Connecticut moves toward Supporting the National Popular Vote initiative

[Copernicus]

What keeps any state(s) that agree to this compact from reneging if they think it's in their political interest to do so?

That's what I was thinking. In today's climate what are the odds of 12 states reaching a concensus supported by the voters?

Steve, were you aware that the state of Washington has already signed this initiative into law? Most people in the country are not really paying attention to this initiative. It has been making steady progress. If a 'blue wave' election happens in November, it is likely that more states will adopt the law.

 

[Copernicus]

...
It is clever, but will never work. No GOP controlled state will agree to it, and the Dems don't control enough states to reach to 270 mark.
Plus, the agreement is in no way binding. Any state that passes it with a slight Dem majority will see a massive influx of GOP efforts to gain a majority and nullify the agreement. The number of states that are part of it will go up and down with every state election that results in a party change for the governor or majority control of the legislature.

This initiative tends to be favored more by Democrats than Republicans, because the last two Republican presidents lost the popular vote but were still elected by a majority of state electors because of the winner-take-all way in which the system evolved. However, a great many Repbublicans support abolishment of the EC system, because they believe that presidents should be chosen by popular vote, not electoral technicality. Donald Trump is among those Republicans who think this way. Abolishing the EC is not a totally partisan issue. Hence, I think that your concern is exaggerated.

 

[Copernicus]

...

What your doing is taking one of the smallest states and comparing it to the largest state in the one category that wouldn't change even with a popular vote for presidency. Your example is for the Senate which was the compromise needed to get the Union to form because none of the small states at the time the constitution was ratified wanted to be Virgina's bitch for the foreseeable future. Without the Senate the chances of any territory joining after the formation of the country would have been about nil. Just admit your problem is with the Senate and not the Electoral college vote for presidency.

That's false, because state electors were assumed to have the freedom to cast their votes in any way their conscience directed them. In fact, some still do that despite state laws that forbid it. In my state of Washington, I voted for Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, at least one of our state electors refused to vote for her. The winner-take-all practice holds for most states, but it was never part of the original vision. And, unlike the past, all states now choose presidents by popular vote rather than acts of the state legislature. Why? Because people generally believe that presidents should be elected directly by popular vote, not indirectly by their representatives. The EC has absolutely nothing to do with the Senate, and it contradicts what most Americans want for a system of presidential elections.

So if you don't care about Montana and Wyoming, it's not hard to let them or any other states leave if you plan on changing the rules. My guess is Montana and Wyoming are too small to have much say anyway. You're going to have to convince the mid sized 10+ million population states down that they should cede power to CA, NY, FL, and Texas and give up the electoral college system. Some of the small coat tail states might get on board if they think CA will treat them nicely.

The proposals however don't mimic popular vote. They say they'll switch their electoral college votes to match the winner of the popular vote regardless of how their constituents voted. If they were serious about mimicking the popular vote they would simply split their electoral college votes like they do in Maine and Nebraska. That's a simple fix that doesn't require them to vote against the will of their constituents based on election results in another part of the country.

The point of the initiative is that presidential elections should be entirely out of the hands of individual states. If the popular vote determines presidents, then campaigns will focus on national issues, not parochial state issues. For example, the country will be more likely to think about whether having ethanol mixed in with gasoline is a good idea for the nation, not just Iowa (because they run the first presidential primary).

An interesting side note is that there is no requirement that EC voters be selected by a general population vote (just like how parties aren't required to hold a popular vote for their candidates in a primary). We've just gravitated to this method. What happens if one state doesn't hold voting that year and selects it EC representatives by State government voting or game of chance? Would there be a "popular vote" then for these states to base their election on?

You have identified the essential flaw in Hamilton's reasoning when he came up with this benighted idea. States are entirely free to determine how they choose electors. All states now choose them by popular vote. That is because most Americans believe that presidents should be chosen by popular vote, not an indirect method. I don't think that any state is likely to favor flipping coins as a method.

 

[dismal]

It does seem to be a pipe dream of sorts. I can't imagine the court challenges.

Other than the "dream" part.

It seems clear most people will get something closer to the government they want if we steered back to the sort of federalism the founders envisioned. A Federal government of few, enumerated powers and states free to govern as their own people saw fit.

Utter nonsense. You are describing how it was under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was adopted precisely because that early attempt at a confederation failed miserably. The federal government had no power to levy taxes, and the states were in conflicts with each other that led to violent clashes in some cases. And the original "dream" was one in which the "people" represented a minority of adults. Slaves and women were excluded. In some cases, the slave population outnumbered the free population of a state. That is a "dream" we don't need to revisit.

