State compacts have to be approved by Congress, which has yet to approve the NPV compact.
There is no point for you to vote. You should not bother to vote. At all.
I’m sure you’re right that a legal challenge would be filed, but the Supreme Court has more-or-less had it say. In Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952), the Court found state elector-pledging laws constitutional and rejected the argument that electors must be free to vote their [del]whims[/del] consciences.
We have about 100M voters in a national election. If we elected the president by popular vote, the odds of your one vote making a difference is so low it might as well be zero.
But that’s also true the way it is now. Very few elections are decided by one vote.
Yes, definitely, a few are. And a few more are decided by two votes, so if I can persuade just one person to vote my way, I’m increasing my chance of being “decisive.”
Meanwhile I’m happy to have the opportunity to be part of the system of human self-governing. If it means my favorite candidate lost by 91,659 to 103,733, instead of losing by 91,658 to 103,733 I’m happy. I’m engaging in democracy, and overjoyed to have that freedom.
There are a lot of people in this world who have much less direct effect on the selection of their rulers. Voting every now and then, even if it “doesn’t count,” is a lot better than holding up banners for the Illustrious Leader in North Korea. The former is one of the best defenses against the latter.
It “might as well be zero” except for the fact that it’s not. 
Let’s make this one of those silly logic puzzles and follow the chain of reasoning: “Everyone realizes that their vote is meaningless. Therefore, everyone stays home. Everyone being rational, they realize that everyone else is staying home too. Therefore, everyone realizes that it will only take one vote to win the election. As a result, everyone votes… making their votes meaningless.”
It’s a paradox phrased that way, and the answer to the paradox is that the value of one vote is never zero.
I don’t vote. My vote is meaningless.
What if everyone thought that?
Well, if everyone though that, then I would vote!
It’s not just a matter of who gets elected. It’s how they behave in office.
A Congressman who sees that 45% of the votes in his last election were for his opponent will act differently than a Congressman who get 70% of the votes.
But this is a silly argument. It applies to everyone and no one.
Suppose you decide to look at the USA through the goggles of “People in big cities” vs “Everyone else”. Well, people in big cities make up 80% of the population (fake number I just made up). So they will always get their way.
But wait, what if instead, you decide to look at the USA through the goggles of “people who are religious” vs “Everyone else”. Well, people who are religious make up 80% of the population. So THEY will always get their way.
But wait, no, suppose you decide to look at the USA through the goggles of “people over 30 vs everyone else”…
You see the point I’m making. With national popular vote, my vote is worth exactly as much as your vote which is worth exactly as much as anyone else’s vote. Any group of 100 people you happen to be a part of is precisely as valuable as any group of 100 people I happen to be a part of.
Sure, if you live in a farm and I live in a big city, and if you draw a 10 mile circle around yourself for some reason, that will have fewer people than a 10 mile circle drawn around me. But so what?
That said, the problem of swing states is not so much due to the electoral college as to states being winner-take-all, which is, when you think about it, also pretty bizarre.
Geography matters. All politics are local. Our country was born revolting against a remote government that didn’t give us rubes a say. Pure democracy just doesn’t work across entire continents, not even in the internet age.
Exactly! I’m not “everyone.” Neither of you are “everyone.” A randomly chosen sample of 10,000 U.S. citizens is not “everyone.” But “everyone” does exist.
I could actually see the validity of a “market” for not voting. You and I sign up and register, and find that our votes cancel each other. So, hey, we both stay home. Why go through all that hassle, when it has no meaning?
(Obviously, this falls down on the trust issue. How can anyone know for sure that his “pairing” partner doesn’t cheat and go out and vote?)
Interesting to note that ALL of the 11 (out of 51*) states that have passed this Compact are states which vote consistently for the Democratic nominee. I hope they’re not painting themselves into a corner where either the electoral vote or the popular vote rules,* whichever favors the GOP*.
(* - I wish there were a term to refer to the 51 “states” in the electoral college. “State” seems like a good shorthand, except that it may lead to a wasted post when some smart-aleck shows off his 2nd-grade civics! )
That may be. But for someone like me (blue voter, red state) - my current contribution to the Presidential election isn’t almost zero. it IS zero. Nada. Nothing. Bupkus. Not a single minute tiny infinitesimal fraction of my vote is counted towards picking a President. The only votes in my state that contribute are the red ones.
You’re right - with a popular vote, my contribution to picking a President would be tiny. Almost zero in fact. But that’s still far bigger than my current contribution.
That’s true for every voter. Yet somehow, somebody would get more votes than the others, so all those might-as-well-be-zero votes might *not *as well be zero, hmm?
I have no idea what your point is, or how that’s a response to what I said. To be clear, you said:
And I said
I’ve made this argument several times in different SDMB threads, and I’ve never heard a really satisfying response to it.
You mean, like it was in 2000? The debacle in Florida was a direct result of the electoral college. It has been mathematically proven that the electoral college increases the instance of such debacles, not decreases them. The place where proponents of the college go wrong is that they somehow think that those mathematical results are a good thing.
The point has already been made here that makes this entire debate moot. If you don’t vote, you don’t have any say in more local issues and offices in addition to the Presidency, unless, of course, you’re actually going to vote for everything but President or do a write-in.
A lot of people don’t get that the US is a collection of states that have sovereignty. Thus the Constitution doesn’t just define a national government with respect to how that government deals with individuals it also defines that national government with respect to the states. This is one reason why proportional representation with regards to parties is preposterous in the US. Parties have no constitutional status other than being just another arbitrary assembly.
Isn’t that true of any election where you’re in the minority? If we voted nation-wide, and Clinton beats Trump, can’t a Trump supporter say, “My vote counted for nothing?”
At least Federalism limits the scope of your helplessness. You’re only helpless in your given state, not entirely nationwide. At least there are blue states.
If you feel it is somehow important for your vote to count…couldn’t you just move to a blue state? But…why? What would you have gained?
That’s the feature/bug of democracy. Everybody gets to vote…but a whole hell of a lot of us are going to have to lose.
Seems to me you’d be better off moving to a swing state, where you might have a better chance of helping to determine the outcome.