• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Electoral College Helps Republicans

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 27, 2000
Messages
26,334
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
What is it? Not an educational institution, but a gathering, the original meaning of "college". In present-day terms, it ought to be called the Electoral Assembly.

It is a form of indirect election, and  Electoral college and  Elective monarchy discuss several such electoral assemblies. In democracies, they are almost always composed of elected officials, like legislators or lower-level elected ones.

The  United States Electoral College is unusual in not being composed of elected officials. The US Constitution's creators considered various other possible forms, like election by Congress and election by state governors -- forms typical of similar assemblies elsewhere in the world. They considered a popular vote, but communications were so poor that they were concerned that each region would choose its favorites. So they decided on the Electoral College as an alternative: people would vote for electors, who in turn would vote for the President and Vice President.

There was another problem with a nationwide popular vote: the South would be rather badly underrepresented. Back then, most states, if not all of them, had property qualifications for voting, but those qualifications were weaker in the North than in the South. It was more-or-less owning a family farm vs. owning a plantation with some slaves. Meaning that northerners could easily outvote southerners. Southern states could have expanded their voting rights, but instead they preferred to get slaves counted for representation purposes. They ended up with a 3/5 compromise with the North.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68 - Alexander Hamilton proposed that electors would have a broader knowledge of who might be a good President than ordinary people, and voting separately would make life more difficult for demagogues and foreign meddlers.

But that was not to be. The Founders did not take political parties into account, and those who had any opinion of them disliked them as leading to factional squabbling. But the politicians started dividing themselves into parties in George Washington's first term. Alexander Hamilton's notion of the EC as some search committee quickly evaporated, and the electors soon became chosen by the parties, endorsing whichever candidates the parties had chosen.
 
The connection between the Electoral College and protection of slavery was noted by at least one Founder, James Madison:
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

The Electoral College has thus been a rubber-stamp body for most of the US's history. It is chosen state-by-state, with each state's electors being the size of its Congressional delegation: 2 Senators with however many Representatives. Most states do winner-take-all, but Maine and Nebraska do only 2 electors that way, along with 1 elector per House district.

In the early 19th century, the states moved to electing the electors by popular vote instead of by state legislatures or whatever they were doing earlier. In practice, whichever party wins gets to choose the state's electors.

Since then, the electoral vote has agreed with the popular vote in most elections, but not all of them.  List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote lists five of them: the ones of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.

The first three of these were well over a century ago, while the final two were very recent.

In 2000, though Democrat Al Gore got 0.5% more of the popular vote than Republican George Bush II, the latter won by 271-266 in the electoral vote. Green Ralph Nader got 2.74% of the popular vote, Reform Pat Buchanan 0.43%, Libertarian Harry Browne 0.36%, Constitution Howard Phillips 0.09%, Natural Law John Hagelin 0.08%, and others 0.05%.

In 2016, though Democrat Hillary Clinton got 2.2% more of the popular vote than Republican Donald Trump, the latter won by 304-227 in the electoral vote. Libertarian Gary Johnson got 3.28% of the popular vote, Jill Stein 1.07%, Independent David McMullin 0.54%, Constitution Darrell Castle 0.15%, Socialism and Liberation Gloria Estela La Riva 0.05%, and others 0.56%.
 
Last edited:
Nate Silver on Twitter: "Chance of a Biden Electoral college win ..." / Twitter
Chance of a Biden Electoral college win if he wins the popular vote by X points:

0-1 points: just 6%!
1-2 points: 22%
2-3 points: 46%
3-4 points: 74%
4-5 points: 89%
5-6 points: 98%
6-7 points: 99%

You'll sometimes see people say stuff like "Biden MUST with the popular vote by 3 points or he's toast". Not true; at 2-3 points, the Electoral College is a tossup, not necessarily a Trump win.

OTOH, the Electoral College is not really *safe* for Biden unless he wins by 5+.

Let's see how well recent Democratic Presidents did.

In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated Republican George Bush I by 5.6%, 370-168. Independent Ross Periot won 18.91%, Libertarian Andre Marrou 0.28%, Populist Bo Gritz 0.10%, New Alliance Lenora Fulani 0.07%, US Taxpayers Howard Phillips 0.04%, and others 0.13%.

In 1996, Bill Clinton defeated Republican Bob Dole by 8.5%, 379-159. Reform Ross Perot won 8.40%, Green Ralph Nader 0.71%, Libertarian Harry Browne 0.50%, US Taxpayers Howard Philips 0.19%, Natural Law John Hagelin 0.12%, others 0.12%.

