They’ll have to hurry because the next day all the Dem states will start repealing.
Here’s CNN Politics on the NPVIC: Democrats can't break the Electoral College alone | CNN Politics
From the CNN article just linked:
Racism and Guns. That’s all U.S. politics are about anymore.
I’m white and I currently feel like I’m pretty much powerless, at least at the national level. This guy should not presume to speak for an entire “race”.
This compact (which is admittedly unlikely to go into effect) would increase my power.
There are reasonable arguments for the EC, but “minorities will have all the power” is not one of them. It really is about 1 person, 1 vote. With a pure popular vote, a single voter in California or Texas has exactly the same power and influence to elect a President as a single voter in New Hampshire or any other state. As it is right now, voters in swing states have much more influence (and thus are catered to much more frequently) than voters not in swing states… and voters in small swing states have the most influence, per voter, of all.
I actually saw a small state resident post on Facebook that the electoral college prevented “the tyranny of the majority”.
As opposed to the tyranny of the minority?
You’ve never heard that phrase before? No, it’s not “as opposed to the tyranny of the minority”. It’s about a flaw in “democracy” where the majority being able to run roughshod over a minority. The bill of rights, for example, is a way to limit the scope of laws regardless how the majority feels about it.
The rights of gay people to marry didn’t come from a majority of people thinking it was right. It was by applying protections that trumped elected legislators.
Yes, tyranny of the majority is bad. But what proponents of the EC seem to miss is that the bad part is the tyranny party, not the majority part.
Yes, of course I’ve heard it before, but in the context of the bill of rights, which lists specific basic rights (speech, religion, etc.) that the majority cannot override. I support that wholeheartedly.
That’s not what the conversation was about. This person was essentially arguing that it was wrong for the majority to force a president on a minority, a completely different thing.
Absolutely–and absolutely irrelevant. There will always be folks who are in the minority who don’t get their way. That doesn’t mean they’re tyrannized, nor does it mean that the solution is to weigh their votes as worth more.
If that were the solution, talk to me about which of these minorities need to get extra weight in their votes, and why:
-African Americans
-Atheists
-Rural voters
-Jews
-Men
-The elderly
-Comic book nerds
-Conservatives
-Government Workers
-Ferret owners
Our system recognizes that sometimes the majority will vote in a way that the minority doesn’t like, and that that’s the price of democracy. It recognizes that sometimes the majoirty will vote in a way that deprives a minority of their rights, and that the courts are the remedy.
But then for archaic and arbitrary reasons it recognizes that there are more urban voters than rural voters, and it puts a thumb on the scale by weighing rural votes more heavily.
That doesn’t fix the tyranny of the majority. It just fucks everything up.
So in Colorado, a state that values the voters of Colorado’s voice so much that our Secretary of State (at the time) removed a faithless elector [possibly illegally], is now part of the NPVIC. In a state that is 1/3 Dem, 1/3 Pub, 1/3 Third Party or Indep we can’t have proportional electoral votes because it would reduce the power of the Sovereign State of Colorado but we’re willing to give our EVs to whoever California wants to be President.
Anyone else notice the mixed-messaging?
I believe the messaging is consistent: whatever helps the Dems.
And if it does that then that’s what the majority wants.
Could be this here Electoral College thingy is generally a hot 50-state mess and we’re better off with all kinds of efforts to discontinue it.
Right now the only efforts being made at better representation appear to be from majority Democratic entities. As soon as Republicans adopt improved election processes as one of their positions, perhaps we can move forward. As it is, blue states aren’t likely to unilaterally disarm. Representation is already imbalanced enough.
What’s the back story there - is there a movement in CO to allow split EV’s, like ME and NE but unlike the rest of the country? If there is and the current state government opposes it but supports the NPVIC, that *would *be mixed messaging, otherwise you’re just stretching.
Really? I thought it was “The Republicans fear and oppose democracy”.
No, the consistent message is “whatever helps democracy”.
And it’s not “let California choose”, it’s “let everyone choose”. Which is in contrast to our current system of letting a small number of states choose.
All the states choose.
It wouldn’t even be mixed messaging. Splitting EVs when no one else is doing it would weaken CO. But the NPVIC only works when a sufficient amount of states have bought in.
But not We The People.