Hate the Electoral College but figure, hey, eliminating it requires a Constitutional Amendment and is thus untenable? Well, buddy, allow me to introduce you to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Fascinating idea.
See, states can send electors to any candidate they want. Traditionally, they send all of them to the popular vote winner in the state. But they don’t have to.
I know what you’re thinking: some states proportionally assign electors now. Going that route doesn’t require a Constitutional Amendment. Why not just do it that way?
Because that only works if every state does it. Picture this:
All the blue states agree to proportionally assign electors, but the red states don’t (remember, this is up to the states). A blue candidate who got 52% of the popular vote and 270 electors (and win the election) under the old system would now assuredly get less than 270 electors under the new system, since the red states aren’t sharing theirs. :mad: Sure, it gets fairer as states sign on. But unless every single one of the states agree to proportional assignation, it’s possible for a popular vote winner to lose the election. So…
All they have to do is sign the above compact in which they agree that they will send their electors to the popular vote winner in the nation, not just their state. This obligation only kicks in if the sum total of the electors in the states signing the compact is 270 or greater, because under this condition the national popular vote winner must win the most electors. Of course, if the compact states’ electors add up to less than 270, they’ll assign their electors like they do now. The point is, since every state does not have to sign up for this, a small number of recalcitrant states can’t fuck things up for everybody else. Problem solved.
I suppose that would work although it never will for various reasons. You are talking about a sure-fire way to herd cats. I still like to call it THESE United States like in days before where we realize that we are a confederation. There is no Constitutional reason why your idea would not work but, still, good luck with that on the campaign trail.
Technically, I did not vote for a presidential candidate; I voted for a slate of electors. This plan requires that the elected Democratic electors of a state in the compact vote for the Republican popular vote winner. Or, of course, vice versa.
There is no constitutional remedy for a faithless elector. This plan is, at best, one of the most naive things I’ve ever heard of.
…except some states have laws against defecting, and more states would likely follow suit and enact such laws. BTW, there have been no prosecutions…yet. But someone’s gotta go first. Anyway, how often do electors defect?
However…naive? What’s naive about it? The belief that if states mutually agree to do things a certain way that they will then follow through?
Note that you can’t split an electoral vote. So rounding will occur and you can construct scenarios where Al still loses to Dubya.
This is most noticable when it comes to small vs. big states. E.g., a rounded up electoral vote in Wyoming will offset more votes than a rounded up one in California. Given the correlation between state size and “color”, that will be an actual problem.
…what are you talking about? There’s no rounding. Once enough states have passed the compact to decide the election; if states holding 268 votes have it as law, nothing happens, and if another state signs on, then all of their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. There’s no splitting.
What are you talking about? Wyoming has 3 electoral votes. With your idea, whoever wins with 33%-66% of the vote gets 2 electoral votes. Get 67% of the votes and you get all 3. That looks like rounding to me.
You have completely misunderstood the concept. If Wyoming passed this compact, and not enough other states did, all three of Wyoming’s votes would go to whoever won the popular vote in Wyoming, same as if Wyoming had done nothing at all. If Wyoming passed this compact and there were enough states to decide the election, all three of Wyoming’s votes would go to whoever won the national popular vote.
Well that’s… odd. I guess now the concern is who certifies the popular vote, and how long it takes for that. One nice thing about the current system is that it (usually) doesn’t drag out as long as it could otherwise.
