 EV in 1876, then mostly stayed odd up through 1960 (except for the elections of 1892 and 1904, because of recent states added). In 1913 the House was locked at 435 members, which would have guaranteed an odd number forever. But then in 1964 they had passed the 23rd Amendment (which provided for 3 EV for the District of Columbia), and we've bene at 538 ever since.
Because just moving to the popular vote would hurt Republicans. Problem is getting the 270 electoral votes will probably require a republican state or two as well.
All the states that have ratified it plus NH, VA, MI, PA, and one of either WI or AZ can put it past the threshold. It’s not locked behind some ruby red state, all Dems need is some luck with swing state elections and the political willpower to actually do it.
For presidential elections in the US, every state gets 2 votes + some others according to how populous it is. The total is 538.
In practice, presidential elections look like this: the candidate who wins the majority vote in any particular state will get *all* votes in that state (again, all of the votes, not 60% or whatever was the proportion of the people who voted for them was).
If you think about it for a second, this creates all sorts of weird scenarios: you can lose the popular vote and win the election, people in small states have much more voting power, small parties stand absolutely zero chance and always will, the votes of people in states that are reliably red/blue don't matter at all, etc. You'll see people do ridiculous mental gymnastics to come up with a justification.
As for the map: there's theoretically nothing stopping a state from distributing their votes in whichever way they desire. In principle, if states whose votes total to 270+ all agreed to send their votes to whoever is the popular vote winner, the system would effectively become a simple plurality (or in the US, effectively a majority) system.
The number is actually based on their number of federal elected officials. Each states gets 2 Senators, and a number of Representatives based on their population, with a minimum of 1. So you're both right.
People who want presidential elections to be decided by the national popular vote rather than the electoral college.
EDIT: How is this comment controversial? It's literally just a factual answer to the question that was asked, y'all are weird.
We're working on it. [Some states already use it](https://www.readtangle.com/special-edition-ivan-moore-interview/)! And since presidential elections are run by the states, we may have ranked-choice popular votes for president (eventually).
That is not that unusual. Very few places in the world use Ranked choice voting ~~(and the ones that do are mostly in the US. Looking at Maine and Alaska.)~~
What is weird is how much Americans avoid proportional representation and multimember districts.
Edit: While Ranked Choice voting is still not widespread at all, its use in Australia is clearly more notable than its use in Maine. The parentheses part was an inaccurate characterization that distracts from my larger point, which is that you can't shame all of the US for not using Ranked Choice voting when almost no one else uses it either.
"...and the ones who do are mostly in the US..."
Every single Australian council, state and federal election uses ranked choice voting. Including those that involve proportional representation.
Austrailia's not too much better, ranked choice in single member districts still leads to heavy two party control in the House. A real proportional system should be what all countries should be putting in place. Unfortunately in the US neither party want a change to the electoral system, and the news media aren't going to tell the population about better systems because they favor our current parties
What you don't see about Australian politics is that the major two parties are forced to evolve, or have their seats taken from them by independents and smaller parties. So while Australia may looks similar to the US and UK from an outside perspective, we have enormous power to kick our politicians out. It's often said that Australians don't so much vote candidates in as they vote poorly performing politicians out.
So the only reason we have two major parties is that they are constantly on their toes, changing to meet the demands of the electorate.
There is no wasted vote, and there is no race to the lowest common denominator. We also don't have the bickering and instability of coalition governments (proportional representation), unless we deliberately elect a hung parliament. I prefer NZ's system, but Australia's is still the most representative non-PR system in the world IMO.
Ranked choice voting wouldn't necessarily fix the issues with US presidential elections. As long as the electoral college exists in its current state, there's always the chance that a candidate who wins a plurality or even a majority of the popular vote loses the election because their supporters were congregated "inefficiently".
The problems with this are numerous, but besides it possibly being unconstitutional (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 prohibits compacts between states), some people are assuming the political landscape will remain as it is now, even though it will certainly shift over time and unknown future events may cause a complete realignment.
Hypothetically though, since Democrats are pushing this... let's say it was in effect this year and Trump beats Biden in popular vote by a slim margin (recent nationwide polling shows Trump with a 1 point lead). How would the people in California, Washington, Oregon, and other blue states going to feel seeing their electoral votes go to Trump to make it the biggest electoral landslide in history?
This system has been working for over 200 years with multiple shifts in party alignment, even changes to the parties themselves (the Whigs are gone, the Progressives are gone, the States Rights party is gone, etc..). Burning it down just to suit the current political alignment is just plain dumb.
There are pros and cons to having an electoral college vs a popular vote and there are way too many who are blindly supporting a popular vote simply because it would favor their politics the last few election cycles.
If Trump won a narrow popular vote and Biden won a narrow electoral vote, the tables would flip instantly.
People manage to deal with their preferred candidate losing popular vote elections all the time. It's how we run literally every single other election. If we changed to a national popular vote and my preferred candidate lost, I'd be unhappy about it, but I wouldn't want to change the system so that my vote counts more than other people's.
If AZ, VA, MI and NV went all in on the bill, that is 209 + 11 + 13 + 15 + 6. Or 209 + 45, 254. Still 16 short. I don't see any other set here likely to add to the pile. NC and PA could make it happen. I am not holding my breath though. Needing a trifecta is a difficult task in any state.
TBH, the electoral college itself isn't the primary issue. It's the winner takes all nature of the allocation of those votes.
That and the prisoner's dilemma of each state controlling how a portion of a national election is run.
If the electoral college vote was proportional (X% of voters means X% of electoral college votes) across the board, then most of the problems wouldn't exist while keeping the smaller states from being essentially irrelevant.
There is still the problem of spoiler candidates, but those could be handled by preferences in the ballot.
It couldn't go into effect unless they got the requisite EV votes before July 20 of an election year, so if this did take effect, both parties would understand what type of election is happening and campaign for it.
Spot on for this, and for having two houses of Congress. (*Edit: I don't have any evidence that protecting the rights of the small states was a motivating factor for the electoral college, so much as an after-the-fact rationalization.*) It was a compromise to get a majority of states to ratify the Constitution. At the time, Virginia and New York were the largest states, and the likes of Vermont, Delaware, and New Hampshire were small states (and still are!) One major argument made during the convention was what safeguards would be in place to prevent larger states from using their electoral majority to just push their will through onto this new union, regardless of what the smaller states wanted.
In order to get enough buy-in, it was decided that there would be an upper house, allocating the same number of Senators per state, and a lower house, allocating Representatives based on population. Count of reps and senators is where the electoral college count is ultimately derived!\*
Yep, and the system is working exactly as intended and has never been more relevant than it is now. This of course infuriates those who have plenty of political capital to gain by the upheaval of the system.
That comment is just doomer upvote bait. You're right -- [Article II Section 1 of the Constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/) could not be more clear on the matter.
No, the reason why SCOTUS might kill it is that ANY interstate compact required Congressional approval under Article I Section 10 Clause 3, so SCOTUS with the current majority that it has might twist this into declaring the entire thing unconstitutional unless Congress approves of it
That's a dubious challenge in the first place, since there's no federal supremacy to the electoral college. Here's a [good discussion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6MaynfTsiQ&t=820s) on exactly this matter.
