• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

hurtinbuckaroo

Contributor
Joined
Mar 7, 2003
Messages
6,230
Location
Delaware, USA
Basic Beliefs
laissez le bon temps rouler
The prospect of states agreeing to circumvent the Electoral College by awarding electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote has been around for a while. It has gotten nowhere because the states that have signed on do not represent a majority of the votes. That could change in January:

“As a result of the 2026 midterm elections, Democrats have gained control over enough state government trifectas to pass the National Popular Vote Compact and give it a majority of at least 283 electoral votes”.

There are still constitutional hurdles, but I’d like to see the process start ASAP.
 
There are still constitutional hurdles, but I’d like to see the process start ASAP.
I don't think that there are any constitutional hurdles.
State legislatures can send anyone they want to the electoral college. That is constitutional law. If enough states to comprise a voting majority send delegates to vote for the candidates that have the most votes from the whole US electorate,
The USA will finally start electing our president.
Tom
 
The hurdle isn't the Constitution. It is this agreement is non-binding and not law. That is an awfully tricky wrinkle.
 
The hurdle isn't the Constitution. It is this agreement is non-binding and not law. That is an awfully tricky wrinkle.
It would be if states passed such laws.
I realize that the politicians don't want to give up the power and gravy train.

But if 283 votes worth of state legislatures passed laws requiring democracy electing Presidents, things would change. We The People would decide presidential elections.

And you know what I think is an even bigger deal? The biggest, most talked about, most important decision, would matter to the American people. At the moment it doesn't. Most people live in a place like me.

I live in Indiana. Trump got every EC vote Indiana had. It didn't matter if I voted or not.
TSwizzle lives in California, his vote didn't matter either.

The majority of the American people live in a state where the outcome of the presidential election is a foregone conclusion, way before the actual election. My vote doesn't count, and I know that going in. Kamala Harris could have gotten 49.9% of Hoosier votes and Trump would still get 100% of our EC delegates!
If everyone knew that their voice matters we would doubtlessly have more turnout and more engagement. That is what I see as the Big Fucking Deal with nationalpopularvote.com
Tom
 
I get the reason for it. I said it isn't binding. The only solid way to do it is via Constitutional Amendment. Any pact is at risk of dissolving.
 
I'm not sure about this. This could disenfranchise a lot of voters.

I do like how some states are getting around Citizen United however.
 
There are still constitutional hurdles, but I’d like to see the process start ASAP.
I don't think that there are any constitutional hurdles.
State legislatures can send anyone they want to the electoral college. That is constitutional law. If enough states to comprise a voting majority send delegates to vote for the candidates that have the most votes from the whole US electorate,
The USA will finally start electing our president.
Tom
Unless there are prescribed consequences for “breaking the pact”, I can’t see it holding together for more than one cycle.
 
I'm not sure about this. This could disenfranchise a lot of voters.

I do like how some states are getting around Citizen United however.
Everyone’s vote counting equally disenfranchises no one. The electoral college gives a much higher value to some votes. It also allows candidates to virtually ignore 3/4 of the states when campaigning.

 
I'm not sure about this. This could disenfranchise a lot of voters.

How so? I feel it’s the opposite. I would be happy knowing my vote for President counts the same as someone living in Wyoming.

Someone gets fifty percent of the vote but the EC votes are given to the loser who got 47 percent. That's gonna piss people off.
 
I'm not sure about this. This could disenfranchise a lot of voters.

How so? I feel it’s the opposite. I would be happy knowing my vote for President counts the same as someone living in Wyoming.

Someone gets fifty percent of the vote but the EC votes are given to the loser who got 47 percent. That's gonna piss people off.
That’s effectively the current situation and how Presidents get elected without winning the popular vote, like Trump in 2016. And yes it pissed people off.

But it really should be a constitutional amendment if we want the President elected by direct popular vote and not elected by the states (whose borders are an effective gerrymander).
 
But it really should be a constitutional amendment if we want the President elected by direct popular vote and not elected by the states (whose borders are an effective gerrymander).
I would agree except I don't trust the political dumbasses that run the government.
The NVP fixes the biggest problem. And I am convinced that making everyone's vote matter will vastly improve the engagement of the US electorate.
Tom
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
I'm not sure about this. This could disenfranchise a lot of voters.

How so? I feel it’s the opposite. I would be happy knowing my vote for President counts the same as someone living in Wyoming.

The person living in Wyoming would have their vote be worthless in the face of the good people of say, Illinois.

I’ve spent most of my life living in towns surrounded by cornfields or now woods and cornfields beyond the woods. Like many/most states, my state’s population is centered in a couple of large cities surrounded by suburbs. Decisions made in the Capitol affect me but my voice is outweighed by the voices of people living many miles away who have no idea of what their idea of best interests will do to my best interests.

