Nebraskan here. Just for the record, I don’t see a problem with our electoral vote system. It’s more representative. Biden got 1 of our 5 electoral votes. You’d rather Trump got all five?
Doing it by geographic district (and not % of overall voters) would compound the problem of gerrymandering in presidential electors as well as the House. Statewide in Nebraska, Biden got 40% of the vote so the token 1/5 - sure it’s nice but it should be 2/5 if done correctly. (and this would be compounded if done across the country).
Agreed.
It’s a problem if implemented nationally because of the way districts are gerrymandered by Republican majority state legislatures. It’s a particular problem in states like the ones I mentioned (plus maybe North Carolina) where there are statewide Dem majorities but districted in such a way as to ensure GOP majorities in the House delegations. There are no states that I can think of where the opposite is true. To be fair, that’s a problem with the urban/rural voting divide as much as it is unfair districting practices; but Republicans will never countenance a system that results in more representative overall results.
If PA/WI/MI adopt the Nebraska system for awarding electoral votes, the Democratic candidate could once again sweep all three of those states but earn almost 30 fewer EVs than in '20. This practically epitomizes the problems our system has with fair representation.
Is there a breakdown of what the result would have been if every state apportioned like NE/ME?
As noted, there are problems with gerrymandering. Besides that, it’s a problem if red states stick with winner-take-all while blue states install a proportional system. This will ensure more Republican electoral votes from the blue states while not allowing more Democratic votes from the red states.
again, all agreed. It was the most we (Ds) could pull off in ® Nebraska and then, even that is due primarily to the astonishing determination and perspicacity of a single stare legislator, defended over his political career. His name is Ernie Chambers. He comes from the same neighborhood in Omaha as Malcolm X. A graduate of Creighton University Law School. You have to watch out for those Jesuits. Rabble rousers all.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is getting closer to coming into force.
“As of January 2021, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia. These states have 196 electoral votes, which is 36% of the Electoral College and 73% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force. However, an additional 140 electoral votes are pending, which would allow the compact to have legal force if passed.”
That would effectively moot the shenanigans of the states that are considering splitting their electoral votes, assuming none of them are signatories that are considering withdrawing – which it looks like they are not.
+1. People are complicated, weird and easily influenced. You too, probably.
You’re overthinking it…
If you start with the proposition that “Biden had the best chance of winning, and VP makes little difference”
then you can quite easily arrive at:
His age etc mitigates against full term
From there it’s a very small step to “with a incumbency advantage, would a female VP become first female pres, and if we’re doing that why not arrange it so she serves 10 years”
I have the nasty suspicion that it’s a way to arouse opposition to Biden by saying ‘he’s trying to sneak a Black person into the presidency! And a woman, at that!’
It’s true that there was a similar conspiracy theory about Clinton, who is white; but Clinton had already been so well established as The Horrible Enemy that she didn’t even need that undertone.
As to who ‘they’ is and why ‘they’ want to do such things: ‘they’ is just whoever is/is being talked into believing in the theory is most afraid of. ‘They’ are terrible! ‘They’ don’t need any further motivation than being terrible!
All Blue states. And i dont trust this. Let us say in 2028 Harris wins the popular vote vs trump jr.
But then Colorado decides to give it’s votes to trump. Thus throwing the EC to trump.
Nothing to stop them.
Federal law prevents states from changing their electoral college laws between the election and the electoral vote.
What?!? Where were you during the last election? And the weeks after? I know you were here, where this was explained many times.
I’m beginning to wonder if you’re asking questions because you truly don’t know the answers (and can’t look them up?), or because you know you’ll get people’s undies in a bundle (I mean, look at me, jumping through your hoop…).
Yes, and how about the day before the vote?
But so far the compact has dont nothing but help the republican party- on the off chance they win th ePopular but lose the EC.
Only Blue states have signed on.
Yeah? You dont think the republicans can pull some last minute dirty trick?
And also, what good does it do, if only Blue states agree?
If enough blue states agree to make up 270 votes, then the problem is already solved.
Not al all, read the wiki cite Certain legal questions may affect implementation of the compact. Some legal observers believe states have plenary power to appoint electors as prescribed by the compact; others believe that the compact will require congressional consent under the Constitution’s Compact Clause or that the presidential election process cannot be altered except by a constitutional amendment.
So by no means is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact a sure thing. It will be the target of endless court battles.
On legal expert has said it is UnConstitutional-National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Ballotpedia
### Unconstitutional
William G. Ross , a law professor at Cumberland School of Law at Samford University:[8]
“ Although the US Supreme Court has concluded that the Compact Clause does not require Congress to consent to compacts that affect only the internal affairs of the compacting states, it has indicated in US Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission that the Compact Clause requires Congress to consent to an agreement that “would enhance the political power of the member States in a way that encroaches upon the supremacy of the United States,” or “impairs the sovereign rights of non-member states.” …
Although the compact would not violate the letter of the Constitution since it would retain the Electoral College and would not alter the method by which electoral votes are assigned or change the number of electoral votes that any state has, it would jettison the federalist structure of the Electoral College to the extent that the popular vote rather than the votes of individual states would determine the outcome. The compact’s reduction of the Electoral College to an empty shell would therefore thwart the intention of the Framers of the original Constitution and the framers of the Twelfth Amendment, which reformed the Electoral College in 1804, since the Constitution clearly contemplates that electoral votes will be cast by the states as states rather than by the states as collective or compacting entities.[7] ”
But another sez Ok.
Endless court battles, the entire election thrown to SCOTUS who would then get to pick the President.
It was in answer to your question as to what good it does if only blue states agree. If there are enough reliably blue states to make up 270+ electoral votes, which is what is needed before the compact would take effect, then there is no need to worry about red states defecting.
If only blue states agree, and it doesn’t make up 270+ electoral votes, then it does not take effect. It does not exist, so it can’t do anything.
In any case, as has been mentioned, it is only binding in that they may not change their laws after the election.
Ross’s opinion seems circular: the states can’t arrange to implement a popular vote without amending the Constitution, even though the Constitution says the states can pick their electors however the legislatures choose, and even though the Electoral College would still work exactly as the language of the Constitution states, strictly because the intent of the arrangement is to pick them differently than the Founding Fathers intended. 
As an attorney myself, I’m under the impression that clear statutory (or constitutional) language governs, and things like intent or rules of construction are supposed to be resorted to only when the language is ambiguous or unclear. IMHO, the language “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” doesn’t bar legislatures from coordinating the manner they direct.
The Constitution originally provided for the legislatures to appoint Senators. Before the 17th Amendment, and despite the clear language that each state’s Senators must be “chosen by the Legislature thereof,” over half the state legislatures eventually bound themselves to implement the popular vote for Senators. As far as I know, that was never found unconstitutional though it seems significantly less supportable constitutionally than the proposed compact.