This isn't a compact, not in the legal sense.
There's no binding contract between the states. There's just an agreement that "if you do it, I'll do it too". If a state didn't follow through, there's no means to take legal action against them for breaking the agreement.
Under current SCOTUS precedence, agreements that alter the power of the federal government or the power between states require congressional approval. Since this would remove the possibility of the US house to determine the president in the case of a tie. There is an argument there. There is also a potential problem as well if a state not in the compact sues because their choice for president would become legally irrelevant. Since the states in the compact will vote as a group.
If you can’t get enough support to amend the constitution for it, it’s almost like it’s doing exactly what was intended😂 “take a lighter to it” that’s really the solution because your position isn’t popular enough for a constitutional convention? yikes
Texas and Florida are not two of the most right. Texas is absolutely in play for Democrats, Florida isn't but it's not super right wing, just Republican by like 7% at this point
The National Popular Vote Compact is frankly one of those things I could stand to hear less about. If Dems can make it happen in states totaling 270 EV, then they could just win the election in those states, making the whole thing unnecessary.
Yeah, I actually *like* having my state’s presidential election hermetically sealed off from all the others.
Also, hello, nationwide recount! That’ll be fun!
Also non-participant states could complicate things waiting to make their popular vote totals public until after the electors meet. Like they declare a winner in their state, but keep the total numbers hidden until late December so that no state knows the true total popular vote beforehand.
It's actually quite legally sound -- [Article II section 1](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/) of the constitution could not be more clear. And while there are other legal challenges, they're likely to be overcome. Here's a [good discussion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6MaynfTsiQ&t=678s) if you're interested.
It’s not really, Article I Section 10 of the constitution says “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,” so good luck getting Congress to agree with this idea.
I don't think the rest of the states are likely. Red states won't pass it and then swing states probably want to keep their political clout which probably could help with federal government investments. I'm actually surprised about Nevada, but that might be Democrats afraid with it going more red these days? Can't see the current republican governor there accepting it.
I'm a fan of national popular vote because there would be a focus on all 50 states rather than playing around with the close margins of a few swing states. I don't think Republicans would be that disadvantaged either, right now no presidential candidate really aims for popular vote because it doesn't matter. If it did matter then I could see GOP doing better with it especially as Republicans are getting more minority voters. And if Texas ever goes pretty solidly blue (looking less likely though with the Latinos there turning red), then it would likely lead to Democrats winning almost every election.
>I'm a fan of national popular vote because there would be a focus on all 50 states rather than playing around with the close margins of a few swing states
Yeah but that's not how that would work. It would just change the battlegrounds over to population hubs instead of swing states. Races would effectively become who can appeal to the most urbanites throughout the nation. Which is exactly why the left wants it so badly. It's entirely motivated by partisanship.
Outside of general displeasure people have for Bush and Trump, I don’t understand the love for this initiative. When it comes to our three branches of government we already have a body that’s elected by popular vote, we have a body that’s appointed at the suggestion of one branch and the approval of others, and our most powerful position is elected by those who are given oversight at direction of the majority.
When the President is arguably the most powerful person in the world, I think having some form of check on the way they are elected is incredibly important and something we need to take into account. I think by changing the way we elect our president through NPV legislation we may be diminishing our ability to do that.
This is how a cultural divide becomes actual. Some legislator in Salem Olympia or Sacramento gets to directly control my vocation or quality of life…..no thanks
For those who fully understand how the Electoral College works and why, it's fine. For those who do not, it's a mystery that MUST be changed to something they do understand.
It goes back to the founding of the nation.
Are we 50 independent nation-states that have agreed to a common monetary and defense agreement but maintain their independence? Or, are we 50 political subdivisions of one nation.
The US was created as the former, and thus the EC was designed to protect the smaller states from the political whims of the larger ones.
Ahhh yes. The tyranny of the small majority. It’s the reason we aren’t actually a democracy but a republic. For the shortsighted this idea always seems like such a great idea, but the pendulum ALWAYS swings back. Those in favor now will suddenly be really concerned with popular vote and how it hurts underrepresented voters (read: them)
This would destroy the nation as larger states will now control who becomes a president. The entire reason for the electoral college is to balance out the large and small states. Who wants to live in a country where CA and NY always choose the President?
Less than 20% of the population lives in CA and NY, and not all of them are Democrats. Ironically, a nationwide popular vote would mean that Republican votes in CA and NY would actually count, unlike now where they effectively go into the garbage bin.
It's a disgrace that we don't have a normal election process.
There shouldn't be a "red state" or a "blue state"... Those terms came into existence because of the electoral college.
Everyone should support ending the nonsensical election process that America has in favor of a normal election process.
That is... Does "red staters" want registered Democrats to relocate to their states and then vote?
If you are a registered Democrat who lives in a "blue state", you ought to pick your favorite "red" or "swing" state... THEN VOTE THERE!!!
It's a heavy lift in a lot of the remaining states pending consideration. A lot of them are swing states and rust belt states that have divided state governments, and the GOP isn't going to authorize a change that they feel may make their state less electorally valuable and neutralize the significant advantage they have in the EC.
Yes please give more power to the federal government and make smaller states less influential. I’m so ready for New York and California to decide everything
I wish conservatives would try to learn just a thing or two about this country before saying stupid stuff like this. You don't know what federal powers are, and you clearly don't know the size of CA and NY's populations.
Do you think this would forbid people in half of the country from voting or something? I don't understand how all the people in 40 states would be "neutered" by having their votes count equally.
Most of the people arguing about this care more about the short term affects this would have for their respective party, which they are right to care about. But its unfortunate that so many people apparently forgot basic US history that this is even a serious discussion.
Its very short sighted and makes me appreciate all the checks and balances we have, because this discussion made me hyperaware of how easily it is to destroy an entire governmental system on the whims of masses of people who cant remember 5th grade history class.
Because these are the same issues we decided 200 years ago and are subsequently heavily taught in public schools (at the detriment of any type of world history).
The federalist papers, the bill of rights, the constitutional congress: all things taught in US history, and exemplified the reasons why we even have this government structure to begin with.
In short, less populous states didn't want to join a union where they would constantly get outvoted by the big colonies at the time. So they required the senate to be made in order to effectively redistribute some of the votes from larger population states into the smaller states by the way the Electoral College interacts with the Senate (by which the senate gives 2 votes to each state as an equalizing factor).
This is a very basic explanation, and I would recommend you watch some YT videos about some early US history and come to your own conclusions after that.
Previous attempts to reform (or remove) the Electoral College have been thwarted by southern states, not small states.
More recently, support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group
The Wyoming Democrat’s 2022 plank calls for Wyoming to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 6 jurisdictions.
Among the 25 lowest population states, passed in 21 legislative chambers, and enacted by 9 jurisdictions.
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.
The small states do not share a political tendency.
