Canadian Politics Today

Beyond Canada => American Politics => Topic started by: Super Colin Blow on April 25, 2019, 05:30:46 pm


Title: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on April 25, 2019, 05:30:46 pm
Someone brought this up in the thread about the next POTUS. I thought it merited discussion, especially after the curious reversals of 2000 and 2016.

The idea is to write the electoral college out of existence. The U.S. federal constitution is difficult to amend and it is unlikely that enough states would ratify an amendment abolishing it. So, some states have come up with this piece of garbage. I'll provide the same link that was shown to us in the aforementioned thread.

Granted, a growing number of Americans are discontented with the electoral college. Personally, I think it needs to be retained, at least for the time being. But 14 states disagree with me, apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

It's unconstitutional, for one thing. It says explicitly in Art. I, Sec. 10 that no state may, without the permission of Congress, enter into any compact with another state or states. For another thing, I very much doubt, as I stated in the other thread, that my own state's 10 democratic electors would ever in a million years vote for a republican, even if they had to according to this compact.

If we abolished the EC, what exactly could replace it? How could a direct, national, popular vote work?
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 25, 2019, 09:02:56 pm
What does it mean to 'abolish' it ?

YOu could get rid of it and not really change the rules or the breakdown of votes per state.  I guess this is just about going to a national vote.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Omni on April 25, 2019, 09:10:16 pm
What does it mean to 'abolish' it ?

YOu could get rid of it and not really change the rules or the breakdown of votes per state.  I guess this is just about going to a national vote.

A lot of democratic countries seem able to vote in their leaders by simply casting a ballot and not having it usurped by a totally rigged and out of date system. When will the States catch up?
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on April 26, 2019, 05:17:55 am
What does it mean to 'abolish' it ?

YOu could get rid of it and not really change the rules or the breakdown of votes per state.  I guess this is just about going to a national vote.

A direct national popular vote, yes. If enough states sign on to this compact, the electoral college would exist mostly as a ceremonial thing. The result of the PV would always equal the result of the EV.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on April 26, 2019, 05:22:11 am
A lot of democratic countries seem able to vote in their leaders by simply casting a ballot and not having it usurped by a totally rigged and out of date system. When will the States catch up?

Well, as I said, it's not easy to amend the U.S. constitution. It's not a new discussion, abolishing the Electoral College. I wouldn't call it "rigged" but yes, out of date. This has been discussed by people for years. The down side to a direct national popular vote would of course be the populated areas would be more powerful than the towns and rural areas. States like California, New York, Texas (their urban areas particularly) would eclipse the rest of the country in a way never seen before. You can't just abolish a constitutional structure like that without replacing it with something stable enough.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 26, 2019, 07:39:30 am
A lot of democratic countries seem able to vote in their leaders by simply casting a ballot and not having it usurped by a totally rigged and out of date system. When will the States catch up?

Drop the 'totally rigged' angle and it may help you to explore WHY countries like the US and Canada don't have direct votes for PM.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: ?Impact on April 26, 2019, 11:56:55 am
The down side to a direct national popular vote would of course be the populated areas would be more powerful than the towns and rural areas.

Only if you ascribe to the dictatorship principal where the President controls everything, and Congress has no say.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: TimG on April 26, 2019, 12:08:07 pm
Kind of a pointless discussion when a large portion of the US electorate does not even think there is a problem and feels the system is working the way it was designed to work.

This debate is a bit like the PR debate in Canada where you have a minority of the population obsessed with the percentages that parties get in the legislatures while the majority is more concerned about good government.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: ?Impact on April 26, 2019, 12:24:13 pm
while the majority is more concerned about good government.

No, the majority is more concerned about getting to the cottage for the weekend, playing Fortnite, or who wins Survivor.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Omni on April 26, 2019, 12:46:24 pm
Kind of a pointless discussion when a large portion of the US electorate does not even think there is a problem and feels the system is working the way it was designed to work.

This debate is a bit like the PR debate in Canada where you have a minority of the population obsessed with the percentages that parties get in the legislatures while the majority is more concerned about good government.

Actually recent polls show that ~54% of Americans want the POTUS to be elected by pop. vote, while only 30% want to keep the current EC system as is. The 14 states plus the D of C that support the compact have 189 EC votes on their side and 270 are needed to make it go into effect. I won't be surprised to see these numbers grow in favor of the compact even though Trump will harp against it, assuming he even understands it that is.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on April 26, 2019, 07:18:57 pm
Actually recent polls show that ~54% of Americans want the POTUS to be elected by pop. vote, while only 30% want to keep the current EC system as is. The 14 states plus the D of C that support the compact have 189 EC votes on their side and 270 are needed to make it go into effect. I won't be surprised to see these numbers grow in favor of the compact even though Trump will harp against it, assuming he even understands it that is.