In 2008, Barack Obama defeated Republican John McCain by 7.2%, 365-173. Independent Ralph Nader won 0.56%, Libertarian Bob Barr 0.40%, Constitution Chuck Baldwin 0.15%, Green Cynthia McKinney 0.12%, America's Independent Alan Keyes 0.04%, others 0.18%

In 2012, Barack Obama defeated Republican Mitt Romney by 3.9%, 332-206. Libertarian Gary Johnson won 0.99%, Jill Stein 0.36%, Constitution Virgil goode 0.09%, Peace and Freedom Roseanne Barr 0.05%, Justice Rocky Anderson 0.03%, America's Thomas Hoefling 0.03%, Reform Andre Barnett 0.01%, others 0.19%

By comparison, let us look at the most recent election where the Republican won both kinds of vote.

In 2004, George Bush II defeated John Kerry by 2.4%, 286-251. Independent Ralph Nader won 0.38%, Libertarian Michael Badnarik 0.32%, Constitution Michael Peroutka 0.12%, Green David Cobb 0.10%, Peace and Freedom Leonard Peltier 0.02%, Socialist Walt Brown 0.01%, Socialist Rorkers Roger Calero 0.01%, others 0.04%
 
Nate Silver on Twitter: "Chance of a Biden Electoral college win ..." / Twitter
Chance of a Biden Electoral college win if he wins the popular vote by X points:

0-1 points: just 6%!
1-2 points: 22%
2-3 points: 46%
3-4 points: 74%
4-5 points: 89%
5-6 points: 98%
6-7 points: 99%

You'll sometimes see people say stuff like "Biden MUST with the popular vote by 3 points or he's toast". Not true; at 2-3 points, the Electoral College is a tossup, not necessarily a Trump win.

OTOH, the Electoral College is not really *safe* for Biden unless he wins by 5+.

Let's see how well recent Democratic Presidents did.

In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated Republican George Bush I by 5.6%, 370-168. Independent Ross Periot won 18.91%, Libertarian Andre Marrou 0.28%, Populist Bo Gritz 0.10%, New Alliance Lenora Fulani 0.07%, US Taxpayers Howard Phillips 0.04%, and others 0.13%.

In 1996, Bill Clinton defeated Republican Bob Dole by 8.5%, 379-159. Reform Ross Perot won 8.40%, Green Ralph Nader 0.71%, Libertarian Harry Browne 0.50%, US Taxpayers Howard Philips 0.19%, Natural Law John Hagelin 0.12%, others 0.12%.

In 2008, Barack Obama defeated Republican John McCain by 7.2%, 365-173. Independent Ralph Nader won 0.56%, Libertarian Bob Barr 0.40%, Constitution Chuck Baldwin 0.15%, Green Cynthia McKinney 0.12%, America's Independent Alan Keyes 0.04%, others 0.18%

In 2012, Barack Obama defeated Republican Mitt Romney by 3.9%, 332-206. Libertarian Gary Johnson won 0.99%, Jill Stein 0.36%, Constitution Virgil goode 0.09%, Peace and Freedom Roseanne Barr 0.05%, Justice Rocky Anderson 0.03%, America's Thomas Hoefling 0.03%, Reform Andre Barnett 0.01%, others 0.19%

By comparison, let us look at the most recent election where the Republican won both kinds of vote.

In 2004, George Bush II defeated John Kerry by 2.4%, 286-251. Independent Ralph Nader won 0.38%, Libertarian Michael Badnarik 0.32%, Constitution Michael Peroutka 0.12%, Green David Cobb 0.10%, Peace and Freedom Leonard Peltier 0.02%, Socialist Walt Brown 0.01%, Socialist Rorkers Roger Calero 0.01%, others 0.04%

What this ignores is the depth of the math that the Russians have done on behalf of Trump, and the mechanisms they employ to leverage that information. Last time, they knew exactly which counties had to go for Trump in order for him to win the electoral college. This time they're probably acting on granular information down to the precinct level. Perhaps it's true that in 46% of all possible scenarios wherein there is a 3% popular vote margin (after ballot fuckery, voter suppression etc), Biden gets the win. But the likelihood of each of those scenarios is not equal. Comparison to past elections where social media wasn't such a factor and Russians feared repercussions for meddling, are inapplicable.
 