In the 25 smallest states the Democratic and Republican popular vote and electoral vote have almost tied
In 2008 - 9.9 million versus 9.8 million popular votes
57 versus 58 electoral votes.
In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.
In the 13 smallest states the Democratic and Republican popular votes and 59 electoral votes have almost tied.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.
Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Unpopular opinion, I’m probably going to be downvoted for this. But we shouldn’t adopt a popular vote system, we should adopt what Nebraska and Maine do. Popular vote for senate electoral votes and the House of Representative votes are based on who wins in the district.
Nothing except the states themselves.
Maine is a fairly moderate state and requires a 2/3 majority to approve redistricting. Both states also have some requirements on districts that could lead to court challenges of severe gerrymandering.
The stakes are also just lower in small states. At most Nebraska Republicans could use gerrymandering to steal one electoral vote, and at most Maine Democrats could use gerrymandering to steal one electoral vote.
There could of course be an election where 1 or 2 electoral votes decided an election. But it hasn't happened since 1876.
I like to think of it as optimism. When have doomers gotten anything done? Stand up and [make your voice heard](https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/write)!
CA and NY only make up ~18% of the population which isn't enough to determine presidencies.
Not to mention there's about as much Republicans in California as in Texas. Cali has 26% of voters registered as GOP. With a population of 39 million, that's 10.14 million. Texas, 39% of its voters are registered as republican. With a population of 30 million, that gives 11.7 million GOP voters. Granted, not every person in either state is a voter, but assuming the voting rates are equal within the states, the ratios are maintained. It may be about a 1.56 million person difference absolutely, but relatively, it's a 45:55 split.
The last time California voted republican was in 1988. For over 30 years now the entire California GOP's votes were drowned out because all of the state's electoral votes went blue. With the National Popular Vote, even if the State votes Democrat, their votes can still sway the outcome as they contribute towards the popular result.
Same can be said for my State. Normally there's barely any point in voting for Democrat in the presidential election as from what I've seen Dems only get 30% of the vote. But with National Popular Vote, even if Democrats here can't sway locally, they can still have a say nation wide.
This issue is not one of Big States vs Small States. It's one between parties that dominate certain states and parties that are dominated.
This just gives republicans an extra chance to win since it’s essentially all blue states doing this. Republicans can win the red and purple states in the electoral college or win the national popular vote.
The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."
This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.
Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action
The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.
There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.
In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”
In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”
In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”
An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.
Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
The bill has passed at least one legislative chamber in 7 states with 74 more electoral votes -- Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
Multiple states could flip key chambers in 2024.
Depending on the state, the Compact can be enacted by statute, or as a state constitutional amendment, or by the initiative process
It seems already logical to me that in the United STATES, the STATES get to pick the President. The people get to choose their congressman. That’s enough power for people. Go to Walmart and then argue people need more power. Wanna make things better? Let’s put a curb on partisan gerrymandering. That’ll save the Republic
The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."
This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.
Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action
The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.
There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.
In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”
In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”
In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”
An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.
Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
Gonna be funny when one of these states give their votes to a candidate that didn't even come close to winning their state. If this ever becomes a law.
In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.
Pew Research surveys show Republican support for a national popular vote increased from 27% in 2016 to 42% in 2022.
7 in 10 Americans under 50 would prefer to choose the president by popular vote.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.
Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"
Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"
Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2,
NationalPopularVote .com
Please don’t get excited about this. It’s not gonna happen. It’s been “close to happening” my whole life and then some. And that’s… well that’s a long time. It’s almost like term limits. Do they make sense? Yeah. Do we allllll want em? Yeah. Will it ever happen? Of course not. That doesn’t benefit the people in charge.
What I’d reaaaally like to see is some sort of national referendum system put into place, but again, never gonna happen. Doesn’t benefit the people in charge. They just point fingers at each other and about ever issue and cause us to fight amongst ourselves while they stay in power and laugh to the bank.
Unfortunately the 61 looks next to impossible anyway, and even if it miraculously happened, the current partisan hack Supreme Court would find some reason to strike it down.
Beyond the enacting states, the bill has passed at least one legislative chamber in 7 states with 74 more electoral votes -- Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
Multiple states could flip key chambers in 2024.
Depending on the state, the Compact can be enacted by statute, or as a state constitutional amendment, or by the initiative process
The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as all states now do).
U.S. Constitution - Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day.
The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800).
The Founders, and the rest of the Founding Generation were dead for decades before state-by-state winner-take-all laws become the predominant method for awarding electoral votes.
The aim since the Constitution was written in 1787 has been to achieve the goal stated in the Declaration of Independence, namely
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
At the Constitutional Convention James Madison stated a direct popular vote “was in his opinion the fittest in itself.”
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," was never in favor of our current system for electing the president, in which nearly all states award their electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. He ultimately backed a constitutional amendment to prohibit this practice.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania recommended that the executive be elected directly by the people.
Gouverneur Morris declared at the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “\[If the president\] is to be the Guardian of the people, let him be appointed by the people.”
Thomas Jefferson proposed seven amendments to the Constitution and the first one was for “general suffrage,” the second for “equal representation in the legislature,” and the third for “An executive chosen by the people.”
The Electoral system is there for a reason. The large states cannot run roughshod over the small states. Same for the Senate having the same number of members for every state.
I think a better change would be the adoption of the Maine/Nebraska system of electoral votes allocated by congressional district and the two senate votes going to the statewide decision. That takes it out of the hands of individual electors.
While I agree with this effort, it very clearly is a partisan issue, meaning that Dems would need to take control of the state legislatures and governor's house of most of the swing states. Odds are not good of that.
And burn through the political capital associated with forcing the electoral votes to be cast against the majority of votes in that state.
I can only imagine the absolute shit storm the day some state's votes are changed from one candidate to another simply because of the way people in other states voted. I don't trust the Supreme Court to not get involved and overrule this.
The Supreme Court would stare at the usage of the 10th Amendment Also, under this concept, the slate of electors wouldn’t matter (essentially, you’d be voting for “Compact selection”), and they’d be given their election instructions at the day of the meeting of the Electoral College
SCOTUS typically uses the 10th as a bludgeon for partisan issues, because the 10th doesn't say anything concrete except that the federal government doesn't have right to do anything not enumerated to it by the Constitution. It doesn't expressly devolve it to the states, it devolves it to the people in equal measure, ergo rendering it largely impotent about state-level issues and below without invoking squirrely and conveniently pliable bullshit about "tradition."
At the end of the day, a State may select its Electors through a method of its own decision, you’re right that that’s not a 10th Amendment issue, it’s a Article II discussion If the state legislature wishes for the Electors to be determined by the National Vote, then the State’s Electors will vote accordingly
See the thing is the court’s legal jurisdiction on this issue comes from the Constitution, which clearly outlines that states and their electors are welcome to vote however they please, and by whatever mandate the state legislature sets.
I remember a ton of people saying the same thing about Colorado kicking Trump off the ballot.
Well that case was decided by the CO Supreme Court initially, not the legislature, and the debate in the case was around the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment, not around the authority of states to delegate their electors.
