National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

[Shadowy Man]

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.

Those sound like state issues so how would you relate that to whether a President is elected by the states versus by the people. Will these issues get solved better if the President, who doesn’t legislate, is more elected by Wyomingites than Californians? The legislature (Congress) would still have the same local representation it currently has.

 

[bilby]

Each state is a constituency for the senate - it has two senators to represent it.

Each district is a constituency for congress - it has one congressman to represent it.

Each nation is a constituency for the president - it has one president to represent it.

Every voter within a single constituency should have a vote of equal weight in a representative democracy. This happens for senators and congressmen, but for obsolete historical reasons, does not happen for presidents.

And people who can immediately see the problem with a suggestion that each voter should have their vote weighted by how many kids they have, or how many cars, or how many dollars, or the floor area of their residence, seem for no good reason to think it's OK to let voters in presidential elections have a vote weighted by the population density of the state in which they live.

It's bizarre.

 

[Toni]

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.

Those sound like state issues so how would you relate that to whether a President is elected by the states versus by the people. Will these issues get solved better if the President, who doesn’t legislate, is more elected by Wyomingites than Californians? The legislature (Congress) would still have the same local representation it currently has.

It’s the same thing, just different scale. Another example talked about on this board is whether pipelines that go through geologically fragile areas and/or reservation land/historical or cultural sites should be allowed. People in those areas largely say no. People from other states whose land, water, homes won’t be affected might think it’s a great idea.

I don’t think that people in urban areas should be able to force their view of the best land use in rural people who live in the area the urbanites want to impose their control. I don’t think that rural people should be able to skittle state or federal funds for urban infrastructure.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

Those sound like state issues so how would you relate that to whether a President is elected by the states versus by the people. Will these issues get solved better if the President, who doesn’t legislate, is more elected by Wyomingites than Californians? The legislature (Congress) would still have the same local representation it currently has.

It’s the same thing, just different scale. Another example talked about on this board is whether pipelines that go through geologically fragile areas and/or reservation land/historical or cultural sites should be allowed. People in those areas largely say no. People from other states whose land, water, homes won’t be affected might think it’s a great idea.

I don’t think that people in urban areas should be able to force their view of the best land use in rural people who live in the area the urbanites want to impose their control. I don’t think that rural people should be able to skittle state or federal funds for urban infrastructure.

And how does electing the President by popular vote instead of the electoral college effect this particular scenario do you propose?

 

[TomC]

And how does electing the President by popular vote instead of the electoral college effect this particular scenario do you propose?

Exactly. The kind of voters, conservative "Drill Baby Drill!" Republican(Teaparty) that facilitate oil pipelines are typically the rural voters who currently have way out size representation in the EC.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Each state is a constituency for the senate - it has two senators to represent it.

Each district is a constituency for congress - it has one congressman to represent it.

Each nation is a constituency for the president - it has one president to represent it.

Every voter within a single constituency should have a vote of equal weight in a representative democracy. This happens for senators and congressmen, but for obsolete historical reasons, does not happen for presidents.

And people who can immediately see the problem with a suggestion that each voter should have their vote weighted by how many kids they have, or how many cars, or how many dollars, or the floor area of their residence, seem for no good reason to think it's OK to let voters in presidential elections have a vote weighted by the population density of the state in which they live.

It's bizarre.

I am deeply confused that anyone here sees inequity in the proposal. Not everyone gets what they want, regardless. At least the proposal maximizes the number of voters who get what they wanted.
So simple …

 

[ZiprHead]

Jacob Soboroff interviewed an expert on the subject of the OP. He said it's not nearly so cut and dried easy to implement and could have its own pitfalls. State constitutions, Attorneys Generals who could fight it between the vote counting and the electoral vote counting that could stop the votes from being recorded at all.

I tried to see if the segment was posted on YT yet but no.

 

[TomC]

Jacob Soboroff interviewed an expert on the subject of the OP. He said it's not nearly so cut and dried easy to implement and could have its own pitfalls. State constitutions, Attorneys Generals who could fight it between the vote counting and the electoral vote counting that could stop the votes from being recorded at all.

I tried to see if the segment was posted on YT yet but no.

You do realize that the effort for fairness doesn't need every state legislature to accomplish the goal. It's most of the way there now. States with 270 EC delegates or more is all that is necessary for an American revolution.

This won't disenfranchise anybody. The current system does. My vote doesn't matter because I live in a heavily Teaparty state. I believe that the most important outcome of equality in Presidential elections is a huge increase in voter engagement and turnout.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Jacob Soboroff interviewed an expert on the subject of the OP. He said it's not nearly so cut and dried easy to implement and could have its own pitfalls. State constitutions, Attorneys Generals who could fight it between the vote counting and the electoral vote counting that could stop the votes from being recorded at all.