Sorry champ, the Constitution did in fact establish a Federal government of few, enumerated powers with the rest of the powers being left to the states.

It literally says so:

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

And, even if this weren't true my point would still stand. More people get the government they want under a system where more powers are left to the states.

 

[Copernicus]

Utter nonsense. You are describing how it was under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was adopted precisely because that early attempt at a confederation failed miserably. The federal government had no power to levy taxes, and the states were in conflicts with each other that led to violent clashes in some cases. And the original "dream" was one in which the "people" represented a minority of adults. Slaves and women were excluded. In some cases, the slave population outnumbered the free population of a state. That is a "dream" we don't need to revisit.

Sorry champ, the Constitution did in fact establish a Federal government of few, enumerated powers with the rest of the powers being left tot he states.

It literally says so:

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

And, even if this weren't true my point would still stand. More people get the government they want under a system where more powers are left to the states.

Well, I'm sorry, too, because that was not the unanimous view of everyone at the time. If what you say were literally true, there would be no Bill of Rights to enumerate the protected rights of citizens. But, of course, some did articulate the ideology you speak of. There were Anti-federalists around at the time. They were called "Republicans", but that party ultimately morphed into what we call "Democrats" today.

 

[lpetrich]

Though the creators of the US Constitution were right to make it amendable, it is supposedly one of the hardest to amend of any nation's constitutions. Even in the US itself, some states have constitutions that are much easier to amend, and some of them have been amended enough to grow to 10 times the size of the national one.

Most of the amendments of the US Constitution have come in bursts, and these bursts occurred during periods of major reforms. Some such periods have lacked such bursts, however. There have been four bursts so far, around when the Constitution itself was adopted, during the Civil War and shortly afterward, during the turn-of-the-century Progressive Era, and in the 1960's. There wasn't one in the New Deal era, however. We are currently overdue for another progressive era, but I haven't seen a lot of proposed Constitutional amendments recently.

 

[Emily Lake]

That is true in the Senate but not in the House of Representatives.
Are you sure about that? Doesn't it depend on how you define smaller vs larger states?
That is utterly false. They have a greater advantage in the Senate but no advantage in the House.

The Senate represents the interests of the States as States. The House represents the interests of the Citizens. They serve different purposes.

ETA: I'm not arguing with laughing dog, just adding on. I personally think that the structure of our legislature makes a LOT of sense. You wouldn't expect the EU to be governed solely on the basis of the populations concerned, without consideration to the interests of the member nations, would you? And while many people like to think of the US as one monolithic entity... remember that the land mass is close to the size to all of western Europe combined. The degree of cultural diversity isn't quite as extreme, there is definitely substantial differences. California has a different culture than Alaska. Florida has a different culture than Washington. States have different geological and environmental concerns, the people of the states hold different collective values as a result of both cultural and environmental differences. The States, as States, should also have a voice in the government.

 

[dismal]

Sorry champ, the Constitution did in fact establish a Federal government of few, enumerated powers with the rest of the powers being left tot he states.

It literally says so:



And, even if this weren't true my point would still stand. More people get the government they want under a system where more powers are left to the states.

Well, I'm sorry, too, because that was not the unanimous view of everyone at the time. If what you say were literally true, there would be no Bill of Rights to enumerate the protected rights of citizens. But, of course, some did articulate the ideology you speak of. There were Anti-federalists around at the time. They were called "Republicans", but that party ultimately morphed into what we call "Democrats" today.

I mean "literally" in the definitional sense of literally. It literally says it. I produced the part where it does so.

lit·er·al·ly
adverb
in a literal manner or sense; exactly.

 

[Emily Lake]

The proposals however don't mimic popular vote. They say they'll switch their electoral college votes to match the winner of the popular vote regardless of how their constituents voted. If they were serious about mimicking the popular vote they would simply split their electoral college votes like they do in Maine and Nebraska. That's a simple fix that doesn't require them to vote against the will of their constituents based on election results in another part of the country.

Agreed. Additionally, throwing all of the state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote would have the effect of furthering the schism that we get with FPTP.

 

[Emily Lake]

The point of the initiative is that presidential elections should be entirely out of the hands of individual states.

True. Instead, presidential elections will be entirely in the hands of a few very large cities.

 

[lpetrich]

The point of the initiative is that presidential elections should be entirely out of the hands of individual states.

True. Instead, presidential elections will be entirely in the hands of a few very large cities.

Did you work out the numbers?

What would you prefer? That everybody's vote be weighted by the reciprocal of each voter's local population density?

