National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[ksen]

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

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among various states and the District of Columbia to replace their current rules regarding the apportionment of presidential electors with rules guaranteeing the election of the candidate with the most popular votes in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Coming in the form of an interstate compact, the agreement goes into effect once law in states that together have an absolute majority of votes (at least 270) in the Electoral College.

Current list of states that have adopted this as law:

State|EVs
California|55
District of Columbia|3
Hawaii|4
Illinois|20
Maryland|10
Massachusetts|11
New Jersey|14
Rhode Island|4
Vermont|3
Washington|12
Total|136

NY has also passed the law and it is waiting on the governor's signature. That will add another 29 EVs bringing the total to 165. This thing might actually happen.

eta: wat!? no "table" tags!?

 

[Derec]

I like it. With virtual elimination of the Electoral College a national campaign would become truly national and would not focus on a handful of "swing" or "battleground" states like we have had up to now. However, I think getting the remaining required states to sign on to the plan is going to be a difficult if not impossible endeavor.

 

[Rhea]

I like it. When conditions conspire for it to make no sense to campaign in CA, TX and NY something is broken. The dynamics of the electoral college in 1790 vs. now are completely different, and a different system is required for the will of the people. (Sorry, New Hampshire.)

 

[ksen]

Being a native of NH let me say that this won't affect NH's awesome power in presidential election cycles. We're still going to be the first primary state which will ensure our future electoral hegemony.

 

[wufwugy]

Honestly I don't think this would do much of anything, but I could be wrong

If I was putting my efforts into an electoral change that I think is feasible and would have positive effects, it would be term limit changes that eliminate midterms. Let's make the House campaign every 4 years and Senate every 8. I think this would greatly decrease the amount of discord in Washington because it would stop the incredible swings in Congresspeople due to the midterms having a broadly different electorate. If every time a vote was up, the same people voted, we'd be in a much better position to get things done

 

[ksen]

what incredible swings are you talking about?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Can't the Electoral College be used as a firebreak against mass stupidity? That is, they are not bound by law to vote as the popular vote. This keeps America from voting their favorite super-hero, dreamy movie celebrity, or professional wrestler into office.

Disclosure: Native Ohioan.

 

[wufwugy]

what incredible swings are you talking about?

An example of the many are Dems with big majorities in 2008, which moved to GOP with big House majority in 2010, which will likely become plural after 2014, but then back to Dem majorities in 2016

These swings are because the electorate is different in off-year elections. Every newly elected bunch thinks it has a mandate, but it doesn't because the constituency that voted them in isn't representative of the electorate in aggregate. Without any midterms, we would likely see a more streamlined government like a parliament because the majority sensibilities would be the same that voted for every branch, from president to lower congress

With the existence of midterms, it pays to fight against the president, because many who support the president won't show up since he's not on the ballot, and a politician can make a career out of creating discord with the majority (the block that votes in presidential cycles). Lo n behold, this is the exact system we have. It's one where the majority of the voters feel a different way than the majority of those in Congress. Imagine what things would have been like without any 2010 election. The GOP may have taken the House in 2012, but it would have been by a smaller margin, it wouldn't have been due exclusively to the anti-president vote like 2010 was, and Washington would have been far more functional before and after. The GOP could not have gotten away with being just the anti-Obama party because whenever the vote was up, they'd be running on a ticket against Obama, who always has been popular with the majority electorate