That's right after an election where the numbers were reversed (that is where the NPV produced a different winner than the EC). Assuming the next election doesn't result in the same reversal, people will forget about it then. It's seen as a fluke. It's only happened in 1888, 2000 and 2016 (some people also include 1824 and 1876 but I think those are bad examples, since in 1824 1/3 of the electors were appointed and in 1876 a special commission appointed by Congress decided the election).

My problem with this is that it's unconstitutional. It clearly states in Article I Sec 10, no state may enter into a compact/agreement with each other without the consent of Congress. Suppose a bunch of electors who couldn't stomach voting for the popular vote winner, instead of their original pledge, decided to refuse to obey these laws and cited that as their reason, and took it to court? Right in the middle of an election? Can you imagine what a legal and constitutional mess that would be?

Only if you ascribe to the dictatorship principal where the President controls everything, and Congress has no say.

Can you clarify that please?

There are a lot of presidential republics where the president is elected by direct popular vote. But they're not exactly countries I think we need to "catch up with" for various reasons. Many are military juntas now and then, or have only recently had democracy restored. I'm not ascribing that to the electoral college, or the lack thereof in those countries, but I am saying that Omni seems to be falling victim to the ad populam fallacy.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Omni on April 26, 2019, 07:42:15 pm
That's right after an election where the numbers were reversed (that is where the NPV produced a different winner than the EC). Assuming the next election doesn't result in the same reversal, people will forget about it then. It's seen as a fluke. It's only happened in 1888, 2000 and 2016 (some people also include 1824 and 1876 but I think those are bad examples, since in 1824 1/3 of the electors were appointed and in 1876 a special commission appointed by Congress decided the election).

My problem with this is that it's unconstitutional. It clearly states in Article I Sec 10, no state may enter into a compact/agreement with each other without the consent of Congress. Suppose a bunch of electors who couldn't stomach voting for the popular vote winner, instead of their original pledge, decided to refuse to obey these laws and cited that as their reason, and took it to court? Right in the middle of an election? Can you imagine what a legal and constitutional mess that would be?

Can you clarify that please?

There are a lot of presidential republics where the president is elected by direct popular vote. But they're not exactly countries I think we need to "catch up with" for various reasons. Many are military juntas now and then, or have only recently had democracy restored. I'm not ascribing that to the electoral college, or the lack thereof in those countries, but I am saying that Omni seems to be falling victim to the ad populam fallacy.

So why do you think electors should be able to override voters just because they don't like who won that vote?
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on April 26, 2019, 11:11:44 pm
So why do you think electors should be able to override voters just because they don't like who won that vote?

I don't. The electors are supposed to represent the people of THEIR STATE, not the rest of the country as a whole.

If this compact is in effect by the end of next year and Donald Trump wins the EV but loses the popular vote, I do NOT foresee any of our state's 10 Democrats following the law. In fact, most of them would likely run to their nearest constitutional law professor, or their lawyers, to find out how they could wriggle their way out of it, and vote for his opponent. And I doubt they'd be the only Democrats across the country to try to do it.

The phrase "more honored in the breach than in the observance" comes to mind.

Also, don't forget that in 2016, seven electors--2 Republicans and 5 Democrats--defied their pledges and were "faithless electors". What if there were more? If there were enough of them, they'd likely get away with it.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Omni on April 26, 2019, 11:28:20 pm
I don't. The electors are supposed to represent the people of THEIR STATE, not the rest of the country as a whole.

If this compact is in effect by the end of next year and Donald Trump wins the EV but loses the popular vote, I do NOT foresee any of our state's 10 Democrats following the law. In fact, most of them would likely run to their nearest constitutional law professor, or their lawyers, to find out how they could wriggle their way out of it, and vote for his opponent. And I doubt they'd be the only Democrats across the country to try to do it.

The phrase "more honored in the breach than in the observance" comes to mind.

Also, don't forget that in 2016, seven electors--2 Republicans and 5 Democrats--defied their pledges and were "faithless electors". That's not a lot, seemingly, but suppose the result (before the electors vote) is really close, enough that a few defections would enable a small cabal to make sure Trump doesn't get another four years?

"Supposed to" but not required to. The compact if achieved would simply require the EC to reflect the pop. vote, as has already been achieved in 14 states and teh D of C.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Omni on April 26, 2019, 11:58:30 pm
Yeahhhhhh....but that would mean it would overturn the original EC result in favor of whatever the popular vote has done, if the EC and PV are not the same. In essence, it could require these Democrats, in the situation I outlined, to vote for Donald Trump. Would they actually do it? Really?

