Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:23 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,785

The proposed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact


Intended as a workaround for the bugs (some think them features, of course) of the Electoral College: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...rstate_Compact

There's discussion of the NPVIC starting at post 1453 here: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...833354&page=30

For further discussion here, have at it!
  #2  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:33 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Also see this earlier debate: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=811687

I think it is illegal to conclude such an agreement without the consent of Congress, per Article I section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State...."

If states spontaneously decided to appoint electors for someone other than who won the popular vote in their state, I suppose they could do that... though personally I wonder if that may run afoul of the "guarantee a republican form of government" clause of the Constitution, as having a government decide an election in opposition to the actual vote is pretty damn un-republican.

But the fact that the agreement literally is a compact is the fatal flaw here. Interstate compacts require congressional approval, period.
  #3  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:40 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Ravenman: If I understand it correctly, it's set up as a voluntary agreement. There is no enforcement mechanism. Do you think that makes any difference?
  #4  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:44 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Ravenman: If I understand it correctly, it's set up as a voluntary agreement. There is no enforcement mechanism. Do you think that makes any difference?
It's literally called an interstate compact. The Constitution literally applies limitations to interstate compacts. To claim that an interstate agreement is not an interstate agreement is entering Bill Clinton "it depends what the definition of 'is' is" level of doublespeak.

I think this is a perfectly legal -- but hokey -- thing to do IF Congress approves of it. Of course, who knows what may happen if Congress later revokes its approval of the compact!
  #5  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:48 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
It's literally called an interstate compact. The Constitution literally applies limitations to interstate compacts. To claim that an interstate agreement is not an interstate agreement is entering Bill Clinton "it depends what the definition of 'is' is" level of doublespeak.

I think this is a perfectly legal -- but hokey -- thing to do IF Congress approves of it. Of course, who knows what may happen if Congress later revokes its approval of the compact!
OK, so would your average citizen have standing to take this to the SCOTUS? I would think so, but I'm not certain. You already don't have any guarantees that if you vote for Mr. X, your state won't give all it's EC votes to Ms. Y.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-03-2018 at 08:48 AM.
  #6  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:49 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
OK, so would your average citizen have standing to take this to the SCOTUS? I would think so, but I'm not certain. You already don't have any guarantees that if you vote for Mr. X, your state won't give all it's EC votes to Ms. Y.
I would assume that any candidate would have standing.

ETA: any "winning candidate that loses" I mean.

Last edited by Ravenman; 01-03-2018 at 08:49 AM.
  #7  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:59 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
I'll support it. Far from a perfect solution (a "perfect" solution, IMO, would be a Constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college as well as instituting ranked-choice voting), but still better than the electoral college.
  #8  
Old 01-03-2018, 09:03 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Interstate compacts require congressional approval, period.
True.
Quote:
But the fact that the agreement literally is a compact is the fatal flaw here.
I think that's overstating it. Sure, the compact could not take effect without Congressional approval. But when we're talking about a change to the workings of our elections that would otherwise require 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress plus ratification by 38 state legislatures, many of which would be adamantly against such a change, getting the agreement of the remaining needed states for the Compact plus simple majorities of both houses of Congress is a much easier lift.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 01-03-2018 at 09:03 AM.
  #9  
Old 01-03-2018, 09:09 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I would assume that any candidate would have standing.

ETA: any "winning candidate that loses" I mean.
IF Congress approves the Compact, it's hard to see how such a candidate would have a leg to stand on. The Constitution gives states a free hand in determining how their electors are to be chosen.
  #10  
Old 01-03-2018, 09:10 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,463
I think it would promote more faithless electors. It would get REALLY interesting if faithless electors ever threw an election to the House.
  #11  
Old 01-03-2018, 09:20 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
IF Congress approves the Compact, it's hard to see how such a candidate would have a leg to stand on.
I agree; I was talking about the scenario in which states sign up and execute the compact without the approval of Congress. A winning/losing candidate would surely have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the compact that leads to the selection of electors.
  #12  
Old 01-03-2018, 09:30 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think it would promote more faithless electors. It would get REALLY interesting if faithless electors ever threw an election to the House.
And one thing to keep in mind in that scenario is that it isn't 'one Congresscritter, one vote.' Each state delegation gets one vote, and a majority of the state delegations is needed for a win.
  #13  
Old 01-03-2018, 09:33 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I agree; I was talking about the scenario in which states sign up and execute the compact without the approval of Congress. A winning/losing candidate would surely have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the compact that leads to the selection of electors.
Agreed.
  #14  
Old 01-03-2018, 10:16 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
Intended as a workaround for the bugs (some think them features, of course) of the Electoral College: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...rstate_Compact

There's discussion of the NPVIC starting at post 1453 here: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...833354&page=30

For further discussion here, have at it!
The NPVIC seems to be a convoluted way to allow a nationwide popular vote for POTUS. As I understand it, that is the ultimate goal of the NPVIC supporters.