Example thstvdruve it home to me:

My town used to have many uncontrolled intersections, without lights or stop signs or even yield signs. ‘Everybody knows’ that the person to your right goes first but it’s a college town so fresh crop every year of people like me who thought the way things worked was madness. I live the second house from the corner and twice within a year, cars collided at the burner, sending a vehicle into my neighbor’s yard, once inches from his front steps. This was the same intersection my kids crossed twice a day to go to and from school. At the corner of the school yard, someone flipped their vehicle over—another intersection that my and many other kids crossed twice a day.

I called the city and the school district, was advised to join the transportation committee and to call the state DOT—which I did. DOT thought that lowering the speed limit ( residential streets) near schools would impart a false sense of security to school kids. Stop signs were unnecessary.

And then, on the next street over, a child was killed crossing the street. At the same corner I used to walk Daisy Girl Scouts across, me, standing in the middle of the road making myself as big as possible to hopefully slow cars down abd get them to stop. Not even police cars were very good about it.

After that poor child’s unnecessary tragic death, we got stop signs, just like in any other sane community.

No lowered speeds, except on some subdivisions. Those kids have wealthier parents who belong to the country club.

It’s best to have a good, strong voice representing the local regions.
 
I'm not sure about this. This could disenfranchise a lot of voters.

How so? I feel it’s the opposite. I would be happy knowing my vote for President counts the same as someone living in Wyoming.

The person living in Wyoming would have their vote be worthless in the face of the good people of say, Illinois.
It would be worth exactly the same. One person one vote.


It’s best to have a good, strong voice representing the local regions.
Thats what congress is for. Also state, county, city and other local governments.

I believe that the NPVIC only says that the President would essentially be elected by popular vote. I don’t know what the system would be like if all of Congress were elected by popular vote, so local representation would still exist under this system.
 
It would be worth exactly the same. One person one vote.
That's the point.
What possible important concerns could people in Wyoming have that people in Illinois don't?

@Toni, I agree that the traffic business you described was a big problem. But it looks completely like a local issue. Local folks needed to deal with it, not the state or federal government.
Tom
 
I'm not sure about this. This could disenfranchise a lot of voters.

How so? I feel it’s the opposite. I would be happy knowing my vote for President counts the same as someone living in Wyoming.

The person living in Wyoming would have their vote be worthless in the face of the good people of say, Illinois.
This is patently false. Their vote would have the same value as every other vote. Here’s what happened in 2016: a large number of Florida voters cast their ballot for Clinton, helping her to collect more votes than anyone else in the race. Under the electoral college, their votes had no value. Meanwhile, the Wyoming voter’s ballot not only counted, it had more impact than a vote for Clinton in any of the states she won, because Wyoming’s electoral votes are disproportionate to its population. Every one of the low-population states, nearly all of which are red states, have the same advantage because the minimum # of electoral votes for a state is 3, regardless of population.


Absolutely unfair, and must be rectified.
 
It would be worth exactly the same. One person one vote.
That's the point.
What possible important concerns could people in Wyoming have that people in Illinois don't?

@Toni, I agree that the traffic business you described was a big problem. But it looks completely like a local issue. Local folks needed to deal with it, not the state or federal government.
Tom
Land, land use, wilderness preservation, indigenous populations, water and water rights, economy vs environment .

It’s a little like asking what concerns do people in Minnesota and Wisconsin have over oil pipelines they people like Derec who lives in Georgia do not. Or fracking.

These things seem unimportant if the environment near you is not going to be fucked uo.
 
I'm not sure about this. This could disenfranchise a lot of voters.

I do like how some states are getting around Citizen United however.
Everyone’s vote counting equally disenfranchises no one. The electoral college gives a much higher value to some votes. It also allows candidates to virtually ignore 3/4 of the states when campaigning.

Yeah, I've never understood this when I hear blowhards like Hannity, Watters etc talk about "democracy in the US".

The Presidency - not really representative of public opinion
The Senate - not really representative of public opinion
The Supreme Court - not really representative of public opinion
Congress - 1 out of 4 ain't bad?
 
It would be worth exactly the same. One person one vote.
That's the point.
What possible important concerns could people in Wyoming have that people in Illinois don't?

@Toni, I agree that the traffic business you described was a big problem. But it looks completely like a local issue. Local folks needed to deal with it, not the state or federal government.
Tom
The local people could NOT do what they wanted because the state DOT refused. A portion of a road was also considered a highway although it was in an exclusively residential area surrounded by residential area. Except for some churches and schools, Plus local felt compelled to defer to state DOT. Until that kid got killed. Btw, I snatched my own kid out of harms way more than once.
 
Back
Top Bottom