 

[steve_bank]

What keeps any state(s) that agree to this compact from reneging if they think it's in their political interest to do so?

That's what I was thinking. In today's climate what are the odds of 12 states reaching a concensus supported by the voters?

Steve, were you aware that the state of Washington has already signed this initiative into law? Most people in the country are not really paying attention to this initiative. It has been making steady progress. If a 'blue wave' election happens in November, it is likely that more states will adopt the law.

Same issue, signing state laws and reaching a 12 state consensus are two different things. Look at Congress and local elections.

Here in Washington we have had a fairly good referendum process to get issues on the ballot. Some pass and some don't.

A national referendum perhaps? On a national scale it bring chaos across our large country and diversity. In the southwest water allocation has long been a fierce issue between states.

The movement is yet another sign of our failing national govt and how much trouble we are in.

 

[Copernicus]

Steve, were you aware that the state of Washington has already signed this initiative into law? Most people in the country are not really paying attention to this initiative. It has been making steady progress. If a 'blue wave' election happens in November, it is likely that more states will adopt the law.

Same issue, signing state laws and reaching a 12 state consensus are two different things. Look at Congress and local elections.

Here in Washington we have had a fairly good referendum process to get issues on the ballot. Some pass and some don't.

A national referendum perhaps? On a national scale it bring chaos across our large country and diversity. In the southwest water allocation has long been a fierce issue between states.

The movement is yet another sign of our failing national govt and how much trouble we are in.

Historically, there have been very few periods when the US wasn't undergoing crises and being in trouble of one sort or another. The national government has always been falling short in one way or another. There has always been corruption and scandal, although Trump may be setting new records in that department. For this referendum to pass, the number of states that pass it don't matter. What matters is the collective electoral count of the states that do pass it. Connecticut did not do a lot for it, but there are others that could push it over the 270 count limit. After that, the EC system would be nullified until enough states pulled out of it to make it collapse. However, they don't even really need to exceed the 270 vote threshold to make this initiative favor passage for the winner of the popular vote, since a significant number of electoral votes from states that candidate lost in popular vote could still easily sway an election. It's just that the law requires a 270 count limit in order to take effect. Once the state laws are triggered, there would probably be a lot of pressure to eliminate the EC altogether and perhaps amend the Constitution with a process that made better sense than this rather obscure end run around the Constitution.

 

[Copernicus]

The point of the initiative is that presidential elections should be entirely out of the hands of individual states.

True. Instead, presidential elections will be entirely in the hands of a few very large cities.

Did you work out the numbers?

What would you prefer? That everybody's vote be weighted by the reciprocal of each voter's local population density?

Actually, it would not work out quite the way Emily imagines, but people still have a hard time conceiving of the implication of popular elections. All votes, whether made by people living in cities or in the countryside, would count equally. So candidates would only be looking at issues that appealed to the broadest segment of the population regardless of where they lived. There will always be minorities of voters in cities that will vote for the same policies favored by majorities in rural areas, so the election calculus would not necessarily need to concentrate on popularity with urban cores. The main thing is that more people on all sides of the issues would be motivated to vote, since the state one lived in would no longer matter. Right now, voter turnouts are depressingly low, because people in solid blue or red states see no point in voting if they disagree with the overwhelming majority of others living in that state.

 

[lpetrich]

I decided to interpret "city" rather literally, by defining "city" as any area under the jurisdiction of some city government. I went to  List of United States cities by population and I counted up the populations with a spreadsheet program.

That site lists all the cities having at least 100,000 people inhabiting them in 2016, 307 cities in all. Using those 2016 numbers, their total population was 93 million, out of a total US population then of 323 million. Restricting to cities with over a million people gave only 10 cities and 26 million people. So people in cities are heavily outnumbered.


However, cities have suburbs nearby, and to take them into account, one must consider Metropolitan Statistical Areas. So I turned to  List of metropolitan statistical areas, and used its 2017 numbers. The US's total population then was 326 million, so let us see how the MSA's compare. There are 382 of them, with the least populous being Carson City NV, with a population of 55,000. Their total population is 280 million, almost the total US population.

There are 352 of them with populations at least 100,000, and their total population is 277 million.

There are 53 of them with populations of at least 1 million, and their total population is 183 million.

There are 2 of them with populations of at least 10 million (New York City and Los Angeles), and their total population is 34 million.

 

[Emily Lake]

The point of the initiative is that presidential elections should be entirely out of the hands of individual states.

True. Instead, presidential elections will be entirely in the hands of a few very large cities.

Did you work out the numbers?