In Illinois, under the NPVIC (Public Act 095-0714 - http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publ...?Name=095-0714), if Illinois voters chose Candidate A as President, but the national popular vote choses Candidate B, the chief election official of each member state shall designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the "national popular vote winner."

It will no longer matter what the voters of Illinois had decided. Assuming California, or Texas, or Florida, or New York (largest numbers of EC electors) overwhelmingly (let's say 10 million votes in an otherwise close national vote) voted for Candidate B, the voters in that state will superceed the will of the voters in Illinois. Thanks for taking the time to vote, unfortunately your votes no longer matter. But please remember to vote again next election.

The first time the NPVIC is used to decide an election, the election process and it's results are going to be fast tracked to the Supreme Court. Will the Supremes decide that existing federal(s) do not apply? Or will they decide that an interstate agreement doesn't carry the legal weight that the "Lets have a national popular vote for President" folks wish it did?

It would be just as time consuming to push for state-by-state legislation allowing the federal government to hold a national election for electing a President. Since that is the ultimate goal. IMHO, of course.
  #15  
Old 01-03-2018, 10:50 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,122

NPVIC -- Just Say No


I refer honorable guests and members to the answer I gave some moments ago (in #1456). And note that past performance (never having a close national vote) is not indicative of future results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think it would promote more faithless electors. It would get REALLY interesting if faithless electors ever threw an election to the House.
This, and various other possible mischiefs, would be increased threats. Especially in the present 'Cheating is better than letting Party XXX win' climate.
  #16  
Old 01-03-2018, 10:53 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,200
Interesting proposal, I must say.
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #17  
Old 01-03-2018, 10:53 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
The NPVIC seems to be a convoluted way to allow a nationwide popular vote for POTUS. As I understand it, that is the ultimate goal of the NPVIC supporters.

In Illinois, under the NPVIC (Public Act 095-0714 - http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publ...?Name=095-0714), if Illinois voters chose Candidate A as President, but the national popular vote choses Candidate B, the chief election official of each member state shall designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the "national popular vote winner."

It will no longer matter what the voters of Illinois had decided. Assuming California, or Texas, or Florida, or New York (largest numbers of EC electors) overwhelmingly (let's say 10 million votes in an otherwise close national vote) voted for Candidate B, the voters in that state will superceed the will of the voters in Illinois. Thanks for taking the time to vote, unfortunately your votes no longer matter. But please remember to vote again next election.

The first time the NPVIC is used to decide an election, the election process and it's results are going to be fast tracked to the Supreme Court. Will the Supremes decide that existing federal(s) do not apply? Or will they decide that an interstate agreement doesn't carry the legal weight that the "Lets have a national popular vote for President" folks wish it did?

It would be just as time consuming to push for state-by-state legislation allowing the federal government to hold a national election for electing a President. Since that is the ultimate goal. IMHO, of course.
On the contrary, every voter's influence would be exactly the same -- 1 vote. A voter in Illinois would have just as much influence as a voter from Texas or California or Rhode Island, and vice versa. Every single American would have the exact same influence on who becomes President in terms of voting power. Right now, it's heavily skewed towards swing states and small states -- a voter in Iowa has much, much more influence on who becomes President than a voter in California.
  #18  
Old 01-03-2018, 10:56 AM
Anny Middon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,090
If I understand correctly, and I'm not certain I do, the EC is set up in the US Constitution, but states determine how to allocate their EC votes.

