I'm not a fan of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[Bucky]

This is an agreement among states that, once enough states to constitute a majority of the electoral college sign on, these states will automatically pledge their EC votes to whoever wins the popular vote.

Sounds like a smart work around to the problems of the popular-will-defying Electoral College, right?

But guess who's signed up of for it... pretty much only Democratic states. I don't know the hard math involved in this, but it's not hard to imagine this boomeranging on us. Right now it seems like losing the election despite winning the vote is a Democratic problem.

But electoral coalitions are shifting, swingy things. A generation ago California was a stalwart GOP state, Pete Wilson & Sam Hayakawa. Half a generation from now, a popular California moderate Republican could end up pulling a reverse Hillary--losing on the West Coast by a few thousand votes per state while still running up big totals in Texas, Florida, & the South and a 50.5% popular vote. We win in the College, but we've agreed to hand over the White House just in time for a Republican to appoint replacements for Thomas, Alito, and the ailing Justice Sotomayor.

In my imagination, I could noodle up half a dozen variations on how this highly principled compact could bite Democrats in the butt.

I'm not a fan of the electoral college either, but the interstate pact feels too much like unilateral disarmament.

[servermsh]

1. The popular vote winner should become president n/t

[Bucky]

8. Agree. But if Republicans don't agree to it and preserve their EC advantage, we shouldn't either

[Think. Again.]

11. Why would we want to preserve anyone's EC advantage over the popular vote?

[Bucky]

25. I'm not disputing the principle. I'm saying you're asking the wrong question.

In philosophical terms, you make an ideal point. But I'm gonna go with the advice of one of key framers of the Constitution in 1787. John Dickinson warned, "Experience must be our only guide; Reason may mislead us."

The ideal of one person = one vote is wonderful. I support it in majoritarian elections. But as you've seen twice in your lifetime, presidential races are not majoritarian elections. Fixing the problem in a way that only works from one side is like building half a cabin in the hopes that'll it save you from the wolves. It would not be difficult at all for the Republicans to game this system. If they were good-faith rivals for power, there'd be justice in the proposal. But you're talking about the party that routinely funds left-wing spoiler candidates and openly works to suppress turnout from traditional Democratic voters. This proposal would motivate them to do more of the same.

If Republican states were to agree to this system, I might feel differently. But look at the map. Only one Republican state is even considering it: North Carolina. It's been introduced three times there in 7½ years. The first two times it died in committee. It's certainly not going to be passed this year when NC is a swing state and is gonna getting a disproportionate level of attention from both parties by holding only its swing status.

Every other Republican state won't part with their power to function independently. The principle of the Compact would have our states surrender their votes in favor of a self limitation, but our opponents refuse to match our "greater good of the union" principles. This is a unilateral disarmament. Until Republican states agree to such a system or at least start to show they're not bad-faith participants in our shared democracy, I can't trust this noble but naive proposal.

[Think. Again.]

30. Dissenting states would not have to agree to the compact...

...for the compact to respect the popular vote.

And if republican states won't accept the popular vote (as the Electoral College allows them to now), then their choice in President should be over-ruled by the popular choice.

The compact uses the wrongful permanance of the EC against itself and holds all states, UNITED, to the popular vote, fairly distributing the vote among each voter in every state and not merely among the political make-up of the states which has nothing to do with who the people of the country as a whole want for the specific office of President.

If, the republican Presidential choice IS the popular position, then America is a true Democracy even if WE, as the minority in the popular vote, don't like who that Democracy brings us. If third or fourth or fifth party choices become strong enough to threaten our candidate's chances, that leverage they hold must be respected also. "Country before Party" applies to us too.

The will of the majority of voters has been denied using the electoral college, that is wrong in a true Democracy and can be corrected by the compact.