Electors are chosen by each candidate's campaign in a state BEFORE the election, with the pledge that they are voting for their party's candidate. They're not picked after the election results are in. Thus, this compact overturns the whole point of having the electors in the first place, without actually abolishing the EC instead. AND it is requiring them to vote outside their original pledge!

I know I said "supposed to" but I mean that that is what they do: represent the people of their state. That's their whole purpose.

If the EC was required to abide by the PV Trump wouldn't be in the WH, and the world would be a better place.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on April 27, 2019, 12:01:08 am
If the EC was required to abide by the PV Trump wouldn't be in the WH, and the world would be a better place.

That's in the past. I'm talking about what if it happens in the future? The compact wasn't in force in 2016. In the future it may be.

Sorry I erased my last post as you were answering; I had meant to revise it a bit.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 27, 2019, 07:54:31 am
No, the majority is more concerned about getting to the cottage for the weekend, playing Fortnite, or who wins Survivor.

Hence the system works for them.  They shouldn't vote.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on April 27, 2019, 10:59:45 am
There are a few reasons why we still have an electoral college, why it is still useful. Bear with me, here. But if you feel like skipping what amounts to a small essay, hey, it's a free country! (Or one can just skim what's in boldface, whatever.)

Note, that my statistics use 1864 as the terminus ante quem, since elections before that, some states were still using a non-popular vote to elect their electors. 1864 was the first U.S. election in which all participating states used a popular vote to elect electors. I don't consider the 1876 election because it was decided, not by the electoral college or popular vote, but by a special congressional commission.

It omits the need for a runoff election. The American attitude toward too-frequent elections is "you mean I have to vote AGAIN? We just did that last year! I do not foresee a presidential runoff with enough people voting in both rounds to accurately reflect public opinion. Out of the 39 elections in question, the winner  of the popular vote won a plurality but not a simple majority of popular votes in 14 elections. (Three of those cases were, of course, the upsets of 1888, 2000 and 2016.) This historical data means a runoff would have been necessary 36% of the time, if we actually did runoffs. And we don't like runoffs.

It provides at least some minimal protection for the smallest states against the largest ones. You cannot have fewer than 3 electors, so the mathematics of the situation is somewhat over representing these 7 states and DC (these eight have only 3 electors due to their low populations). Now, in the largest states, they complain about this, and it's generally those states in which a national popular vote is most favored over the continuance of the electoral college.

It prevents a clash between Cities and Rural areas. Relating to point #2, if we had a nationwide popular vote to decide the presidency, the rural areas would be hideously outvoted. Democratic, yes, but not fair at all, considering those rural areas contribute a lot to the economy, particular in FOOD. Residents of more rural areas would become 2nd class citizens. This is also why we have a Senate!

The United States is a federation, not a unitary state. If we had a less federal nature ("Less federal" meaning more centralization) to our Union, a direct national popular vote would be more appropriate. Countries in the western hemisphere that use a nationwide popular vote have stronger central governments than the USA. The electoral college favors a balance between state and federal power, a key aspect to the constitution and a key aspect to our day to day lives and the way the federal government works.

It favors a two-party system, which minimizes the occurrence of a winner getting <50% of the popular vote (see point one). As much as Americans **** about their two-party system, they keep re-electing Democrats and Republicans. There is technically nothing to stop Americans from voting a third party into Congress or the Presidency; in the 19th century there was actually a great 3rd party presence in the House and a little in the Senate. The "don't throw your vote away" attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Whew.... OK, I'm done....for now!

Take me to the woodshed and tear up my argument if you feel like it! ;D
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: ?Impact on April 27, 2019, 03:37:00 pm
It clearly states in Article I Sec 10, no state may enter into a compact/agreement with each other without the consent of Congress.

That relates to commerce, you are stretching the interpretation far too much there.

Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on April 27, 2019, 11:21:43 pm
That relates to commerce, you are stretching the interpretation far too much there.

How do you know it relates to commerce? I think it's admirably clear that states cannot make compacts with each other.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: ?Impact on April 28, 2019, 02:07:43 pm
How do you know it relates to commerce? I think it's admirably clear that states cannot make compacts with each other.

I don't read a single thing in it that affects things like elections.

Contracts clause

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Import-Export Clause

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's [sic] inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Compact Clause

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.





Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Omni on April 28, 2019, 02:31:16 pm
How do you know it relates to commerce? I think it's admirably clear that states cannot make compacts with each other.