What would you prefer? That everybody's vote be weighted by the reciprocal of each voter's local population density?

I'm actually quite happy with the concept of electoral votes. I would like to see some refinement of the apportioning of House seats to population, because IIRC it underweights states with larger populations. But I would like to retain the voice of the States as States within the legislature. My preference would be to have the Population-based EC votes be distributed to the winner within each district, and have the 2 state votes be given to the winner of the popular vote within that state - the method used by Nebraska and Maine.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Did you work out the numbers?

What would you prefer? That everybody's vote be weighted by the reciprocal of each voter's local population density?

I'm actually quite happy with the concept of electoral votes. I would like to see some refinement of the apportioning of House seats to population, because IIRC it underweights states with larger populations. But I would like to retain the voice of the States as States within the legislature. My preference would be to have the Population-based EC votes be distributed to the winner within each district, and have the 2 state votes be given to the winner of the popular vote within that state - the method used by Nebraska and Maine.

This has the same issue. A loser of pop vote within a state can win the electoral college votes in the state.

 

[Rhea]

Nowadays, the small states outnumber the large ones and have a greater advantage in controlling our bicameral legislature.

That is utterly false. They have a greater advantage in the Senate but no advantage in the House.

Doesn’t that given them a net advantage in the bicameral legislature?

 

[Rhea]

Who _does_ care about Montana and Wyoming? Enough that their votes are worth 3.6 TIMES that of a Californian? What is so Wyoming-ey about Wyoming that it is worth 3.6 times what’s Clifornia-ey?

More to the point, it’s not really Montana at all. It’s rural. So this way the Rural Californians finally get a voice, right? Rural New Yorkers finally get to be heard. And they agree with the rural Wyomingites. Meanwhile urban Texans can finally be heard. Why would anyone object to that?

How do you come to the conclusion that they get 3.6 times the votes of CA? The house of representatives has 53 members from CA and Montana 1. CA has 55 electoral votes and Montana 3.

Simple math. Divide the population byt the number of electoral votes they get. You find that your PRESIDENTIAL vote counts 3.6 times more toward the final result if you are from Wyoming than if you are from California.

Your example is for the Senate which

No it wasn’t. My objection is the electotal college and electing the president of us all, not the senator from Wyoming.

was the compromise needed to get the Union to form because none of the small states at the time the constitution was ratified wanted to be Virgina's bitch for the foreseeable future.

And now We don’t want to be Wyoming’s Bitch. The population ratios have changed dramatically. The electoral college needs to change, too.

Without the Senate the chances of any territory joining after the formation of the country would have been about nil.

But now we’re all in and times have changed and population densities have changed. And it’s time to stop pretendng that isn’t true.

Just admit your problem is with the Senate and not the Electoral college vote for presidency.

You’re reading badly. My problem is with the votes for President.

So if you don't care about Montana and Wyoming, it's not hard to let them or any other states leave if you plan on changing the rules. My guess is Montana and Wyoming are too small to have much say anyway. You're going to have to convince the mid sized 10+ million population states down that they should cede power to CA, NY, FL, and Texas and give up the electoral college system.

It’s hard to give up power, even if it’s unjust power, isnt it.
And moreover, they aren’t even giving up all their power. Just their excess power.

PEOPLE make up this country, ALL voters are creatd equal. Not just the ones who live rural.

The proposals however don't mimic popular vote. They say they'll switch their electoral college votes to match the winner of the popular vote regardless of how their constituents voted.

Oh, you mean they are bad because they care about the whole country more than their state-tribe? Oh, the humanity.

If they were serious about mimicking the popular vote they would simply split their electoral college votes like they do in Maine and Nebraska. That's a simple fix that

... hands the vote to the most unreasonable people. I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

doesn't require them to vote against the will of their constituents based on election results in another part of the country.

Because it would be bad to think outside your tribe, after all.

And despite the world getting so much more connected, despite people from Wyoming moving to Pennsylvania and from Virginia to Idaho and from Vermont to California and from Texas to Delaware; despite people marrying into families from different states, we must NEVER EVER think of the whole country as our home, we must cleave to a tiny current-address tribe that might not even be our native home.



Also, look at the link for the project. It’s not just democratic states.
Note: Full dislosure: I live extremely rural. We live on a dirt road, no cable, no cell service, no pizza delivery, no natural gas, no broadband. My voting area is the opposite of our state’s majority.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Just because the Constitution grants more federal powers than the Articles of Confederation does not mean that the Constitution isn't a limited grant of powers with the rest belonging to the state or the people. It just grants a greater number of limited powers.