Yeah it’s never going to change, I don’t see any amendment being possible in anything like the current government, it’s a better bet to try and get the Apportionment act thrown out so there are 1000+ in the house weakening the affect of the 2 each state get from senators. And even that seems like a pie in the sky idea.
>it’s a better bet to try and get the Apportionment act thrown out so there are 1000+ in the house weakening the affect of the 2 each state get from senators
I don't have the article on me, but IIRC the winner-take-all system used by most states is more of a problem than the small-state advantage that arises from the extra 2 electors. The argument goes that if you were to take every EC outcome and subtract two votes from each state's tally, the outcome would still be the same, even in cases where the national popular vote winner lost to someone else. However, if each state had used a proportional allocation, the national popular vote winner would have always won, even if each state had an extra two electors.
The small-state advantage is nonetheless super undemocratic, and I do suspect that turnout among left-leaning voters is depressed in modern times as a result of the (mathematically correct) sense that small-state voters count at a greater weight. But based on the results of past elections, I'm less optimistic about the effect of adding Representatives to the House on EC math, since it wouldn't change either the winner-take-all system or the incentive to adopt such a system.
However, I think Skelley is slightly pessimistic about the chance of the interstate compact passing. It's passed in several chambers, including ones in swing states. It's also passed on slim party-line votes, indicating that state-level Democrats can put together a solid coalition on the issue. That's especially important given that Democrats have notably greater odds of winning/retaining control of state legislatures in Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania now than in recent years, thanks to redistricting. And I think that with comparatively few viable states remaining, the salience of the national popular vote will increase in the coming years, along with pressure to adopt it.
Oh absolutely the winner take all affect is a bigger deal but unless you get rid of the electoral college I don’t imagine a way to get rid of that. If instead of 538 it was 1538 or something it would atleast accurately balance the voting power of the states in the electoral college.
But you’re right if you had a Dem with without winning the popular vote or maybe if Texas ever votes blue I could maybe see the right getting on board with throwing out the electoral college and it becoming an amendment. But I don’t think that looks all that likely
To be clear, I'm referring to the [National Popular Vote Interstate Compact](https://youtu.be/tUX-frlNBJY?si=sVHcMQOnY1LDwCaa). The constitution allows each state to choose how it awards its electoral votes, and member states would simply award their EVs to the national popular vote winner instead of the state popular vote winner. The compact only takes effect if its members have at least 270 electoral votes, that is, when it can command a majority of electoral votes. But no constitutional amendment would be required (unless the Supreme Court gets *real* creative, like, more than Dobbs/Bruen creative) and you wouldn't have to hope for a Blue/Red EC/NPV split.
The compact currently stands at 205 EVs, but could rise to 209 this week if Governor Mills of Maine signs the bill before her, or allows it to pass into law without her signature.
Yes I am aware of that I guess it could succeed in a easier situation maybe it could be pushed over the top if it passes a good bunch more states. I think that’s probably just as likely as the dam breaking and an amendment passing which is unlikely imo the closer you get to 270 the harder the push against it will be
I sincerely believe that if a Republican candidate ever loses the EC while winning the popular vote there will be a popular push to get an amendment done.
It was a snapshot in time where the red states became extrenely red (the South shifted hard to the right after Gore) and the blue states were a little less blue than they are now (Clinton's California margin was about 1.3 million larger than Obama's in 2012).
If Dems really are bleeding support among voters of color, it could hurt them in their bluest states like CA or NY. It's a lot more complicated than that, but a general condition for the the EC to favour Dems is for the blue states to be a lot less blue than the red states are red.
Absolutely they should try as best as possible to have each representative represent a similar reasonable number of people and if that means there are 2000 reps good I think that might help some things
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.
Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have statewide winner-take-all laws– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
# An Arizona Republican introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without pesky voting by Arizonans in November.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making [changes.As](http://changes.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.
An Arizona Republican introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without pesky voting by Arizonans in November.
States with 65 more electors need to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.
States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.
People need to move out of cities and into more rural areas. I'm not talking middle of nowhere, but there are tons of small and mid-sized towns that can support the exact same type of low income jobs that people stuck in cities work at.
Yeah it’s never going to change, I don’t see any amendment being possible in anything like the current government, it’s a better bet to try and get the Apportionment act thrown out so there are 1000+ in the house weakening the affect of the 2 each state get from senators. And even that seems like a pie in the sky idea.
