Unlikely. While the popular vote in states have often been in question, the national totals have always had large enough margins to determine a clear winner.
True, but the contingency should still be addressed. Since a tie is a virtual impossibility, it means the states would be bound to give their electoral votes to the leading candidate, no matter how slim the margin. If it’s not addressed, I suspect states not getting the result they want will use it as a pretext to renege.
The fact that it could be done without all states agreeing to it is, perversely, evidence that it’s necessary.
And going by national popular vote would decrease the problems with extremely close elections, not increase them. The current system already makes it possible for a close election to have nationwide effects and throw the country into turmoil. This isn’t just theoretical; it’s happened. Yes, a nationwide recount would be more expensive than a Florida-wide recount, but it’s also so much less likely to be needed that the expected cost is much lower for a popular vote system than for an electoral vote system. Ironically, the paper that mathematically proved this is often used by advocates for the electoral vote system to support their argument.
I don’t think a national recount should even be attempted. The first count winner is the first count winner.
Recounts are one of those ideas that seems to be just in theory, but in practice it leaves hard feelings. Just go with the first count, or rule that an incumbent party has to get over a threshold to win, otherwise the challenger automatically wins. Say, a victory margin of at least 0.5%.
I just dislike the smarmy tone that is present or implied in posts like that. “WE’VE gone over this before. Who the fuck do you think YOU are to bring it up again?” If anyone gave a rat’s ass about the old thread they could search for it.
It’s more important to you that there be “no hard feelings” than that the will of the people be accurately determined? How the hell does that happen? Does thwarting democracy instead *not *create hard feelings, in your most unusual world view?
Which is *not *subject to gerrymandering of congressional districts. It would implement a simple majority popular vote system, without the obstruction that would inevitably occur with a direct Constitutional amendment.
You could try Google if you’re actually interested in becoming informed on the subject.
How about proportional voting? Get 60% of the popular vote, get 60% of the electoral votes, rounded up. So a state with only 3 EVs will end up dividing them 2-1 (if the loser gets at least 33% of the vote) or 3-0 (otherwise).
Anyway, I’m not sure Texas would bother trying to implement a system that was more biased to Republicans, since the state is consistently red anyway and there’s a chance screwing with the current system will generate a blue EV (i.e. Austin).
My own favored system is winner takes all, but only if they get a majority. If no candidate gets a majority, the EVs should be doled out proportionally.
I’d like to see Florida switch to such a system ,and since Florida is a true swing state, there shouldn’t be any real partisan objections.
We’ve had several elections where the popular vote was ‘close’ during my lifetime: 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000. None of the popular vote totals have been close enough to be in doubt. The closest of them was Kennedy’s win over Nixon by 112,827 votes in 1960. And that was out of fewer than 69 million voters; that would be the equivalent of a 200,000 vote margin today. With that margin, there’s no doubt as to whether the winner really won the national popular vote.
OTOH, the EC has backfired on us a number of times, most recently in 2000: even if you like the result, you can’t be happy about a national election turning on fewer than a thousand votes in one state. Sure, we can resolve an election that’s close in the EC, but it ain’t pretty.
The teapartiers/conservatives are big fans of “States Rights”. Local government, they say, is more responsive to its voters needs… and hey, if things get too bad, you can always just move to another state if you feel that you aren’t being adequately represented.
How’s that work in a system where your voice is being systematically negated?
You can’t vote them out because your vote is being gerrymandered into oblivion… and if you move, you’re just helping the state become even *more *red, which means they have even *more *power to run roughshod over upcoming national elections.
Buy hey, I’m sure the other side is just as bad, or something.
A lot of them don’t believe in federalism. Some number of them, a big one, I’m pretty sure. Don’t have that number handy, right at the moment. But except for liberals, Americans totally love them some federalism.
I don’t know if it got mentioned but the NPVC would need Congressional approval as well.
It would not. The states have complete discretion in how they chose their electors.
Not when it conflicts with the Constitution
[QUOTE=Article I, Section 10, Clause 3]
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, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
[/QUOTE]
There’s a fair body of SC precedents that equal protection applies to voting. It’s not hard to put an argument together that voters in a state which casts all of its EV’s for someone other than the top vote-getter in that state are being disenfranchised. It’s also not hard to put an argument together that the EC itself is in violation of EP because it allows the entire national electorate to be disenfranchised.
So, the NPVC is no slam dunk.
The latter wouldn’t be valid though because one part of the Constitution can’t repeal another part unless it does so specifically. It can’t do it by implication. Otherwise the 9th amendment could repeal Congress’ enumerated powers, since all of Congress’ enumerated powers enable Congress to limit our rights, which are not limited to those named in the Bill of Rights, according to the 9th amendment.
You are wrong.
About what? That an amendment passed 150 years ago should repeal an article of the Constitution and the courts just haven’t figured it out yet?
You don’t know what an amendment does, then. It amends.