The NPVIC is not attempting to get rid of the EC, they are simply using ambiguity in the Constitution that allows states to sign on to agree that its electors will vote, not for their state winner, but for whoever wins the popular vote. As such, once states with with electors who number at least 270 sign on, then whoever wins the pop. vote will win the electors as well. 
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: segnosaur on April 29, 2019, 11:42:49 am
Quote
That relates to commerce, you are stretching the interpretation far too much there.
How do you know it relates to commerce? I think it's admirably clear that states cannot make compacts with each other.
Keep in mind that various states already do make agreements with each other... (for example, multiple states may agree to maintain transportation infrastructure impacting each of them.) So interstate compacts do exist.

The constitution says that an interstate compact can also be entered into with congressional approval. So if enough states agree to enter an agreement, you would figure congress would probably go along.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: segnosaur on April 29, 2019, 12:26:07 pm
There are a few reasons why we still have an electoral college, why it is still useful.

It omits the need for a runoff election.
That is neither a good nor bad thing, as there are advantages and disadvantages to it. Other countries manage to survive run-off elections, I'm sure the U.S. could survive.

Even if you wanted to avoid run-off elections, there are ways to avoid them even if an agreement/compact is created. (E.g. select the winner of the popular vote if there is a clear difference between candidates, otherwise resort to whatever mechanism the electorial collage would have used.)

Quote
It provides at least some minimal protection for the smallest states against the largest ones.
Smaller states are already protected through the senate (where each state gets equal representation regardless of population.) Giving them an advantage in both the Senate and the presidental elections may seem like a little overkill to some.

Quote
It prevents a clash between Cities and Rural areas. Relating to point #2, if we had a nationwide popular vote to decide the presidency, the rural areas would be hideously outvoted.
But that clash still exists under the current electoral college. But instead of the small number of rural residents complaining "We're being outvoted!" you have a large number of urban residents complaining "Why is the majority being subject to the whims of the minority, given the fact that the minority is working to take away our rights?"

Quote
Democratic, yes, but not fair at all, considering those rural areas contribute a lot to the economy, particular in FOOD.
Food is something that they get paid for.

And lets face it, while someone like Trump may talk about how he is standing up for the farmers, the fact is the legislative agenda is still geared towards benefiting the wealthy. (And many of those rural residents have been negatively affected by tariffs that Stubby McBonespurs enacted.
Quote
The United States is a federation, not a unitary state. If we had a less federal nature ("Less federal" meaning more centralization) to our Union, a direct national popular vote would be more appropriate. Countries in the western hemisphere that use a nationwide popular vote have stronger central governments than the USA.
That doesn't sound like an advantage OR a disadvantage....

Many other democracies in the world function quite well with stronger central governments.  If the electoral college is eliminated, the balance of power may shift slightly, but people in the U.S. will still have their jobs, they will still live in relative peace and have a higher standard of living than most other nations in the world. And individual states will still maintain a significant amount of independence.

And now the disadvantages of the Electoral college:

- As I pointed out before, it gives excessive political power to people based on nothing more than where they live. (So much for the concept that "all men are created equal".... now its "some men are created equal, but the ones that live in cowpatch, Montana are more important than those that live elsewhere")

- It reduces voter turnout. How many people in California or New York sat out the 2016 election because they figured "No need to vote... Clinton will win our state anyways". If the president were selected by popular vote, people might be more motivated to actually go to the polls

- It encourages politicians to concentrate on only a small number of 'swing states'. If you look at the last election, neither candidate visited states like Texas, California, Oregon, Washington, etc. Yet both candidates made a lot of stops in Florida. If the presidency were decided by popular vote (either through the voting compact or by eliminating the EC altogether) then candidates may be obliged to spend more time in other states instead of just assuming "I'll win the whole state anyways".

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-last-10-weeks-of-2016-campaign-stops-in-one-handy-gif/
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: ?Impact on April 29, 2019, 12:42:50 pm
- As I pointed out before, it gives excessive political power to people based on nothing more than where they live. (So much for the concept that "all men are created equal".... now its "some men are created equal, but the ones that live in cowpatch, Montana are more important than those that live elsewhere")

In Canada, those who live in a bright red muddy potato field are the most important
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: JMT on April 29, 2019, 03:20:59 pm
In Canada, those who live in a bright red muddy potato field are the most important


I thought it was those living in the frozen tundra.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: segnosaur on April 29, 2019, 04:08:09 pm
Quote
In Canada, those who live in a bright red muddy potato field are the most important
I thought it was those living in the frozen tundra.
The population of PEI is ~146k, and they have 4 MPs.

The smallest Territory by population is Nunavut at ~33k, and they have 1 MP.

So yeah, it looks like at least some of the northern residents have more political power (on a per person basis) than PEI residents.

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red/allo&document=index&lang=e
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on April 29, 2019, 06:23:49 pm
I don't read a single thing in it that affects things like elections.