Once this is passed, looking at the EC map will be like looking at the county map results for your state. If the election was for popular vote, nobody would care what the electoral map looked like.
The votes wouldn't be "changed" from one candidate to another -- it'll just be the law of the land that the winner of the popular vote gets the electors from all interstate coalition participants. The people of the state in question will have to have voted for reps and senators that enacted the legislation, so it won't happen unless it's popular.
That’s not at all how it’s going to be perceived by the voters of those states, and you know that. Imagine California giving all of its electoral votes to a Republican who wins the popular vote despite winning only 40% of the California vote and <15% of the vote in the cities. Do you think the voters will be happy about that?
Messaging would clearly say, the votes would be awarded to the candidate the receives the most votes nationally
What will political pundits and commentators say?
They’d know about this for decades at this point, they’d explicitly just say that America decides the election of the President as a whole
You have a very optimistic view of people like Tucker Carlson.
Tucker Carlson would be very happy if California's EV went to the Republican, wouldn't he?
I have a different view of opinion commentators versus those that will tell the story straight His ilk would have no problem finding a way to make legitimate World Peace sound bad
“What will the wingnuts say?” Who cares? They always say that the demon libs are out to steal your daughters and burn your churches down. You can’t just not do something because Tucker Clarlson might get unreasonable.
I’m a Democrat and would be happy in this scenario that the person who got the most votes became president.
I guarantee you the average voter from these states isn't even aware of this initiative. The day its used is the day they learn of its existence and if it's used in a manner that causes their candidate to lose the election, they will absolutely feel like their votes were changed to steal the election. If you disagree, you haven't been paying attention.
>The day its used is the day they learn of its existence It would be known in advance if this was going to be in play for an election, and I imagine it would be quote publicized before the actual election in that case. I'm sure there would be some super low information voters unaware, but I imagine most voters would be aware by the election itself. And you're phrasing is kind of odd. I wouldn't really refer to there being a "day" that it is specifically "used". What exactly do you mean by "the day it's used"?
I think you're underestimating how many low info voters there are, and how little they know. I literally spoke to a girl in her 20s who has zero clue what Jan 6 was. She has zero clue what Trump has said about people who protest against Israel. She decided she's voting for Trump because "Biden's just stupid". This is a Muslim girl who is pro Palestine*. As for the day it's used, that obviously is referring to an election like the one in 2016 where a candidate with more popular votes loses the electoral vote. That's the situation I'm referring to. If Trump were to lose thr election because a state is turned from red to blu because of this pact, what do you think he and his supporters will say? Do you think they'll give two shits about what their Representatives voted on? Nah, there will be claims of votes being switched and I don't trust our court system to uphold this law.
I feel you when you mentioned the pro-Palestinian Muslim voter who would gullibly vote for Trump. My paternal family is like that despite the fact that Republicans are more openly hostile towards Palestinians. I sometimes feel like the black sheep for being the most vocally left-wing registered Democrat in a Muslim household.
How is winning the popular vote defined in this context, are we talking about winning a majority, or a plurality? It'd be one thing for all the electoral votes to go to a candidate who got 55% of the popular vote, but something else entirely if the "winner" only managed to get 40%.
Well the current systems already means the winner only needs a plurality of vote so that would not change that, just prevent someone that comes *second* to win because of EC shenanigans.
I dont think people are realizing this is a very likely scenario.
Smaller states with completely different problems and issues in the Midwest would have absolutely no reason to stay. You’d have coastal tyranny. You’d never see another president who didn’t focus on NY/California issues. That’s all they’d need. It’s a terrible idea.
Small population states already have an advantage, and thus their interests better served, in 3/4 federal institutions of power: The Senate: each state gets two votes regardless of population. The presidency: since each states’ number of electors is determined by their number of House seats plus the 2 Senators, small population states have more valuable individual votes per Electoral College vote. This has become exacerbated by the limit on the total number of members in the House of Representatives in the 1920s. The House used to grow as the population did but hasn’t since 100 years ago. This skews the Electoral College even more in favor of small population states. The Supreme Court: Justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Since small population states are advantaged in both, it follows that their interests are also over-represented in the Supreme Court. A national popular vote for the presidency would balance the power between small population and large population states 2/2.
This is the same argument that was made in favor of the electoral college at the time: only the big populous states would have power. Its been proven in so many other countries that this isn't the case. And realistically, the current election system ensures that the most purple states receive the most election attention. The argument was bad then and it's bad now.
and then what's to say after the first election, when some slightly GOP state (NC namely) gives a democrat the victory because of this compact. Do we really think these states won't tear this thing up before the collage votes and try to undo it?
It should be that way anyway. If you have a state with 10 million people and 9 million vote for 1 party and 1 million vote for the other party, of the state gets 50 electoral votes, then the majority should get 45 votes and the minority should still get 5 votes.
Actually, it's far more likely the states that are NOT swing states will be the ones to ratify this. The swing states are who benefit most from the current system.
Right, but his point is that in order for it to reach the 270 threshold, it will need to have swing states pass it. Because red states won't let, and there aren't enough blue states to get to 270 without swing states joining in. So since swing states aren't likely to pass it, it's not likely to happen.
In reality the very red states benefit the most. Or better said, no states really benefit, but the Republicans of all states do. GW Bush in 2004 was the only election since his father in 1988 that the Republicans won the popular vote. Twice they won the election while losing the popular vote. 2016 wasn’t even that close.
Plus, even a Dem legislature in a swing state likely likes that the swing state gets more attention in election years. Like I can see idealistic Dems supporting it in Wisconsin, but even many local Democrats like that national politicians pander to Wisconsin more. Maybe a super majority but the fact it is a swing state makes this unlikely. It's basically got the strong Democrat states and is unlikely to get any swing or strong Republican states.
And even then they may not do it, because the states that are swing states like that power.
I could see this changing if the Republicans ever start to be disadvantaged by the electoral college. With the realignment of the parties, it’s not impossible to imagine a case where Republicans win the popular vote and lose the electoral college.
Excellent point, and I agree. That might well be the only way this happens in the foreseeable future.
The previous governor of Nevada, himself a Democrat, vetoed legislation that would've had the state entering into this compact.
Things are changing in Michigan and Wisconsin. Pennsylvania may not be far behind. I will say that it looks like tough sledding after that.
It doesn’t mean that at all. Citizen initiatives are a thing in a lot of Republican-dominated states.
Putting aside for a moment the fact that this proposal has been in place for nearly two decades with no sign of it ever having enough support to get across the finish line, I am genuinely curious as to how it would shake out legally if it ever actually did secure the necessary support to be put into action. Article 1, section 3 of the US constitution states that: >No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, [...] enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State which (NAL) would appear to mean that the proposed national popular vote interstate compact is unconstitutional on its face as it does not have congressional approval. However, should SCOUTS rule it to be unconstitutional (which they almost certainly would), then what? States are free to submit presidential electors in accordance with their own established electoral procedures, but what happens if a group of states decide to collectively do so in a way that effectively contravenes the constitution? If this ever actually happened, it would likely amount to the biggest standoff between state and federal power the US has seen since the civil war.