What if, rather than entering the NPVIC, there was a huge push to get states to allocate EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in their state. ISTM this would be a fairly easy sell -- most voters have lived through a situation where their vote for POTUS really didn't mean anything since their state's EC votes went to another candidate. If enough states did this, there would be only a small chance that the EC wouldn't reflect the popular vote. If that chance essentially went to 0, I could see a nonpartisan push to amend he Constitution to eliminate the EC as being superfluous and costly.
  #19  
Old 01-03-2018, 10:59 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
On the contrary, every voter's influence would be exactly the same -- 1 vote. A voter in Illinois would have just as much influence as a voter from Texas or California or Rhode Island, and vice versa. Every single American would have the exact same influence on who becomes President in terms of voting power. Right now, it's heavily skewed towards swing states and small states -- a voter in Iowa has much, much more influence on who becomes President than a voter in California.
Since states exist and the constitution is an agreement between states I donít see the problem with differences between states or those who reside in them.
  #20  
Old 01-03-2018, 11:15 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Since states exist and the constitution is an agreement between states I donít see the problem with differences between states or those who reside in them.
I do, especially since the current system (like many others) just so happens to benefit white voters, who are far more likely than non-white voters to live in small states and thus have greater voting influence per capita for the country at large. And just on the principle that one-man = one-vote should be more important (far, far more important, IMO) than concerns about the influence or "rights" of states.
  #21  
Old 01-03-2018, 11:17 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
If I understand correctly, and I'm not certain I do, the EC is set up in the US Constitution, but states determine how to allocate their EC votes.

What if, rather than entering the NPVIC, there was a huge push to get states to allocate EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in their state. ISTM this would be a fairly easy sell -- most voters have lived through a situation where their vote for POTUS really didn't mean anything since their state's EC votes went to another candidate. If enough states did this, there would be only a small chance that the EC wouldn't reflect the popular vote. If that chance essentially went to 0, I could see a nonpartisan push to amend he Constitution to eliminate the EC as being superfluous and costly.
The thing is that EVs include Senate representation. This comparatively overvalues small states, and undervalues big states. Just because you split the EVs proportionally according to each state, the overvaluation of small states would still exist.

So you probably end up with more or less the same result if everyone did it that way. or to put it a different way...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...nd-still-lost/
  #22  
Old 01-03-2018, 11:19 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,282
Coupla things:
1. There are already a bunch of interstate compacts. Here's some.
2. This isn't actually one. Each state is acting individually.
3. It isn't a proposal anymore - it's already a long way toward enactment. Over 30% of the EC is represented in states that have already passed it, and bills are pending for 25% more. As soon as the total breaks 50%, we have a national popular vote, like a civilized democracy.
  #23  
Old 01-03-2018, 11:28 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Since each state has the authority to allocate their EVs as they see fit, it's hard to see (though IANAL) any argument that this isn't Constitutional. There's no actual interstate agreement or compact (whatever the name used) -- it's individual states deciding how to allocate their EVs, even if that decision is partially based on the actions of other states.

If I say "I'm going to order chocolate unless Bob orders vanilla", I don't have an agreement or compact about ice cream with Bob... I'm just deciding, on my own, what flavor to choose, and that decision is based on Bob's actions. Bob doesn't even have to know about my decision-making process.
  #24  
Old 01-03-2018, 11:30 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
On the contrary, every voter's influence would be exactly the same -- 1 vote. A voter in Illinois would have just as much influence as a voter from Texas or California or Rhode Island, and vice versa. Every single American would have the exact same influence on who becomes President in terms of voting power. Right now, it's heavily skewed towards swing states and small states -- a voter in Iowa has much, much more influence on who becomes President than a voter in California.
What problem are you actually trying to fix? Do you want an actual nationwide popular vote for President, or do you want to modify the EC? It would be just as time consuming to push for state-by-state legislation allowing the federal government to hold a national election for electing a President.
  #25  
Old 01-03-2018, 11:36 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,724
I think the part that makes it a compact is that it doesn't go into effect until it's passed by a bunch of states. It's fine for a state to say "We'll assign our electoral votes according to the nationwide popular vote", but it requires Congressional approval to say "we'll assign our electoral votes according to the nationwide popular vote, as long as enough other states also do the same thing".

Quote:
Quoth Anny Middon:

What if, rather than entering the NPVIC, there was a huge push to get states to allocate EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in their state. ISTM this would be a fairly easy sell -- most voters have lived through a situation where their vote for POTUS really didn't mean anything since their state's EC votes went to another candidate. If enough states did this, there would be only a small chance that the EC wouldn't reflect the popular vote. If that chance essentially went to 0, I could see a nonpartisan push to amend he Constitution to eliminate the EC as being superfluous and costly.
This could also be done, but would only really work if everyone, all 50 states, implemented it at once. When you're in an environment where other states assign their electors winner-takes-all, if you start assigning yours proportionately, then it just dilutes your influence.
  #26  
Old 01-03-2018, 11:38 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
What problem are you actually trying to fix? Do you want an actual nationwide popular vote for President, or do you want to modify the EC? It would be just as time consuming to push for state-by-state legislation allowing the federal government to hold a national election for electing a President.
I want a nationwide popular vote. This proposal doesn't do that exactly, but it pushes us much closer towards that goal, and effectively results in every voter, regardless of what state they live in, having the same influence on who becomes President. Thus I support this proposal over the status quo, even if my ultimate preference would be a Constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College and instituting a national popular vote.
  #27  
Old 01-03-2018, 11:40 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,724
Quote:
Quoth doorhinge:

What problem are you actually trying to fix? Do you want an actual nationwide popular vote for President, or do you want to modify the EC? It would be just as time consuming to push for state-by-state legislation allowing the federal government to hold a national election for electing a President.
Both, of course. We want an actual nationwide popular vote for President, and the easiest way to get that is through this compact. State-by-state legislation wouldn't allow the federal government to hold a national election, and I'm not sure where you get the idea that it would: That would take a constitutional amendment, which is really difficult.
  #28  
Old 01-03-2018, 11:42 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
If I understand correctly, and I'm not certain I do, the EC is set up in the US Constitution, but states determine how to allocate their EC votes.

What if, rather than entering the NPVIC, there was a huge push to get states to allocate EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in their state. ISTM this would be a fairly easy sell -- most voters have lived through a situation where their vote for POTUS really didn't mean anything since their state's EC votes went to another candidate. If enough states did this, there would be only a small chance that the EC wouldn't reflect the popular vote. If that chance essentially went to 0, I could see a nonpartisan push to amend he Constitution to eliminate the EC as being superfluous and costly.
States won't do that, at least not one-at-a-time, because they'll get essentially ignored by the major party campaigns. Imagine if you're a swing state today. You get candidate visits, campaign spending, advertising dollars all flowing into your state. If you pass a law that says, rather than winner-take-all we're going to apportion our EC votes by popular vote share, all that goes away. The candidates aren't going to come visit, they're not going to spend advertising dollars, they're not going to hire campaign workers in your state, at least, not like they used to.

Now, on the flip side, imagine you're a strongly partisan state, either red or blue. Today, you don't get many visits or much campaign spending, but you're a reliable X EC votes for your preferred candidate. If you decide to apportion them by popular vote, you've just deprived your candidate of those sure-fire votes. Imagine the disaster it would be for Democrats if California did this. Instead of 55 EC votes for HRC, Trump would have received 17 of California's EC votes.

Actually, I've got an idea for a voter initiative ... gotta run.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-03-2018 at 11:42 AM.
  #29  
Old 01-03-2018, 11:47 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,122
I'm very impressed with my political foresight.
* During the 2016 campaign I kept insisting that Trump was hoping to lose. This has been vividly confirmed.
* I begged the Democrats to replace Clinton with Biden; Dopers scoffed that I didn't know how primaries work. We now know that the head of the DNC was pursuing the same idea.
* I insisted that Pennsylvania was the key swing state. Dopers laughed almost unanimously: PA was a lock for the Dems. It seems the Clinton campaign agreed with Dopers. How'd that work out for all y'all?

And I tell you now that if NPVIC goes into effect there is a slight but non-zero chance it will result in a tragedy that will dwarf the electoral mischief in 2000. Go ahead ó Laugh at me once more.

Let's be clear. I do not oppose the idea of popular vote for President. I oppose this bastardized form, which will retain the worst features of EC, AND the bad features of popular vote, AND give great opportunity for mischief and litigation.
  #30  
Old 01-03-2018, 11:57 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I think the part that makes it a compact is that it doesn't go into effect until it's passed by a bunch of states. It's fine for a state to say "We'll assign our electoral votes according to the nationwide popular vote", but it requires Congressional approval to say "we'll assign our electoral votes according to the nationwide popular vote, as long as enough other states also do the same thing".


This could also be done, but would only really work if everyone, all 50 states, implemented it at once. When you're in an environment where other states assign their electors winner-takes-all, if you start assigning yours proportionately, then it just dilutes your influence.
Also, that leads to the discussion of how do you proportion the EVs -- because using Congressional Districts as happens today in ME and NE, that leads to vulnerability to gerrymandering and urban packing. And with the lesser-population states madatorily fixed at 3 EVs (and thus forced to remain WTA under the ME/NE system) you will lack granularity at the lower end, still multiplying their relative weight.