So the two recent Democrats needed sizable margins to win and Joe Biden will likely do so also. I wanted to fact-check this paper

The Electoral College massively favors Republicans in close races, really, a new economics paper finds.
In their baseline results, the authors find that during the past 30 years, a hypothetical Republican who earned 49 percent of the two-party popular vote—that is, the vote total won by Democrats and Republicans, excluding third parties—could expect to win the Electoral College about 27 percent of the time. A Democrat with that share of the vote would have just an 11 percent chance of winning. At 49.5 percent of the popular vote, a Republican would have enjoyed a 46 percent probability of walking away with the presidency, versus a 21 percent chance for a Democrat. In a photo finish where the two parties split the vote about 50-50, a Republican would have had a 65 percent chance of spending the next four years in office.
Economists Michael Geruso and Dean Spears wanted to research how common Electoral-College mismatches or "inversions" are, and with research assistant Ishaana Talesara, they researched several years where the political parties were relatively stable -- the antebellum era, Reconstruction, and the "modern era" -- 1988 to the present.

They used the tools developed by the likes of Nate Silver and Nate Cohn on those elections, putting in a lot of simulated variation.
Their results showed that the Electoral College has always made inversions fairly likely in close contests. Across all three periods, when the candidates finished within 2 percentage points of each other in the two-party popular vote, there was a roughly 30 percent chance that an inversion would occur. In races decided by 1 percent of the popular vote, there was a roughly 40 percent chance of an inversion.

...
Meanwhile, the study’s results also confirmed the conventional wisdom that Republicans get a serious advantage from picking presidents this way. During the modern era, they have been much, much more likely to win the Electoral College even if they lose the popular vote than the Democrats. Full stop.
A result that held true with no less than 92 models of the voting.
Why does the Electoral College give the GOP such an advantage? In large part, it’s what you’d expect. Because every state gets two Electoral College votes for each of its senators, the system gives more weight to lightly populated states where Republicans excel. The winner-take-all system that most states use to award Electoral College delegates also leads Democrats to waste a lot of votes running up the score in big states like California, while losing in small states.

The paper is at Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836-2016
 
How the Terrible, Skewed, Anachronistic Electoral College Gave Us Trump | The New Republic from back in 2016
As the reality of President Donald J. Trump sets in, dismayed progressives will try to apportion blame between a Trump-enabling, substance-ignoring media, Republican vote suppressors in state legislatures and the federal courts, Hillary Clinton’s weaknesses as a candidate, irresponsible third-party runs, and various other factors.

But we shouldn’t lose sight of one simple fact: By the standards used to conduct elections in virtually every liberal democratic jurisdiction in the world, Hillary Clinton won. As I type, Clinton has a popular vote lead of about 150,000 votes, and when the ballots from West Coast states are counted, her lead is likely to expand substantially to a million or more. The American people, in other words, chose Hillary Clinton. She lost because the Constitution does not choose the president democratically.
Electoral College Can Still Misfire - Baltimore Sun from back in 1992
These scenarios are more than fanciful. Three times in the last century the Electoral College backfired by inaugurating the popular vote loser. Five times since -- in 1916, 1948, 1960, 1968 and 1976 -- we've come perilously close.

In 1976, although Jimmy Carter took the popular vote by 1,683,040 votes, a switch of 9,244 votes from Mr. Carter to Gerald Ford in Ohio and Hawaii (eight one-thousandths of the 50-state popular vote) would have given Mr. Ford an Electoral College majority.

In elections as close as the John Kennedy-Richard Nixon race of 1960, or the Nixon-Hubert Humphrey contest of 1968, the chances are only 50-50 that the Electoral College system will pick the popular vote winner. In a contest as close as Carter-Ford, there's one chance in three of a misfire.

The 1968 election had a very unusual and dangerous situation. Republican Richard Nixon won with 301 electoral votes, against Democrat Hubert Humphrey with 191 and American Independent George Wallace with 46. Nixon won because he got a majority of EV's. But if he didn't, then GW planned to order his electors to vote for one or the other of the candidates, depending on what concessions he could extract from them.

Something like what the ultra-Orthodox religious parties do in Israel -- extract big concessions from the two major blocs in order to join any one of them.
 
We could be headed for another botched election - CNN
Trump's Electoral College victory belies just how narrow his path to the presidency was. A change in less than 1% of the vote in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan would have resulted in an Electoral College victory for Clinton to match her popular vote victory. In fact, the 2016 hairbreadth election is actually a norm in presidential contests. Half of all presidential elections have been decided by less than 75,000 votes cast across the country.