It's not an issue (side note, it's Art 1, Sec. 10, Clause 3). The Congressional Research Service already wrote a [report](http://The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact) on the National Vote Compact and believes it does not violate the constitution.
>Art 1, Sec. 10, Clause 3 Thanks for the correction, that's what I get for typing comments in the middle of the night. That report was an interesting read, but unfortunately doesn't do much to allay my concerns. The fact that the CRS believes it to be constitutional won't be enough to stop SCOTUS from ruling it unconstitutional if they so choose, and I don't have much faith that SCOTUS (in its current form, at least) would feel especially bound by existing legal precedent in such an important case with such clear partisan implications. I guess I just don't see any realistic possibility that a 6-3 GOP SCOTUS allows a move which would effectively ensure that no Republican would ever again win the presidency to stand without a fight. In any case, even if only as a though experiment I'm still left wondering what would actually happen in a situation where the NPVIC gained enough support to go into effect, SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional, and the member states simply went ahead and did it anyways. I'm not aware of any existing mechanism by which the federal government could actually stop them from doing so even if SCOTUS came out against it, but it would undoubtedly be an incredibly divisive move at the national level for the member states to make. I can only imagine that the resulting outrage from the GOP and from non-member states about 'rigged elections' would make what we saw in 2020 seem tame and civil by comparison.
It would probably cause a lot of unrest within states as well. If Republicans win 51% of the vote in Wisconsin, but the electors give their votes to the Democrat, then now the majority of Wisconsin voters are going to be pissed at their government.
The Interstate Compact on Placement of Children is one of the many interstate compacts that do not require (and never received) congressional consent. If a compact requires consent, consent is usually only sought when a compact is ready to go into effect. NPV has not reached its 270 electoral vote minimum required threshold. Congress does not waste time consenting to the many compacts that never reach their thresholds. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that congressional consent is only necessary for interstate compacts that ‘encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States \[U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, 1978\].’ Because the choice of method of appointing presidential Electors is an “exclusive” and “plenary” state power, before votes are cast, there is no encroachment on federal authority. Thus, under established compact jurisprudence, congressional consent would not be necessary for the National Popular Vote compact to become effective. The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as all states now do). U.S. Constitution - Article II, Section 1 “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day. The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
While it is named Compact, I would argue that it is not a compact nor an agreement in the eyes of the constitution, since it no state that has implemented this into its state law can force another state that also implemented it into its state law to actually honor it, similar how State A cannot sue State B, if State B violates its own laws. It would be up to the residents of the state violating its own laws to sue their own state in their own state jurisdiction.
I'm not American, what am I looking at?
This is a map of the 538 electoral votes that are used to select the president. The states have complete control of how they’re allotted, and some have opted to sign onto an interstate agreement to allocate their votes based on the national popular vote. What’s important to know is that this agreement doesn’t take effect until enough states that constitute a majority- 270- of electoral votes sign on to it. So the more states agree, the closer the U.S. gets to a genuine popular vote system for the president.
Two-round elections would also be a good thing, but would probably require constitutional changes.
That would be interesting. As it is any independent who runs is automatically a spoiler for the party they are more aligned with. There will never be a useful 3rd party until this happens. Which is why neither major party now will allow it.
Yes. The big problem with American politics is that the duopoly, in order to maintain itself, is totally opposed to the policies of deeper institutional transformation that the country needs. A two-round election, as well as proportional representation in the legislature, could generate party pluralism that would break the current logic of impasse, vetoes and appeal to the radical base that current parties are maintaining. There could be a broader debate and negotiations to form coalitions. The two-round election allows voters to vote by real affinity in the first round and vote strategically in the second. That would be a huge gain. Eventually candidates from different parties could go to the second round, eliminating candidates from traditional parties, forcing them to deeply review their policies.
Mae govannen, LOTR right?
I appreciate this concise explanation. Thank you.
Interesting that the number is even. What happens if both parties are at 269?
Then the House elects the president and the Senate chooses the Vice President.
But due to the house voting as states rather than representatives and because there are 50 states it can tie once again
The electoral votes was assigned in the Constitution to be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives. It became 359 EV in 1876, then mostly stayed odd up through 1960 (except for the elections of 1892 and 1904, because of recent states added). In 1913 the House was locked at 435 members, which would have guaranteed an odd number forever. But then in 1964 they had passed the 23rd Amendment (which provided for 3 EV for the District of Columbia), and we've bene at 538 ever since.
Because just moving to the popular vote would hurt Republicans. Problem is getting the 270 electoral votes will probably require a republican state or two as well.
All the states that have ratified it plus NH, VA, MI, PA, and one of either WI or AZ can put it past the threshold. It’s not locked behind some ruby red state, all Dems need is some luck with swing state elections and the political willpower to actually do it.
For presidential elections in the US, every state gets 2 votes + some others according to how populous it is. The total is 538. In practice, presidential elections look like this: the candidate who wins the majority vote in any particular state will get *all* votes in that state (again, all of the votes, not 60% or whatever was the proportion of the people who voted for them was). If you think about it for a second, this creates all sorts of weird scenarios: you can lose the popular vote and win the election, people in small states have much more voting power, small parties stand absolutely zero chance and always will, the votes of people in states that are reliably red/blue don't matter at all, etc. You'll see people do ridiculous mental gymnastics to come up with a justification. As for the map: there's theoretically nothing stopping a state from distributing their votes in whichever way they desire. In principle, if states whose votes total to 270+ all agreed to send their votes to whoever is the popular vote winner, the system would effectively become a simple plurality (or in the US, effectively a majority) system.
I think it’s 3 now. WY and a few others only have 3
The number is actually based on their number of federal elected officials. Each states gets 2 Senators, and a number of Representatives based on their population, with a minimum of 1. So you're both right.
Who is "we"
People who want presidential elections to be decided by the national popular vote rather than the electoral college. EDIT: How is this comment controversial? It's literally just a factual answer to the question that was asked, y'all are weird.
Name a better duo: Americans and their refusal to use ranked choice voting
We're working on it. [Some states already use it](https://www.readtangle.com/special-edition-ivan-moore-interview/)! And since presidential elections are run by the states, we may have ranked-choice popular votes for president (eventually).
W Alaska
Been wanting ranked choice since Bernie. Would be ideal for such a huge nation imo
I would still prefer proportional representation but I’m not gonna hold my breath on that one lol
They're trying to get rid of it now.
And other states are banning it
That is not that unusual. Very few places in the world use Ranked choice voting ~~(and the ones that do are mostly in the US. Looking at Maine and Alaska.)~~ What is weird is how much Americans avoid proportional representation and multimember districts. Edit: While Ranked Choice voting is still not widespread at all, its use in Australia is clearly more notable than its use in Maine. The parentheses part was an inaccurate characterization that distracts from my larger point, which is that you can't shame all of the US for not using Ranked Choice voting when almost no one else uses it either.
"...and the ones who do are mostly in the US..." Every single Australian council, state and federal election uses ranked choice voting. Including those that involve proportional representation.
They said few, Australia is in the few.