[Ms. Toad]

41. The compact only goes into effect

When it is adopted by states with enough electoral votes to carry the electoral college. So it isn't unilateral disarmament. Those states (with the majority of electoral votes) will vote for whichever candidate wins the popular vote - so the candidate that wins the popular vote will receive at least 270 electoral college votes, and be made president. What those states that choose not to join the compact do with their electoral votes is made completely irrelevant because it is impossible for them to alter the outcome of the election.

[Wiz Imp]

2. President is the only election where someone can win without getting the most votes

That is insane. Whoever gets the most votes should always win. This is not a partisan issue. It's basic common sense. And yes, If a Republican won the popular vote, I think they should win.

[Bucky]

9. I agree it *shouldn't* be a partisan issue, but in reality it actually is

The EC favors the Republicans, so they favor it. They like that unfair advantage and we have to live with it. Trump could win without a plurality of the vote this year. We're stuck on that principal.

But imagine it's 2032 and some cryptomaggat from the west coast gets 48.6% of the vote, Harris's successor gets 48.4% and some farcical "lefty" independent candidate named Gabby Tulsard gets 3%... obviously she's running solely to drain off Dem votes in swing states. It doesn't work, however, and the Dems pull out an electoral victory, 280-258. Not a crushing victory, but a clean win. Only... dum dummm... the pop vote compact kicks in automatically, something no Republican state has ever agreed to.

Had the hats been switched, had the Republicans lost by a mere 600,000 votes out of 290 million cast, would they give it up? Of course not. 8 years ago they lost by 3 million and joyfully claimed a mandate. They lost by 7 million last time and still tried to claim they secretly won.

Back to anno 2032: Finally octogenarians Alito and Thomas can release their jealous grip on their gavels. Sonia Sotomayor's or Elena Kagen's health takes a sudden bad turn. Would you stand on an unshared principle right then, knowing what you're locking into place by giving up a fair win?

I don't like war, but I don't believe in unilateral disarmament.

[Think. Again.]

12. I don't think we should abandon the popular vote based on hypotheticals.

[Ms. Toad]

42. In your hypothetical, the cryptomaggat won the popular vote -

and should win the presidency. That's the point of the compact.

It's not unilateral disarmament because it achieves the goal most of us want: Whoever wins the popular vote becomes president. Just because we don't like the outcome in your hypothetical scenario, doesn't change the principle that the winner of the popular vote should be the president.

[Voltaire2]

3. The compact only goes into effect when the

states in the compact are a majority of the electoral votes. By definition that guarantees that the winner of the popular vote will win the election. That candidate can of course be from any political party.

[Oopsie Daisy]

4. No. The winner of the popular vote should become President. Period. Keeping the EC because it might benefit Democrats *

* someday in the distant future doesn't make much sense to me. Nobody's vote should count more because they live in Alaska or Idaho, etc.

It's bad enough that some states get TWO senators with a state population that's less than Washington DC. I'm not sure how that can be rectified.

[Bucky]

10. I like your principles.

"Nobody's vote should count more." But in reality, some peoples' votes do. That's our current system and I 100% think we should get rid of it. But the people we're sharing the country with are no longer people who are loyal to democracy, the rule of law, or the best interests of the United States.

Change to a popular vote system? Absolutely. Hobble ourselves and sabotage only our own political power in the mean time? That's lunacy. If anything, it creates the illusion of fixing the problem, and thus removes much of the imperative of putting in a proper fix with a Constitutional amendment.

[Think. Again.]

13. The compact IS a change to the popular vote system.

[Ms. Toad]

43. The compact implements the principles. Period.

It's not unilateral disarmament, nor is it sabotaging our own political power - regardless of which states have adopted it.

If you believe in the principles, that no one's vote should count more than anyone else's, then you believe the winner of the popular vote should be president. That is exactly what this compact does (without requiring a constitutional change - which is nearly impossible to achieve).

The compact doesn't go into effect until it can guarantee that the winner of the popular vote will be the winner of the electoral college (regardless of political affiliation).