Myself, I favor an actual honest-to-goodness Popular Vote, or else a distributed EV so long as it is protected from the gerrymander. But this sort of "cunning plan" doesn't convince me.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 01-03-2018 at 12:00 PM.
  #31  
Old 01-03-2018, 12:03 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
States won't do that, at least not one-at-a-time, because they'll get essentially ignored by the major party campaigns.
Hardly. States that are currently clinched, which is the majority of them, don't get any special attention at all. The resources go into a small handful of swing states. With a national popular vote, the candidates will go where the people are, which is everywhere, including California and Texas. Limits on time and money will send them mostly to the cities, not the rural areas, certainly, and you'll see more national TV advertising, appealing to the full spectrum of voters, and less targeted local advertising featuring local pandering. How is that not good for democracy?
  #32  
Old 01-03-2018, 12:08 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Hardly. States that are currently clinched, which is the majority of them, don't get any special attention at all. The resources go into a small handful of swing states. With a national popular vote, the candidates will go where the people are, which is everywhere, including California and Texas. Limits on time and money will send them mostly to the cities, not the rural areas, certainly, and you'll see more national TV advertising, appealing to the full spectrum of voters, and less targeted local advertising featuring local pandering. How is that not good for democracy?
I think it's GREAT for democracy, and California should, as they do with all good ideas, lead the way. Perhaps New York as well, to give us an east-coast example to follow too. Let's try it for an election or two and see how it works out.
  #33  
Old 01-03-2018, 12:12 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
though personally I wonder if that may run afoul of the "guarantee a republican form of government" clause of the Constitution, as having a government decide an election in opposition to the actual vote is pretty damn un-republican.
Thank God that would never happen in America.
  #34  
Old 01-03-2018, 12:20 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
And I tell you now that if NPVIC goes into effect there is a slight but non-zero chance it will result in a tragedy that will dwarf the electoral mischief in 2000. Go ahead ó Laugh at me once more.
Look, the EC overruling the popular vote has already given us GWB and Trump, the two worst Presidents since the antebellum era. How many more of these episodes can we take? We're well beyond 'slight but nonzero' chance of disastrous outcomes of the present system.
  #35  
Old 01-03-2018, 12:23 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think it's GREAT for democracy, and California should, as they do with all good ideas, lead the way. Perhaps New York as well, to give us an east-coast example to follow too. Let's try it for an election or two and see how it works out.
No state enacts the change until there are enough to determine the winner. What are you on about?

If you have a reasoned, non-partisan objection to going to a national popular vote, what is it?

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 01-03-2018 at 12:24 PM.
  #36  
Old 01-03-2018, 12:26 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,192
Absolutely the only people who want this to happen are people who get all upset when their candidate loses the election despite the plurality of voters voting for them. Which, as noted in the OP, many of us consider to be a desired feature of the way the system was set up.

If you're upset about how the EC plays out, work to have your state join Nebraska and Maine in distributing electors on a proportional basis of some sort. States have that right without engaging in weird, undemocratic compacts like that proposed.
  #37  
Old 01-03-2018, 12:32 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Which, as noted in the OP, many of us consider to be a desired feature of the way the system was set up.
I know you desire it, but it would help the debate to explain why you desire some people's power to exceed others', rather than let a less reputable inference persist.
  #38  
Old 01-03-2018, 12:42 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Absolutely the only people who want this to happen are people who get all upset when their candidate loses the election despite the plurality of voters voting for them. Which, as noted in the OP, many of us consider to be a desired feature of the way the system was set up.
Calling a bug a feature doesn't make it one, but whatever.
Quote:
If you're upset about how the EC plays out, work to have your state join Nebraska and Maine in distributing electors on a proportional basis of some sort.
Already addressed by Ravenman in post #21.
Quote:
States have that right without engaging in weird, undemocratic compacts like that proposed.
Call the proposed compact 'weird' if you want, but no weirder than applying the label 'undemocratic' to a plan to always put the popular vote winner in the White House.
  #39  
Old 01-03-2018, 12:43 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
No state enacts the change until there are enough to determine the winner. What are you on about?