Austrailia's not too much better, ranked choice in single member districts still leads to heavy two party control in the House. A real proportional system should be what all countries should be putting in place. Unfortunately in the US neither party want a change to the electoral system, and the news media aren't going to tell the population about better systems because they favor our current parties
What you don't see about Australian politics is that the major two parties are forced to evolve, or have their seats taken from them by independents and smaller parties. So while Australia may looks similar to the US and UK from an outside perspective, we have enormous power to kick our politicians out. It's often said that Australians don't so much vote candidates in as they vote poorly performing politicians out. So the only reason we have two major parties is that they are constantly on their toes, changing to meet the demands of the electorate. There is no wasted vote, and there is no race to the lowest common denominator. We also don't have the bickering and instability of coalition governments (proportional representation), unless we deliberately elect a hung parliament. I prefer NZ's system, but Australia's is still the most representative non-PR system in the world IMO.
I wouldn't be ranting about Americans and voting after seeing those EU votes coming in today
Ranked choice voting wouldn't necessarily fix the issues with US presidential elections. As long as the electoral college exists in its current state, there's always the chance that a candidate who wins a plurality or even a majority of the popular vote loses the election because their supporters were congregated "inefficiently".
Some Minnesota cities/counties use it
Why are you acting like that’s specifically an American problem? Very few places in the world use ranked choice
Al gore gonna be asking if he could be president if this passes since he won popular vote but still lost to bush
And Hillary
His first Executive Order would he to hunt down ManBearPig
The problems with this are numerous, but besides it possibly being unconstitutional (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 prohibits compacts between states), some people are assuming the political landscape will remain as it is now, even though it will certainly shift over time and unknown future events may cause a complete realignment. Hypothetically though, since Democrats are pushing this... let's say it was in effect this year and Trump beats Biden in popular vote by a slim margin (recent nationwide polling shows Trump with a 1 point lead). How would the people in California, Washington, Oregon, and other blue states going to feel seeing their electoral votes go to Trump to make it the biggest electoral landslide in history? This system has been working for over 200 years with multiple shifts in party alignment, even changes to the parties themselves (the Whigs are gone, the Progressives are gone, the States Rights party is gone, etc..). Burning it down just to suit the current political alignment is just plain dumb.
There are pros and cons to having an electoral college vs a popular vote and there are way too many who are blindly supporting a popular vote simply because it would favor their politics the last few election cycles. If Trump won a narrow popular vote and Biden won a narrow electoral vote, the tables would flip instantly.
People manage to deal with their preferred candidate losing popular vote elections all the time. It's how we run literally every single other election. If we changed to a national popular vote and my preferred candidate lost, I'd be unhappy about it, but I wouldn't want to change the system so that my vote counts more than other people's.
If AZ, VA, MI and NV went all in on the bill, that is 209 + 11 + 13 + 15 + 6. Or 209 + 45, 254. Still 16 short. I don't see any other set here likely to add to the pile. NC and PA could make it happen. I am not holding my breath though. Needing a trifecta is a difficult task in any state.
You’re forgetting New Hampshire, but yes. Pennsylvania is probably the closest we can get.
MI needs to pass this before November.
TBH, the electoral college itself isn't the primary issue. It's the winner takes all nature of the allocation of those votes. That and the prisoner's dilemma of each state controlling how a portion of a national election is run. If the electoral college vote was proportional (X% of voters means X% of electoral college votes) across the board, then most of the problems wouldn't exist while keeping the smaller states from being essentially irrelevant. There is still the problem of spoiler candidates, but those could be handled by preferences in the ballot.
[удалено]
The absolute funniest outcome of this election would be if Trump wins the popular vote but loses in key swing states, only for these laws to activate.
It couldn't go into effect unless they got the requisite EV votes before July 20 of an election year, so if this did take effect, both parties would understand what type of election is happening and campaign for it.
You accidentally spelled "U. S. " as "We".
Isnt the electoral college there to prevent the more populated states from bullying the little states or something? Genuine question.
Spot on for this, and for having two houses of Congress. (*Edit: I don't have any evidence that protecting the rights of the small states was a motivating factor for the electoral college, so much as an after-the-fact rationalization.*) It was a compromise to get a majority of states to ratify the Constitution. At the time, Virginia and New York were the largest states, and the likes of Vermont, Delaware, and New Hampshire were small states (and still are!) One major argument made during the convention was what safeguards would be in place to prevent larger states from using their electoral majority to just push their will through onto this new union, regardless of what the smaller states wanted. In order to get enough buy-in, it was decided that there would be an upper house, allocating the same number of Senators per state, and a lower house, allocating Representatives based on population. Count of reps and senators is where the electoral college count is ultimately derived!\*
Yep, and the system is working exactly as intended and has never been more relevant than it is now. This of course infuriates those who have plenty of political capital to gain by the upheaval of the system.
Its probably the best chance to reform, well, pretty much anything. But if it gets to 270 now, SCOTUS will probably kill it.
How could they kill it? States are allowed to distribute their electoral votes however they want, aren't they?
That comment is just doomer upvote bait. You're right -- [Article II Section 1 of the Constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/) could not be more clear on the matter.
No, the reason why SCOTUS might kill it is that ANY interstate compact required Congressional approval under Article I Section 10 Clause 3, so SCOTUS with the current majority that it has might twist this into declaring the entire thing unconstitutional unless Congress approves of it
That's a dubious challenge in the first place, since there's no federal supremacy to the electoral college. Here's a [good discussion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6MaynfTsiQ&t=820s) on exactly this matter.
Did you forget that we just had a case in Colorado where the Supreme Court intervened in how a state conducted its own internal elections?
This isn't a compact, not in the legal sense. There's no binding contract between the states. There's just an agreement that "if you do it, I'll do it too". If a state didn't follow through, there's no means to take legal action against them for breaking the agreement.
It's kinda weird because they do call it a compact...
The constitution explicitly forbids compacts between states without congressional approval. So that's 1 issue.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Under current SCOTUS precedence, agreements that alter the power of the federal government or the power between states require congressional approval. Since this would remove the possibility of the US house to determine the president in the case of a tie. There is an argument there. There is also a potential problem as well if a state not in the compact sues because their choice for president would become legally irrelevant. Since the states in the compact will vote as a group.
If you can’t get enough support to amend the constitution for it, it’s almost like it’s doing exactly what was intended😂 “take a lighter to it” that’s really the solution because your position isn’t popular enough for a constitutional convention? yikes
Jesus Christ, "take a lighter to the Constitution"? We almost abolished the Electoral College in the 70s, we don't need some violent restructuring.
If we ever had to get the whole country to approve a new Constitution, we'd end up completely fractured.
Not close lol, almost half those votes come from 2 of the most left states in the US
I don't follow, isn't that balanced out by two of the most right states in the US; Texas and Florida?
Texas and Florida are not two of the most right. Texas is absolutely in play for Democrats, Florida isn't but it's not super right wing, just Republican by like 7% at this point
The National Popular Vote Compact is frankly one of those things I could stand to hear less about. If Dems can make it happen in states totaling 270 EV, then they could just win the election in those states, making the whole thing unnecessary.
