The thing is that EVs include Senate representation. This comparatively overvalues small states, and undervalues big states. Just because you split the EVs proportionally according to each state, the overvaluation of small states would still exist.
So you probably end up with more or less the same result if everyone did it that way. or to put it a different way…
Coupla things:
Since each state has the authority to allocate their EVs as they see fit, it’s hard to see (though IANAL) any argument that this isn’t Constitutional. There’s no actual interstate agreement or compact (whatever the name used) – it’s individual states deciding how to allocate their EVs, even if that decision is partially based on the actions of other states.
If I say “I’m going to order chocolate unless Bob orders vanilla”, I don’t have an agreement or compact about ice cream with Bob… I’m just deciding, on my own, what flavor to choose, and that decision is based on Bob’s actions. Bob doesn’t even have to know about my decision-making process.
What problem are you actually trying to fix? Do you want an actual nationwide popular vote for President, or do you want to modify the EC? It would be just as time consuming to push for state-by-state legislation allowing the federal government to hold a national election for electing a President.
I think the part that makes it a compact is that it doesn’t go into effect until it’s passed by a bunch of states. It’s fine for a state to say “We’ll assign our electoral votes according to the nationwide popular vote”, but it requires Congressional approval to say “we’ll assign our electoral votes according to the nationwide popular vote, as long as enough other states also do the same thing”.
This could also be done, but would only really work if everyone, all 50 states, implemented it at once. When you’re in an environment where other states assign their electors winner-takes-all, if you start assigning yours proportionately, then it just dilutes your influence.
I want a nationwide popular vote. This proposal doesn’t do that exactly, but it pushes us much closer towards that goal, and effectively results in every voter, regardless of what state they live in, having the same influence on who becomes President. Thus I support this proposal over the status quo, even if my ultimate preference would be a Constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College and instituting a national popular vote.
Both, of course. We want an actual nationwide popular vote for President, and the easiest way to get that is through this compact. State-by-state legislation wouldn’t allow the federal government to hold a national election, and I’m not sure where you get the idea that it would: That would take a constitutional amendment, which is really difficult.
States won’t do that, at least not one-at-a-time, because they’ll get essentially ignored by the major party campaigns. Imagine if you’re a swing state today. You get candidate visits, campaign spending, advertising dollars all flowing into your state. If you pass a law that says, rather than winner-take-all we’re going to apportion our EC votes by popular vote share, all that goes away. The candidates aren’t going to come visit, they’re not going to spend advertising dollars, they’re not going to hire campaign workers in your state, at least, not like they used to.
Now, on the flip side, imagine you’re a strongly partisan state, either red or blue. Today, you don’t get many visits or much campaign spending, but you’re a reliable X EC votes for your preferred candidate. If you decide to apportion them by popular vote, you’ve just deprived your candidate of those sure-fire votes. Imagine the disaster it would be for Democrats if California did this. Instead of 55 EC votes for HRC, Trump would have received 17 of California’s EC votes.
Actually, I’ve got an idea for a voter initiative … gotta run. 
I’m very impressed with my political foresight. 
And I tell you now that if NPVIC goes into effect there is a slight but non-zero chance it will result in a tragedy that will dwarf the electoral mischief in 2000. Go ahead — Laugh at me once more.
Let’s be clear. I do not oppose the idea of popular vote for President. I oppose this bastardized form, which will retain the worst features of EC, AND the bad features of popular vote, AND give great opportunity for mischief and litigation.
Also, that leads to the discussion of how do you proportion the EVs – because using Congressional Districts as happens today in ME and NE, that leads to vulnerability to gerrymandering and urban packing. And with the lesser-population states madatorily fixed at 3 EVs (and thus forced to remain WTA under the ME/NE system) you will lack granularity at the lower end, still multiplying their relative weight.
Myself, I favor an actual honest-to-goodness Popular Vote, or else a distributed EV so long as it is protected from the gerrymander. But this sort of “cunning plan” doesn’t convince me.
Hardly. States that are currently clinched, which is the majority of them, don’t get any special attention at all. The resources go into a small handful of swing states. With a national popular vote, the candidates will go where the people are, which is everywhere, including California and Texas. Limits on time and money will send them mostly to the cities, not the rural areas, certainly, and you’ll see more national TV advertising, appealing to the full spectrum of voters, and less targeted local advertising featuring local pandering. How is that not good for democracy?
I think it’s GREAT for democracy, and California should, as they do with all good ideas, lead the way. Perhaps New York as well, to give us an east-coast example to follow too. Let’s try it for an election or two and see how it works out.
Thank God that would never happen in America.
Look, the EC overruling the popular vote has already given us GWB and Trump, the two worst Presidents since the antebellum era. How many more of these episodes can we take? We’re well beyond ‘slight but nonzero’ chance of disastrous outcomes of the present system.
No state enacts the change until there are enough to determine the winner. What are you on about?
If you have a reasoned, non-partisan objection to going to a national popular vote, what is it?
Absolutely the only people who want this to happen are people who get all upset when their candidate loses the election despite the plurality of voters voting for them. Which, as noted in the OP, many of us consider to be a desired feature of the way the system was set up.
If you’re upset about how the EC plays out, work to have your state join Nebraska and Maine in distributing electors on a proportional basis of some sort. States have that right without engaging in weird, undemocratic compacts like that proposed.
I know you desire it, but it would help the debate to explain *why *you desire some people’s power to exceed others’, rather than let a less reputable inference persist.
Calling a bug a feature doesn’t make it one, but whatever.
Already addressed by Ravenman in post #21.
Call the proposed compact ‘weird’ if you want, but no weirder than applying the label ‘undemocratic’ to a plan to always put the popular vote winner in the White House.
You apparently missed the fact that my post was a response to Anny Middon’s proposal:
I’m all for it, I just want to start the huge push in California.
Okay, why is it better for the country to do it in California instead of Texas, if you are in fact interested in a serious discussion?