If you have a reasoned, non-partisan objection to going to a national popular vote, what is it?
You apparently missed the fact that my post was a response to Anny Middon's proposal:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
... What if, rather than entering the NPVIC, there was a huge push to get states to allocate EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in their state. ...
I'm all for it, I just want to start the huge push in California.
  #40  
Old 01-03-2018, 12:53 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,282
Okay, why is it better for the country to do it in California instead of Texas, if you are in fact interested in a serious discussion?
  #41  
Old 01-03-2018, 12:54 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Okay, why is it better for the country to do it in California instead of Texas, if you are in fact interested in a serious discussion?
I'm trying to highlight the reason Anny Middon's proposal won't work: no state wants to go first, everyone wants the other side's reliable states to go first. Thank you for assisting me in highlighting this with your comment about Texas.
  #42  
Old 01-03-2018, 01:16 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Coupla things:
1. There are already a bunch of interstate compacts. Here's some.
2. This isn't actually one. Each state is acting individually.
3. It isn't a proposal anymore - it's already a long way toward enactment. Over 30% of the EC is represented in states that have already passed it, and bills are pending for 25% more. As soon as the total breaks 50%, we have a national popular vote, like a civilized democracy.
Let's say all of us go to the pool for a swim. We can all jump in the pool at anytime we want.

But if nobody jumps into the pool before 50% of us jump in the pool, the act of 50% of us linking hands to jump in the pool at the same time means conclusively that half of us are acting under an agreement with each other to jump at the same time. It is silly to claim: "I can jump into the pool right now if I wanted to, but when a bunch of other people actually do it, I will too at the exact same time.... but we are NOT coordinating with each other."

I mean, get real.
  #43  
Old 01-03-2018, 01:19 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,282
OK, suit yourself, it's a compact. Now tell us why it needs Congress' approval.
  #44  
Old 01-03-2018, 01:24 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
OK, suit yourself, it's a compact. Now tell us why it needs Congress' approval.
He already did. See post #2.
  #45  
Old 01-03-2018, 01:31 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Look, this is pretty basic. Article I, Section 10 is all about saying, 'no, the states of this new nation aren't going to be like individual nation-states if this Constitution is ratified, and specifically, here's a bunch of things that independent nations routinely do, that states of the United States of America won't have the right to do without the consent of the national Congress.'

Nations can enter into compacts with one another; states can't without Congress' approval. Article I, Section 10 says so. It's that simple.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 01-03-2018 at 01:32 PM.
  #46  
Old 01-03-2018, 01:34 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I do, especially since the current system (like many others) just so happens to benefit white voters, who are far more likely than non-white voters to live in small states and thus have greater voting influence per capita for the country at large. And just on the principle that one-man = one-vote should be more important (far, far more important, IMO) than concerns about the influence or "rights" of states.
Well, until you dissolve state governments good luck with that.

Why aren't you worried about disproportionate influence of random demographics at the international level? Aren't national boundaries as fictional as state?

Last edited by octopus; 01-03-2018 at 01:34 PM.
  #47  
Old 01-03-2018, 01:34 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,282
RTF: Nothing the states would be doing in this system is something that independent nations routinely do.

Let me be more specific: How, in the Constitutional sense, is this specific arrangement not constitutional? Please be reminded that the Constitution explicitly provides that the states shall select their own electors.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 01-03-2018 at 01:34 PM.
  #48  
Old 01-03-2018, 01:59 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
RTF: Nothing the states would be doing in this system is something that independent nations routinely do.

Let me be more specific: How, in the Constitutional sense, is this specific arrangement not constitutional? Please be reminded that the Constitution explicitly provides that the states shall select their own electors.
C-O-M-P-A-C-T. Article I, Section 10 explicitly says that's a no-no.

No question that the states can individually decide to give their electors to the popular vote winner, regardless of who got more votes in their state.

They just can't make a compact with other states concerning this activity unless Congress gives its blessing.

There are lots of things that are legal for one party to do, that are illegal for multiple parties to coordinate on. If I own a gas station at a busy intersection and I want to raise prices, I'm free to do so. But if the other three corners of the intersection also have gas stations, we can't make an agreement to all raise prices together.

Same thing here, by the authority of the aforementioned Article I, Section 10. Why are we still having this conversation?
  #49  
Old 01-03-2018, 02:01 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
OK, now I've got Aretha's voice singing melodiously in my head!
  #50  
Old 01-03-2018, 02:02 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Well, until you dissolve state governments good luck with that.
Don't know what this has to do with anything. A national popular vote for President (whether enacted through Constitutional amendment or through the process this thread suggests) wouldn't affect state governments.

Quote:
Why aren't you worried about disproportionate influence of random demographics at the international level? Aren't national boundaries as fictional as state?
Whatever this is referring to (and I'm not sure what it has to do with my posts) doesn't appear to have anything to do with this thread's topic.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017