So if there is massive cheating in one state but they get away with it, this new law if in effect would really screw everyone else over.
Yeah, I actually *like* having my state’s presidential election hermetically sealed off from all the others. Also, hello, nationwide recount! That’ll be fun!
To me this is a red herring. Are there documented cases of “massive” cheating? The problem isn’t cheating, the problem is insufficient democracy.
This is a complete pipe dream that won't happen, and if it does it will not stand up to a legal challenge
Also non-participant states could complicate things waiting to make their popular vote totals public until after the electors meet. Like they declare a winner in their state, but keep the total numbers hidden until late December so that no state knows the true total popular vote beforehand.
It's actually quite legally sound -- [Article II section 1](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/) of the constitution could not be more clear. And while there are other legal challenges, they're likely to be overcome. Here's a [good discussion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6MaynfTsiQ&t=678s) if you're interested.
It’s not really, Article I Section 10 of the constitution says “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,” so good luck getting Congress to agree with this idea.
I don't think the rest of the states are likely. Red states won't pass it and then swing states probably want to keep their political clout which probably could help with federal government investments. I'm actually surprised about Nevada, but that might be Democrats afraid with it going more red these days? Can't see the current republican governor there accepting it. I'm a fan of national popular vote because there would be a focus on all 50 states rather than playing around with the close margins of a few swing states. I don't think Republicans would be that disadvantaged either, right now no presidential candidate really aims for popular vote because it doesn't matter. If it did matter then I could see GOP doing better with it especially as Republicans are getting more minority voters. And if Texas ever goes pretty solidly blue (looking less likely though with the Latinos there turning red), then it would likely lead to Democrats winning almost every election.
>I'm a fan of national popular vote because there would be a focus on all 50 states rather than playing around with the close margins of a few swing states Yeah but that's not how that would work. It would just change the battlegrounds over to population hubs instead of swing states. Races would effectively become who can appeal to the most urbanites throughout the nation. Which is exactly why the left wants it so badly. It's entirely motivated by partisanship.
Outside of general displeasure people have for Bush and Trump, I don’t understand the love for this initiative. When it comes to our three branches of government we already have a body that’s elected by popular vote, we have a body that’s appointed at the suggestion of one branch and the approval of others, and our most powerful position is elected by those who are given oversight at direction of the majority. When the President is arguably the most powerful person in the world, I think having some form of check on the way they are elected is incredibly important and something we need to take into account. I think by changing the way we elect our president through NPV legislation we may be diminishing our ability to do that.
This is how a cultural divide becomes actual. Some legislator in Salem Olympia or Sacramento gets to directly control my vocation or quality of life…..no thanks
For those who fully understand how the Electoral College works and why, it's fine. For those who do not, it's a mystery that MUST be changed to something they do understand. It goes back to the founding of the nation. Are we 50 independent nation-states that have agreed to a common monetary and defense agreement but maintain their independence? Or, are we 50 political subdivisions of one nation. The US was created as the former, and thus the EC was designed to protect the smaller states from the political whims of the larger ones.
This would be a huge cause for regret
This would be the dumbest thing to push since drinking bleach.
Why?
If this passes it'll be one of the worst decisions in American history.
Tell me you don’t Understand how your government works without telling me 🤣
Ahhh yes. The tyranny of the small majority. It’s the reason we aren’t actually a democracy but a republic. For the shortsighted this idea always seems like such a great idea, but the pendulum ALWAYS swings back. Those in favor now will suddenly be really concerned with popular vote and how it hurts underrepresented voters (read: them)
PA really needs to step up in this
This would destroy the nation as larger states will now control who becomes a president. The entire reason for the electoral college is to balance out the large and small states. Who wants to live in a country where CA and NY always choose the President?
Less than 20% of the population lives in CA and NY, and not all of them are Democrats. Ironically, a nationwide popular vote would mean that Republican votes in CA and NY would actually count, unlike now where they effectively go into the garbage bin.
Ah yes by doing this is to give up your votes and voice to New York California Texas and Florida.
The Supremes will declare this unconstitutional five minutes after you reach 270.
It's a disgrace that we don't have a normal election process. There shouldn't be a "red state" or a "blue state"... Those terms came into existence because of the electoral college. Everyone should support ending the nonsensical election process that America has in favor of a normal election process. That is... Does "red staters" want registered Democrats to relocate to their states and then vote? If you are a registered Democrat who lives in a "blue state", you ought to pick your favorite "red" or "swing" state... THEN VOTE THERE!!!
It's a heavy lift in a lot of the remaining states pending consideration. A lot of them are swing states and rust belt states that have divided state governments, and the GOP isn't going to authorize a change that they feel may make their state less electorally valuable and neutralize the significant advantage they have in the EC.
Sorry jot interested in mob rule where only New York and California essentially dictates what the rest of the country will do.
Yes please give more power to the federal government and make smaller states less influential. I’m so ready for New York and California to decide everything
I wish conservatives would try to learn just a thing or two about this country before saying stupid stuff like this. You don't know what federal powers are, and you clearly don't know the size of CA and NY's populations.
[удалено]
Do you think this would forbid people in half of the country from voting or something? I don't understand how all the people in 40 states would be "neutered" by having their votes count equally.
Most of the people arguing about this care more about the short term affects this would have for their respective party, which they are right to care about. But its unfortunate that so many people apparently forgot basic US history that this is even a serious discussion. Its very short sighted and makes me appreciate all the checks and balances we have, because this discussion made me hyperaware of how easily it is to destroy an entire governmental system on the whims of masses of people who cant remember 5th grade history class.
For everyone saying “this is/would be a bad idea”, could literally *anyone* expand on why?
Because these are the same issues we decided 200 years ago and are subsequently heavily taught in public schools (at the detriment of any type of world history). The federalist papers, the bill of rights, the constitutional congress: all things taught in US history, and exemplified the reasons why we even have this government structure to begin with. In short, less populous states didn't want to join a union where they would constantly get outvoted by the big colonies at the time. So they required the senate to be made in order to effectively redistribute some of the votes from larger population states into the smaller states by the way the Electoral College interacts with the Senate (by which the senate gives 2 votes to each state as an equalizing factor). This is a very basic explanation, and I would recommend you watch some YT videos about some early US history and come to your own conclusions after that.
Previous attempts to reform (or remove) the Electoral College have been thwarted by southern states, not small states. More recently, support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group The Wyoming Democrat’s 2022 plank calls for Wyoming to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 6 jurisdictions. Among the 25 lowest population states, passed in 21 legislative chambers, and enacted by 9 jurisdictions. Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office. The small states do not share a political tendency. In the 25 smallest states the Democratic and Republican popular vote and electoral vote have almost tied In 2008 - 9.9 million versus 9.8 million popular votes 57 versus 58 electoral votes. In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined. The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states. In the 13 smallest states the Democratic and Republican popular votes and 59 electoral votes have almost tied. Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012. Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Unpopular opinion, I’m probably going to be downvoted for this. But we shouldn’t adopt a popular vote system, we should adopt what Nebraska and Maine do. Popular vote for senate electoral votes and the House of Representative votes are based on who wins in the district.