I tried to see if the segment was posted on YT yet but no.

You do realize that the effort for fairness doesn't need every state legislature to accomplish the goal. It's most of the way there now. States with 270 EC delegates or more is all that is necessary for an American revolution.

Yes, I do. That was actually addressed in the video. Only two states to go.

That doesn't negate the problems the expert reported.

 

[TomC]

That doesn't negate the problems the expert reported.

This looks entirely like people trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
A temporary solution to the big problem will result in more people being engaged and voting!

That is a good thing!
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That doesn't negate the problems the expert reported.

This looks entirely like people trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Not at all. This is about creating a solution to a problem, walking around the outside of it. If we removed the electoral college from the Constitution, that would settle that. Anything else is a compact with no binding authority to enforce it. It is a gamble that it is an alternative option to start with. Electoral College happens because it is law. This modification wouldn't even be a mandate.

A temporary solution to the big problem will result in more people being engaged and voting!

Very doubtful. The United States has concurrent elections, so a person who doesn't vote because of the Electoral College was choosing not to vote in any of they other elections on the ballot. That seems unlikely. More people vote in a Presidential election than mid-terms. Additionally, Probably 75%+ of the nation couldn't even tell you how the electoral college functions or works, meaning it likely isn't impacting turnout much at all. It could lead to further engagement in red areas with little population, but overall, there wouldn't be much change. After all, the elections are won in the suburbs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I say all of the above, supporting a national popular vote standard.

Each state is a constituency for the senate - it has two senators to represent it.

Each district is a constituency for congress - it has one congressman to represent it.

Each nation is a constituency for the president - it has one president to represent it.

Every voter within a single constituency should have a vote of equal weight in a representative democracy. This happens for senators and congressmen, but for obsolete historical reasons, does not happen for presidents.

And people who can immediately see the problem with a suggestion that each voter should have their vote weighted by how many kids they have, or how many cars, or how many dollars, or the floor area of their residence, seem for no good reason to think it's OK to let voters in presidential elections have a vote weighted by the population density of the state in which they live.

It's bizarre.

I am deeply confused that anyone here sees inequity in the proposal. Not everyone gets what they want, regardless. At least the proposal maximizes the number of voters who get what they wanted.
So simple …

I voted for the Democrat in my state. My state voted in plurality for the Democrat. The National Compact changes my state to Republican because of an extra-Constitutional agreement and the Republican won the plurality of the vote nationally. Some other person in some other state voted blue, state went blue, state wasn't part of compact, and stayed blue.

This isn't black and white, but it certainly appears to have shades of gray. It might be an equal protection thing. I stress the word 'might'. State Law would have to engrain this process, make it as such, there was no potential for the compact to break. In that case, then that would isolate it to the state and equal protection nationally isn't an issue. That said, Nebraska and Maine have not been challenged in court for how they do it, I don't think. And courts these days can be a bit weird. Finally, there is the issue of electors that might not vote as authorized.

 

[TomC]

The United States has concurrent elections, so a person who doesn't vote because of the Electoral College was choosing not to vote in any of they other elections on the ballot.

This is a huge part of the reason I want to see fair Presidential elections.

People who vote for whatever reason can influence the government. People who don't bother because the presidential race is already decided in their state are the ones being disenfranchised.

I am very certain that if everyone's vote in the presidential election was equal, we'd have a huge increase in voter engagement and turnout.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

I am very certain that if everyone's vote in the presidential election was equal, we'd have a huge increase in voter engagement and turnout.
Tom

I’m very confident you’re right.
Also great turnout if voting was mandatory, with penalties specified. Penalties need not be severe, just more of an annoyance than bothering to vote would be.

 

[ZiprHead]

Here is the video I spoke of earlier with an interview with an expert on the subject. It's less than 5 minutes.

 

[Tigers!]

The United States has concurrent elections, so a person who doesn't vote because of the Electoral College was choosing not to vote in any of they other elections on the ballot.

This is a huge part of the reason I want to see fair Presidential elections.

People who vote for whatever reason can influence the government. People who don't bother because the presidential race is already decided in their state are the ones being disenfranchised.

The sad part is that their disenfranchisement is self-inflicted. They were not stopped from voting, they chose not to vote. An own goal.

I am very certain that if everyone's vote in the presidential election was equal, we'd have a huge increase in voter engagement and turnout.
Tom

Undoubtably

 

[Terrell]

I don't trust the state not to renege should the governor and the presidential candidate are of the same party and carried their state but not the popular vote. TBH I could easily see state legislatures repealing this if they thought it would benefit them.