[RidinWithHarris]

5. The pact doesn't kick in until it wouldn't be unilateral disarmament

I suppose you can imagine a situation where a state tries to disregard the pact in order to elect an (electorally) unpopular president, but other than that situation, if all states signed on honor the pact then the end result can't favor Democrats or Republicans particularly, it just favors the popular vote.

[Bucky]

14. That's the operating theory. But is that a full guaranty against unintended consequences?

Again, with the Republican habit of running spoiler candidates like Wormy Kennedy, Jill Stein, Cornel West, it's a lot easier for them to benefit if, instead of worrying about flipping several key states, they can just scattershot a bundle of spoilers around the country and dig into our bottom line total. If anything, the Popular Vote Compact that only we agree to, actually encourages them and their billionaire underwriters to take that approach.

I'd love for there to be a popular vote amendment to the Constitution, but jury-rigging a workaround is playing with fire. Note my other posts in this thread about what's at stake in the SCOTUS. Taking a pair of boxing gloves to a gunfight is just not smart and it's not fair to the national interest.

[Think. Again.]

15. There are no full guaranties against unintended consequences.

[RidinWithHarris]

19. Spoiler candidates are no more or no less of a problem with the electoral vote pact.

Spoiler candidates would be no more or no less of a problem with a constitutional popular vote amendment either, unless such an amendment added the need for a run-off election (could be a ranked-choice instant run-off) if no one had more than 50% of the vote.

[Think. Again.]

31. I really don't want to start a whole sideline discussion but...

...that's why I like the ranked-choice system.

[WarGamer]

6. But it's the rules...

Just like the baseball team that gets the MOST RUNS wins a game... not the team with the most strike outs or HITS.

It looks bad when we whine about the EC... just GOTV and WIN.

[Bucky]

17. Baseball is a GREAT analogy for the Electoral College

You know how in late October it's possible to win more runs but still lose four games out of seven?
Imagine that, but if you surrender the World Series cup the other team cause they won more runs (although they cheated to suppress your runs whenever you played games south of the Mason-Dixon) but only three games, then it means that future baseball commissioners are legally immune from rigging all future games in the League. Still worth it on a principle that is NOT shared by the other team?

Remember that the Popular Vote Compact motivates Republicans not only to run spoiler candidates, but also to crank up their efforts to engaged in even more aggressive voter suppression laws across the red states and any purple states they might hold temporary power in. And that rule will only cut the odds against us, never against them, since they won't ever agree to this rule.

If Republicans played fair, you might have a fairness argument. But we both know that they don't. In fact, they're getting a lot worse and there's no sign of them slowing down their efforts.

[RidinWithHarris]

23. You seem to merely have a vague ill-formed fear of the Popular Vote Interstate Compact...

...but haven't expressed anything about how the pact would somehow, someway bites us.

Chicanery can mess up anything. Under a constitutional amendment for the popular election of presidents, elections would still be run state by state, with each state reporting its vote totals to the federal government. Evil politicians could rig that.

Please spell out a specific scenario where the Popular Vote Interstate Compact is particularly vulnerable, more vulnerable than we are now, and more vulnerable than we'd be doing a popular-vote presidential election via constitutional amendment.

We currently suffer under a lop-sided Republican advantage in presidential elections. Isn't that bad enough?

[Jk23]

47. I always liked a simular sports anaology.

Super Bowls are decided by the score not the number of yards gained.

[Silent Type]

7. EC is one of those matters that won't change in my lifetime and probably decades afterwards.

[pecosbob]

16. The right way is to amend the Constitution to require states to award their electoral votes proportionally

instead of winner take all. But that's not going to happen unless Dems have a supermajority. Probably the best we can do is something like the John Lewis voting Rights Act.

[Bucky]

18. I like that solution.

But guess which states will never agree to that. And it takes only 12 state legislatures to defeat an Amendment.

[Think. Again.]

20. Another way would be to build the strength we need to do that...

...over time through the wins we would get using the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

[Think. Again.]