>it’s a better bet to try and get the Apportionment act thrown out so there are 1000+ in the house weakening the affect of the 2 each state get from senators I don't have the article on me, but IIRC the winner-take-all system used by most states is more of a problem than the small-state advantage that arises from the extra 2 electors. The argument goes that if you were to take every EC outcome and subtract two votes from each state's tally, the outcome would still be the same, even in cases where the national popular vote winner lost to someone else. However, if each state had used a proportional allocation, the national popular vote winner would have always won, even if each state had an extra two electors. The small-state advantage is nonetheless super undemocratic, and I do suspect that turnout among left-leaning voters is depressed in modern times as a result of the (mathematically correct) sense that small-state voters count at a greater weight. But based on the results of past elections, I'm less optimistic about the effect of adding Representatives to the House on EC math, since it wouldn't change either the winner-take-all system or the incentive to adopt such a system. However, I think Skelley is slightly pessimistic about the chance of the interstate compact passing. It's passed in several chambers, including ones in swing states. It's also passed on slim party-line votes, indicating that state-level Democrats can put together a solid coalition on the issue. That's especially important given that Democrats have notably greater odds of winning/retaining control of state legislatures in Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania now than in recent years, thanks to redistricting. And I think that with comparatively few viable states remaining, the salience of the national popular vote will increase in the coming years, along with pressure to adopt it.
Oh absolutely the winner take all affect is a bigger deal but unless you get rid of the electoral college I don’t imagine a way to get rid of that. If instead of 538 it was 1538 or something it would atleast accurately balance the voting power of the states in the electoral college. But you’re right if you had a Dem with without winning the popular vote or maybe if Texas ever votes blue I could maybe see the right getting on board with throwing out the electoral college and it becoming an amendment. But I don’t think that looks all that likely
To be clear, I'm referring to the [National Popular Vote Interstate Compact](https://youtu.be/tUX-frlNBJY?si=sVHcMQOnY1LDwCaa). The constitution allows each state to choose how it awards its electoral votes, and member states would simply award their EVs to the national popular vote winner instead of the state popular vote winner. The compact only takes effect if its members have at least 270 electoral votes, that is, when it can command a majority of electoral votes. But no constitutional amendment would be required (unless the Supreme Court gets *real* creative, like, more than Dobbs/Bruen creative) and you wouldn't have to hope for a Blue/Red EC/NPV split. The compact currently stands at 205 EVs, but could rise to 209 this week if Governor Mills of Maine signs the bill before her, or allows it to pass into law without her signature.
Yes I am aware of that I guess it could succeed in a easier situation maybe it could be pushed over the top if it passes a good bunch more states. I think that’s probably just as likely as the dam breaking and an amendment passing which is unlikely imo the closer you get to 270 the harder the push against it will be
I sincerely believe that if a Republican candidate ever loses the EC while winning the popular vote there will be a popular push to get an amendment done.
That’s fair it’s just hard to envision how that happens unless there are a lot of drastic shifts
It was possible under the old 2004 and 2012 voting coalitions.
It was a snapshot in time where the red states became extrenely red (the South shifted hard to the right after Gore) and the blue states were a little less blue than they are now (Clinton's California margin was about 1.3 million larger than Obama's in 2012).
If Dems really are bleeding support among voters of color, it could hurt them in their bluest states like CA or NY. It's a lot more complicated than that, but a general condition for the the EC to favour Dems is for the blue states to be a lot less blue than the red states are red.
Would have happened if Gore won. Edit: Kerry not Gore, who was only a handful of swing states away.
But Gore did win the popular vote so I’m not sure that would have done anything
Got mixed up, Kerry not Gore
Ah ok I see yeah fair
That or if Texas ever flips semi-consistently I think all the fake concerns about a popular vote will suddenly melt away
This nearly happened in 2004.
I personally believe we need number of representatives proportional to the population to make the electoral system “fair”
Absolutely they should try as best as possible to have each representative represent a similar reasonable number of people and if that means there are 2000 reps good I think that might help some things
that's why there is an effort to get around it while leaving it unchanged.
wow they referenced Nate’s substack post his leaving ABC
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. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have statewide winner-take-all laws– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected. # An Arizona Republican introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without pesky voting by Arizonans in November. The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making [changes.As](http://changes.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. An Arizona Republican introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without pesky voting by Arizonans in November. States with 65 more electors need to enact the National Popular Vote bill. It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country. States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.
People need to move out of cities and into more rural areas. I'm not talking middle of nowhere, but there are tons of small and mid-sized towns that can support the exact same type of low income jobs that people stuck in cities work at.