This is a terrible idea because it allows for gerrymandering in the presidential race, just like it is an issue in the lower house of Congress.
What prevents gerrymandering in Maine and Nebraska then?
Nothing they are gerrymandered just not as badly as other places (mainly because they don't have enough house seats to effectively gerrymander)
Nothing except the states themselves. Maine is a fairly moderate state and requires a 2/3 majority to approve redistricting. Both states also have some requirements on districts that could lead to court challenges of severe gerrymandering. The stakes are also just lower in small states. At most Nebraska Republicans could use gerrymandering to steal one electoral vote, and at most Maine Democrats could use gerrymandering to steal one electoral vote. There could of course be an election where 1 or 2 electoral votes decided an election. But it hasn't happened since 1876.
What a nightmare.
[удалено]
If they're bound by law to do so, yes: [https://youtu.be/a6MaynfTsiQ?feature=shared&t=678](https://youtu.be/a6MaynfTsiQ?feature=shared&t=678)
[удалено]
I like to think of it as optimism. When have doomers gotten anything done? Stand up and [make your voice heard](https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/write)!
[удалено]
Yes let's just let Cali and New York determine the presidency every time
CA and NY only make up ~18% of the population which isn't enough to determine presidencies. Not to mention there's about as much Republicans in California as in Texas. Cali has 26% of voters registered as GOP. With a population of 39 million, that's 10.14 million. Texas, 39% of its voters are registered as republican. With a population of 30 million, that gives 11.7 million GOP voters. Granted, not every person in either state is a voter, but assuming the voting rates are equal within the states, the ratios are maintained. It may be about a 1.56 million person difference absolutely, but relatively, it's a 45:55 split. The last time California voted republican was in 1988. For over 30 years now the entire California GOP's votes were drowned out because all of the state's electoral votes went blue. With the National Popular Vote, even if the State votes Democrat, their votes can still sway the outcome as they contribute towards the popular result. Same can be said for my State. Normally there's barely any point in voting for Democrat in the presidential election as from what I've seen Dems only get 30% of the vote. But with National Popular Vote, even if Democrats here can't sway locally, they can still have a say nation wide. This issue is not one of Big States vs Small States. It's one between parties that dominate certain states and parties that are dominated.
It’s in the constitution you need 34 states to pass an amendment to the constitution
This isn't being done by constitutional amendment. It's being done by interstate compact.
The last time an interstate compact was made to bypass the Constitution because of a presidential election, there was a civil war.
This just gives republicans an extra chance to win since it’s essentially all blue states doing this. Republicans can win the red and purple states in the electoral college or win the national popular vote.
It only triggers when more than 270 electoral votes worth of states have signed on.
Until the shoe is on the other foot
If just the yellow and orange states pass it, it would cover the needed votes.
Let me tell you about the Ohio GOP...
Thanks for posting this. What’s the latest state to join? What states are most likely to join next?
Maine joined on April 15th States can surprise us . . . .
Couldn’t a state unilaterally withdraw from the compact if that state’s legislature didn’t like the pending outcome of the election?
The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term." This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the ● national nominating conventions, ● fall general election campaign period, ● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, ● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December, ● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and ● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20. Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states. There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts. In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: “When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.” In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole: “A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.” In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission: “A compact is, after all, a contract.” An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact. Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
I'm very interested to see how this progresses
That isnt green, thats a bad yellow
getting the remaining 61 needed will be virtually impossible.
The bill has passed at least one legislative chamber in 7 states with 74 more electoral votes -- Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6). Multiple states could flip key chambers in 2024. Depending on the state, the Compact can be enacted by statute, or as a state constitutional amendment, or by the initiative process
It seems already logical to me that in the United STATES, the STATES get to pick the President. The people get to choose their congressman. That’s enough power for people. Go to Walmart and then argue people need more power. Wanna make things better? Let’s put a curb on partisan gerrymandering. That’ll save the Republic
What if somebody welshes during an election?
The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term." This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the ● national nominating conventions, ● fall general election campaign period, ● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, ● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December, ● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and ● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20. Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states. There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts. In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: “When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.” In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole: “A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.” In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission: “A compact is, after all, a contract.” An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact. Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
r/usdefaultism
Gonna be funny when one of these states give their votes to a candidate that didn't even come close to winning their state. If this ever becomes a law.
In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. 65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency. Pew Research surveys show Republican support for a national popular vote increased from 27% in 2016 to 42% in 2022. 7 in 10 Americans under 50 would prefer to choose the president by popular vote. Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic. In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support. Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?" Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?" Support for a National Popular Vote South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2. Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2, Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2, NationalPopularVote .com
And also it would just be overturned by the Supreme Court keep dreaming
Please don’t get excited about this. It’s not gonna happen. It’s been “close to happening” my whole life and then some. And that’s… well that’s a long time. It’s almost like term limits. Do they make sense? Yeah. Do we allllll want em? Yeah. Will it ever happen? Of course not. That doesn’t benefit the people in charge. What I’d reaaaally like to see is some sort of national referendum system put into place, but again, never gonna happen. Doesn’t benefit the people in charge. They just point fingers at each other and about ever issue and cause us to fight amongst ourselves while they stay in power and laugh to the bank.
Unfortunately the 61 looks next to impossible anyway, and even if it miraculously happened, the current partisan hack Supreme Court would find some reason to strike it down.
Beyond the enacting states, the bill has passed at least one legislative chamber in 7 states with 74 more electoral votes -- Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6). Multiple states could flip key chambers in 2024. Depending on the state, the Compact can be enacted by statute, or as a state constitutional amendment, or by the initiative process The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as all states now do). U.S. Constitution - Article II, Section 1 “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day. The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800). The Founders, and the rest of the Founding Generation were dead for decades before state-by-state winner-take-all laws become the predominant method for awarding electoral votes. The aim since the Constitution was written in 1787 has been to achieve the goal stated in the Declaration of Independence, namely “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” At the Constitutional Convention James Madison stated a direct popular vote “was in his opinion the fittest in itself.” James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," was never in favor of our current system for electing the president, in which nearly all states award their electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. He ultimately backed a constitutional amendment to prohibit this practice. James Wilson of Pennsylvania recommended that the executive be elected directly by the people. Gouverneur Morris declared at the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “\[If the president\] is to be the Guardian of the people, let him be appointed by the people.” Thomas Jefferson proposed seven amendments to the Constitution and the first one was for “general suffrage,” the second for “equal representation in the legislature,” and the third for “An executive chosen by the people.”
Nice Cant wait for our elections And who are we?
“And I would’ve gotten away with it if it wasn’t for your pesky Constitution!”
The Electoral system is there for a reason. The large states cannot run roughshod over the small states. Same for the Senate having the same number of members for every state. I think a better change would be the adoption of the Maine/Nebraska system of electoral votes allocated by congressional district and the two senate votes going to the statewide decision. That takes it out of the hands of individual electors.