21. You are devising a plan to retain power despite the popular vote...

...there's a word for that, and it isn't "Democracy".

[Bucky]

26. I'm not devising it. I'm saying Republicans are never going to quit defending it

And yes, the Constitution is full of things that aren't small-d democratic

[Polybius]

35. I was thinking of another word

Loophole.

[Foolacious]

24. The compact only goes into effect once an EV majority of the states sign on.

Imagine that we have 260 electoral votes' worth of states signed on. That's not enough to trigger the National Vote Compact (NVC). Elections carry on as usual.

But then one more state worth 10 EV signs on. Then imagine that Candidate X wins majorities in 272 EV-worth of states, despite losing the popular vote to Candidate Y by 2%. In the old system, Candidate X wins. But in the new system, the NVC states cast their electoral votes for the popular vote winner, even though that means that States A, B, and C are casting their electoral votes for the candidate that LOST in those states. So the popular vote winner gets AT LEAST 280 EV, plus any from states that were not signed on to the NVC.

[Bucky]

27. Oh, I totally get how the Constitution and the Compact work.

I'm simply pointing out that (1) this Compact would only work if a Republican wins the popular vote when the Democrat wins the EC, not vice versa, because (2) this Compact encourages Republicans even more to rig the system by funding left wing spoiler candidates and engage in voter suppression efforts. It incentivizes cheating--something our Maga compatriots need no help with.

[Wiz Imp]

46. You do realize that a constitutional ammendment mandating the popular vote winner the winner

would have the same effect of "incentivizing cheating" in the same way (running spoiler candidates to reduce the Democrats popular vote total). So apparently you prefer the electoral college over the popular vote.

[unblock]

28. Uhhh, that's actual democracy. If republicans win over 50% of the national vote, they should win

I don't want that scenario, but if you believe in democracy, you have to say it's ok to lose when the other side gets a majority of the votes.

Now, what *is* a problem, and a minor advantage of the electoral college, is that the electoral college concentrates the fraud incentive in a few states that are close to evenly split. These are, in theory, the best states to catch and prevent electoral fraud.

A straight national vote encourages fraud in highly partisan areas. Imagine a red precinct that's 70% Republican but reports 95% Republican votes and maybe it's easier to get away with it. Point is, fraud can happen anywhere, including where there's highly partisan control.

[yourout]

29. It's all or nothing. Cannot be anything in between.

[Polybius]

32. I hate it too, but fear not because it's blatantly unconstitutional

It will easily be struck down by the Supreme Court.

[JCMach1]

34. 100% Constitutional

States can determine how they choose electors.

[Polybius]

36. 100% not, on two counts

But pointless to argue, we'll just have to wait and see when it goes the the SC.

[Think. Again.]

37. Unfortunately...

....the Supreme Court we are stuck with at the moment (due to the seating of a President that was not the popular choice) is unconstitutional in it's own ways and should not be considered the rightful judge of what is Constitutional or not.

[Polybius]

40. Depends what the vote is

If it's 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0, it should make some rethink their position.

[Kaleva]

38. And states need approval from Congress in order to enter into a compact with other states

[LeftInTX]

44. The GOP will challenge it in court if they lose!

[JCMach1]

33. It's called democracy and it's how most of the world does it...

The EC has to go.

[LeftInTX]

45. Then "make it go"..LOL

Actually parliaments have a system where parliament determines who the government head is.

For instance, only one district votes for Netanyahu. Each party determines who their leader will be. Then the parties get together and decide who is gonna work with who. Whoever forms an alliance is the winner. That's why he keeps winning.

[The Revolution]

39. I think it's a waste of effort

As soon as it requires a state to give its electoral votes to someone that didn't get the most votes in that state, there will be attempts to reverse that. The courts will be involved, or depending who controls the state government, there could be efforts to change the law between election day and the certification.

It would be chaos. And I'm pretty sure the Compact will lose in the end.

Effort should be on expanding the House instead.