Contracts clause

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Import-Export Clause

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's [sic] inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Compact Clause

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.

I do. It says no compacts between the states, without permission of Congress. What's there to read into?
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on April 29, 2019, 06:26:10 pm
How do you know it relates to commerce? I think it's admirably clear that states cannot make compacts with each other.

Keep in mind that various states already do make agreements with each other... (for example, multiple states may agree to maintain transportation infrastructure impacting each of them.) So interstate compacts do exist.

The constitution says that an interstate compact can also be entered into with congressional approval. So if enough states agree to enter an agreement, you would figure congress would probably go along.

How do you know they would? Considering that it's mostly Democratic states that have entered the compact, would a future Republican Congress likely consent to it?

Also, those compacts have to be approved by Congress. That is one of the reasons Congress exists.

Segnosaur: does one person/one vote always guarantee liberty? Sometimes it enables the majority to run roughshod over the rights of the minority. This idea that because you won the majority in the election, gives you the right to do what the heck you want is ridiculous. (Just so you know, that is NOT a reference to the 2016 election....) Not saying that OPOV is a bad thing. But checks and balances are equally as important to ensure a democratic society. "I won the majority so I can govern how I want" is the path to dictatorship not democracy. Democracies have turned into dictatorships before.

I said that the small states get MINIMAL protection against the larger ones. When the Union was formed, there wasn't such a great disparity between the states' electoral vote counts. Today, while it's still out of proportion enough to provide (again MINIMAL) protection to the smallest states, the most populous states can still make up for it. California has 38 million people, it gets 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has a herd of buffalo and half a dozen ranchers, it gets 3. It keeps those states from being entirely stripped of their influence and interests; it does NOT however usurp the power of states like Ohio, California, Texas, etc...if you looked at the map, you'll see that there are only six states with >20 electors. Even if you won those six largest states, you're still 79 votes short of the presidency. Most states are "in the middle", between, say, 10 and 19 (good for 178 votes). The remaining 169 votes are in the states with between 3 and 9 electors.

In fact, the EC is far more democratic in that respect than the Senate. Part of the reason for the disparity in the EC is the winner-take-all system. Any state can change its laws from WTA to the Maine-Nebraska system. (Not sure exactly what the term for that is, but it's 2 votes for the state overall, 1 each per congressional district). A bunch more states used to use that system, today, only those two states do. But since Congress gives the state legislatures the authority to govern the election of its electors, any other state could nix the WTA if they wanted to. To me, that is a better idea than this compact.

Of course, large states that are reliably red or blue would dislike this. The Democrats will give up some of those 55 blue votes when you pry them from their cold dead hands. But others states may not be as reticent.

Everything in politics can, depending on how you look at it, be both a blessing or a curse; a double-edged sword.

"Many other governments...function well with centralized governments."

Not the largest ones....like the US. Sweden is run well centrally....with a population of 10 million over an area the size of New England. Can you say the same for a country with 320 million people that fills up a third of the North American continent?
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: ?Impact on April 29, 2019, 06:38:27 pm
I do. It says no compacts between the states, without permission of Congress. What's there to read into?

You are making a very broad interpretation. Kind of like a comma allows any gun nut to tote the latest fully automatic rifle whenever and wherever they want. Read the full paragraph to get context.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on April 29, 2019, 07:10:13 pm
You are making a very broad interpretation. Kind of like a comma allows any gun nut to tote the latest fully automatic rifle whenever and wherever they want. Read the full paragraph to get context.

OK, I'm willing to bet we both have some truth to what we say. I did read the full paragraph. So did you. Maybe we can find a constitutional expert somewhere? Do you know any American law professors? In the mean time I'll see what I can track down online as far as articles. Don't forget though, it could be taken to court to be overturned, by someone reading it the same way I am. Lawyers, at least here, are pretty good at that crap. It would be a shame, too if it happened right in the middle of an election...like before the electors actually voted!
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: TimG on April 29, 2019, 07:32:01 pm
One thing that seems to be lost: any state can change their system now and there is no need for a compact. The reason they don't is the current system gives an advantage to states. This advantage virtually guarantees that the system is not going to change.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: segnosaur on April 30, 2019, 11:46:00 am
OK, I'm willing to bet we both have some truth to what we say. I did read the full paragraph. So did you. Maybe we can find a constitutional expert somewhere? Do you know any American law professors? In the mean time I'll see what I can track down online as far as articles.
The wikipedia page itself has a section on constitutionality.

I'd say the arguments are... mixed. There are legal arguments that congress doesn't need to approve it because it doesn't constitute a compact and/or its covered because of rules allowing states to decide how to allocate EC votes. There are also legal arguments that approval is necessary. There would probably be a court challenge to the law (probably by either the republicans, or a smaller state that saw its favored candidate lose).

But then again, there's also the chance congress would approve the measure anyways, making the issue mot.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Omni on April 30, 2019, 12:06:59 pm
The wikipedia page itself has a section on constitutionality.

I'd say the arguments are... mixed. There are legal arguments that congress doesn't need to approve it because it doesn't constitute a compact and/or its covered because of rules allowing states to decide how to allocate EC votes. There are also legal arguments that approval is necessary. There would probably be a court challenge to the law (probably by either the republicans, or a smaller state that saw its favored candidate lose).

But then again, there's also the chance congress would approve the measure anyways, making the issue mot.

I was just looking at a state by state map of EC districts and by my count the approval rating is at 192, 78 short of the 270 required to make NPV effective. It seems the idea is gaining support and must be contributing to another stressful day at the current White House.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: segnosaur on April 30, 2019, 01:20:07 pm
I was just looking at a state by state map of EC districts and by my count the approval rating is at 192, 78 short of the 270 required to make NPV effective. It seems the idea is gaining support and must be contributing to another stressful day at the current White House.
As much as I would like to see the compact passed (or some other way to eliminate the effects of the Electoral college) I don't really hold that much hope.

Most of the states that have joined are solidly democratic, and there aren't that many states left that might potentially join with enough electoral votes to make a difference. Any state with a republican governor or state legislature is unlikely to join (given the fact that they realize it would harm the GOP at the federal level). That currently leaves out states like Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Texas for example.  (The states may 'study' the bill, but its unlikely that the bill would proceed regardless of how popular it is with voters.)
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Omni on April 30, 2019, 01:35:44 pm
As much as I would like to see the compact passed (or some other way to eliminate the effects of the Electoral college) I don't really hold that much hope.

Most of the states that have joined are solidly democratic, and there aren't that many states left that might potentially join with enough electoral votes to make a difference. Any state with a republican governor or state legislature is unlikely to join (given the fact that they realize it would harm the GOP at the federal level). That currently leaves out states like Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Texas for example.  (The states may 'study' the bill, but its unlikely that the bill would proceed regardless of how popular it is with voters.)

I would agree the solidly GOP districts won't budge come hell or high water and of course why would they. It certainly won't happen before 2020 but I wonder if the popular vote then is even more substantial than it was in 2016 against Trump and he is still in the WH if the backlash might not become much stronger. Maybe the Dems will get the chance to do some of their own gerrymandering and the scales will tip. 
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: segnosaur on April 30, 2019, 02:24:11 pm
I would agree the solidly GOP districts won't budge come hell or high water and of course why would they. It certainly won't happen before 2020 but I wonder if the popular vote then is even more substantial than it was in 2016 against Trump and he is still in the WH if the backlash might not become much stronger. 
I still can't see that happening.

While a large number of people may be in favor of switching to an election based on popular vote, I doubt it will be a major "election issue" (I still think things like the economy, health care, etc. will be the main issues most elections will be fought over.)

Quote
Maybe the Dems will get the chance to do some of their own gerrymandering and the scales will tip.
Not sure if gerrymandering is that relevant here. You're talking about an electoral college based on state boundaries. Those are pretty fixed. (Gerrymandering refers to redrawing district lines, which is a different issue.)

The scales may eventually tip to the democrats anyways, but I figure that will be due more to changes in the U.S. demographics (with minorities, generally a block that favors the Democrats, making up a larger part of the population.)
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on April 30, 2019, 07:22:56 pm
One thing that seems to be lost: any state can change their system now and there is no need for a compact. The reason they don't is the current system gives an advantage to states. This advantage virtually guarantees that the system is not going to change.

Well that was the purpose of the compact. Amending the U.S. constitution requires approval of 38 states (either state conventions or state legislatures). This was supposed to bypass the need for an amendment.

To me, there's the possibility of not everyone agreeing on its legality, whether it's realy a compact or an informal agreement or whatever anyone cares to call it. A lawsuit filed during the election would, as far as I know be a disaster.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: segnosaur on May 01, 2019, 10:54:06 am
Segnosaur: does one person/one vote always guarantee liberty? Sometimes it enables the majority to run roughshod over the rights of the minority. This idea that because you won the majority in the election, gives you the right to do what the heck you want is ridiculous. (Just so you know, that is NOT a reference to the 2016 election....)
No, one person/one vote doesn't guarantee liberty. The protection of liberty largely comes from the courts anyways, not from the legislature or presidency.

Yes, there is the potential for the "majority running roughshod over the minority". But the electoral college doesn't prevent the chance of abuses; it just changes the people who are most likely to do the abusing from the majority to the minority.

Consider this: Trump has managed to get 2 hard-right nominees on the supreme court. (Then there are also dozens of similar  judges appointed to the lower levels.) He has done so despite the fact that he lost the popular vote and only got elected thanks to the electoral college. Now that the balance of the supreme court has shifted to the right, you are looking at the possibility of:
- Elimination (or at least severe curtailing) of abortion rights
- Continuing voter rights suppression
Many people would consider those to be significant loses of rights, yet they were not done by a majority imposing its will on the minority, but on the minority imposing its will on the majority.
Quote
But checks and balances are equally as important to ensure a democratic society. "I won the majority so I can govern how I want" is the path to dictatorship not democracy.
Who said they can "govern how they want"? They still have to follow the constitution and the basic laws of the land.

The electoral college does nothing to prevent the "rise of a dictatorship", since there is no reason to think a Trumpian "EC-installed" authoritarian couldn't similarly eliminate democratic principles.
Quote
I said that the small states get MINIMAL protection against the larger ones. ...California has 38 million people, it gets 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has a herd of buffalo and half a dozen ranchers, it gets 3. It keeps those states from being entirely stripped of their influence and interests
They wouldn't be entirely stripped Wyoming of their influence anyways, since they would still have equal representation in the senate to California.
Quote
Everything in politics can, depending on how you look at it, be both a blessing or a curse; a double-edged sword.

"Many other governments...function well with centralized governments."

Not the largest ones....like the US. Sweden is run well centrally....with a population of 10 million over an area the size of New England. Can you say the same for a country with 320 million people that fills up a third of the North American continent?
Why does geographic area really matter?

Yes, the U.S. is a country with a lot of population and land mass. That doesn't necessarily mean that decentralization is mandatory.

And more importantly, why are you assuming that simply electing the president by popular vote is going to significantly change the way the U.S. functions? The power of each state to control its internal affairs will not be significantly affected. Its a minor change to the way the executive branch is elected. There will be no additional power given to the federal government as a result.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Omni on May 01, 2019, 11:48:35 am
This may be a bit of a swerve off the topic but I can't help but point to the endless lies the current AG Barr, the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country, is telling even under oath, on behalf of his EC elected boss. All of these scandals I would think should cause the majority of US citizens to again for for someone other than Trump, but the current EC could still keep him warming the seat in the oval office.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Boges on May 01, 2019, 01:41:19 pm
I'm coming to this thread a bit late but a good way to make the EC more democratic would be to count the district the EC votes is meant to represent instead of the entire state.

Each District is a separate race for President. So the Presidential Race would more resemble the race for the House, or it may not if people like a congressperson of a different party.

People aren't being well serviced democratically by win or take all races where all of the EC votes go to one candidate or another in a race that's otherwise very close.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: ?Impact on May 01, 2019, 04:27:27 pm
I'm coming to this thread a bit late but a good way to make the EC more democratic would be to count the district the EC votes is meant to represent instead of the entire state.

Doesn't that further open the door to gerrymandering?
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on May 02, 2019, 10:22:16 am
Doesn't that further open the door to gerrymandering?

You're right: it would base most states' electors on gerrymandered districts!
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on May 02, 2019, 10:23:47 am
This may be a bit of a swerve off the topic but I can't help but point to the endless lies the current AG Barr, the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country, is telling even under oath, on behalf of his EC elected boss. All of these scandals I would think should cause the majority of US citizens to again for for someone other than Trump, but the current EC could still keep him warming the seat in the oval office.

Not necessarily! he could just as easily lose the EC vote in 2020. Water can support a ship; water can upset it.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: JBG on May 05, 2019, 06:28:14 am
Someone brought this up in the thread about the next POTUS. I thought it merited discussion, especially after the curious reversals of 2000 and 2016.
Rutherford B. Hayes and John Quincy Adams were elected in similar "reversals."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

It's unconstitutional, for one thing. It says explicitly in Art. I, Sec. 10 that no state may, without the permission of Congress, enter into any compact with another state or states. For another thing, I very much doubt, as I stated in the other thread, that my own state's 10 democratic electors would ever in a million years vote for a republican, even if they had to according to this compact.
You are absolutely right and I have posted on other fora on that issue. I knew instinctively that the compact idea just didn't seem right. People thought it was because of the deprivation of the will of voters in that particular state. There is no bar to a State Legislature overriding the judgment of its people in picking presidential Electors. That is why the Supreme Court stopped the recounts in 2000. But compacts are, without Congressional approval a no-go.

If we abolished the EC, what exactly could replace it? How could a direct, national, popular vote work?
There would have to be a runoff. People would not like the result. Also the "action" in a presidential campaign would shift from swing states Ohio and Florida to the suburbs of New York City, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Seattle and Chicago. Why? Because voters in those areas "swing" locally but cannot swing their states.  Those areas, in other words are vote-rich but don't dominate their states. Their votes suddenly become important since the popular vote would be determinative.  Could be very annoying where I live, 40 km. from New York City.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on May 06, 2019, 07:16:03 am
Rutherford B. Hayes and John Quincy Adams were elected in similar "reversals."

I don't think 1824 and 1876 are good examples, the data isn't there for it. In 1824, 1/3 of the electors were appointed by the state legislatures, not by a popular vote in that state, so there is no way to tell who the people of New York for example (36 electoral votes in that election) would have backed had they had the ability to cast a ballot for president, for once. In 1876, a specially-appointed electoral commission decided the election, not the EC or a PV. That's why I used only the most recent three (1888, 2000, 2016) as decent examples.

I think in 2000, the State of Florida did precisely what you mentioned. State law in FL allowed that, if the popular vote doesn't return a winner within x# days after the election, the Legislature may appoint the slate. Which they went ahead and did (they just appointed the already-existing Bush/Cheney slate). I remember them talking about it on CNN, at the time.

A national popular vote wouldn't just **** off the people of small states: it would **** off the people of smaller (less populous) AREAS within a state. The city vs. the rural or even suburban areas. People who call for the abolition of the EC aren't thinking of these things.

Whatever kind of constitution you write, you must take the good with the bad. It's probably why Hamilton said of the electoral college: "if the manner be not perfect, it is at least excellent."
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Boges on May 06, 2019, 01:47:30 pm
Doesn't that further open the door to gerrymandering?

Could always have a third party organization draw districts like we do here.  :-\
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on May 06, 2019, 09:46:00 pm
Could always have a third party organization draw districts like we do here.  :-\

Well redistricting is in the hands of the states. You'd need such an organization in every state with >1 congressman. It's highly unlikely to happen in most states, since members of Congress--and their allies in their states' legislatures--benefit from gerrymandering. a few states have done it, however. But that's a different discussion I think.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: segnosaur on May 07, 2019, 11:43:58 am
Quote
It's unconstitutional, for one thing.
You are absolutely right and I have posted on other fora on that issue. I knew instinctively that the compact idea just didn't seem right.
First of all, as I have pointed out, whether it is unconstitutional has not been decided. Some legal experts say that it is constitutional, some say it is not. It may require a court case to validate either position, but the assumption that "its unconstitutional" is false.

Secondly, even if there are questions regarding its constitutionality, the main thing that's needed is just congressional approval. It doesn't seem like such a stretch that if a very popular measure is up for a vote and the Democrats take both the house and senate, that they would be willing to vote in favor.

Quote
re: no clear winner....

There would have to be a runoff. People would not like the result.
First of all, there wouldn't necessarily have to be a runoff... it depends on the wording of the compact.

Secondly, is a runnoff really that bad? Other countries use them with no problem. And who are those "people who would not like the result"? Since no candidate in that scenario had a majority, I suspect a lot of people would welcome the runoff as a chance to get "their guy" into power.

Quote
Also the "action" in a presidential campaign would shift from swing states Ohio and Florida to the suburbs of New York City, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Seattle and Chicago. Why? Because voters in those areas "swing" locally but cannot swing their states.  Those areas, in other words are vote-rich but don't dominate their states. Their votes suddenly become important since the popular vote would be determinative.
First of all, I think there are more 'voter rich/swing' areas in the U.S. other than NY/LA/SanFran. Remember, in 2016, even in deeply-conservative Texas, there were many areas that supported Clinton. So, Candidates would have their pick of dozens of cities where they could pick up votes.

Secondly, they wouldn't even necessarily have to campaign in 'swing areas' to make a difference. Even if Trump had no chance of winning urban NY/LA, and Clinton had no chance of losing, it would still make sense to campaign in those areas because, well, every vote would count.
Quote
Could be very annoying where I live, 40 km. from New York City.
Strangely enough, so many people complain about how "politicians ignore us", now you're complaining about unwanted attention.
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: ?Impact on May 07, 2019, 12:54:44 pm
Well redistricting is in the hands of the states. You'd need such an organization in every state with >1 congressman. It's highly unlikely to happen in most states, since members of Congress--and their allies in their states' legislatures--benefit from gerrymandering. a few states have done it, however. But that's a different discussion I think.

Certainly the courts have weighed in in recent days
Title: Re: The electoral college, and the NPV Interstate Compact
Post by: Super Colin Blow on May 09, 2019, 01:28:37 am
Well, they weighed in on our 6th congressional district, declaring the whole thing unconstitutional.