...
Losing the popular vote appears to be a sore spot for the President. Trump has talked more about the Electoral College than any president in recent memory. He has repeatedly suggested that he would have won the popular vote had it not been for millions of unauthorized immigrants who voted for Hillary Clinton (a claim that has been widely debunked).

Like many Americans, Trump has been conflicted over the institution. In 2012, just after the election, he tweeted: "the electoral college is a disaster for a democracy" and "this election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!" He also tweeted the following call to action: "Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us."

Four years later, he changed his tune. A week after his victory, he tweeted that "the Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!"
The article mentioned Did JFK Lose the Popular Vote? | RealClearPolitics -- the usual count of votes has JFK beating Richard Nixon by 0.17% of the popular vote, but the article discusses the hypothesis that some of the votes for JFK don't really count for him, from how some of the voting worked.
 
Nate Silver on Twitter: "Chance of a Biden Electoral college win ..." / Twitter
Chance of a Biden Electoral college win if he wins the popular vote by X points:

0-1 points: just 6%!
1-2 points: 22%
2-3 points: 46%
3-4 points: 74%
4-5 points: 89%
5-6 points: 98%
6-7 points: 99%
Nate Silver's models are usually up to snuff.

This is a shameful indictment on the Electoral College system. The thought that Biden could win 650,000 more votes than Trump and have just a 6% chance of winning the office is ridiculous.
 
Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress - R43824.pdf from 2017. Discusses various options.

Direct election?

That has the problem that no candidate may win a majority of votes. Go with the plurality winner (first-past-the-post)? That has problems with vote splitting and the spoiler effect. Have a second election for a top-two runoff? Seems like a big annoyance, though some nations do it, like France. Do instant runoff voting (ranked choice voting)? One can count votes either by top-two or by sequential loser dropping (usual meaning of IRV). The paper didn't mention IRV.

Reforming the EC?

Usually involves skipping over the electors and assigning electoral votes directly.

Most states and DC use winner-take-all or general-ticket assignment. ME and NE use assignment by Congressional district (2 for the entire state, and 1 for each House district). No state uses proportional assignment.


National Popular Vote is a workaround: if enough states agree, they will award their electoral votes to the popular-vote winner. So far, most of the states that have agreed to it are reliably blue states, with only a few purple ones and no red ones.
The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). As of July 2020, it has been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia.

The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 74 electoral votes.
 
Omaha might decide the election!

Thread title is correct: Biden is favored to win the popular vote, perhaps by several millions, but the electoral college margin will be razor-thin. We're heading for a repeat of 2000, where the margin of victory will probably be a single state. Expect litigation — or worse — in every state where Biden wins narrowly. It is a peculiarity of the electoral college that two states (ME and NE) split up their evs. Even these single evs may be critical in a close election.

Let's look at the arithmetic. There are 18 states plus DC that will probably give Biden a comfortable victory. and 25 states he figures to lose. This leaves just seven states plus two districts that will decide the election. These tipping states (and districts) are
  • Retirement states
    • 29 Florida
    • 11 Arizona
  • Rust Belt and New Hampshire
    • 20 Pennsylvania
    • 10 Wisconsin
    • 10 Minnesota
    • 16 Michigan
    • 4 New Hampshire
  • Single Districts
    • 1 Omaha and its suburbs
    • 1 Rural Maine
These constituencies sum to 102 ev's; Biden needs 53 to win; Trump needs 51. In the event of a 52-50 score; the total ev score is 269-269 and the election will be decided by Congress, with uncertain result. (Sure, NC might go to Biden in a landslide, and NV might go to Trump in a landslide the other way. But a close election is the interesting case and, anyway, nobody's getting a landslide this time around.)

Retirees tend to vote for the R, but both Florida and Arizona have high Hispanic populations, so they're swingy.

I've laid out the ev counts in an order to highlight an arithmetic fact: The result (without the two odd districts) is likely to be a multiple of ten. Whoever gets both retirement states gets 40 right there and needs only a little help from the Rust Belt. The relevant Rust Belt states are mostly multiples of ten: 20, 10, 10, and, if NH happens to go with MI, 16+4. There is an excellent chance that Biden will emerge with 50 evs exactly from the swing states and will need both NE's 2nd District and ME's 2nd district to get to 269. (If Biden gets Arizona but not Florida, the two single evs may give him 270 and the win!)

Usually these two districts are split, Nebraska's 2nd district (mostly Omaha) voting Red with the rest of the state, and Maine's rural district voting Blue along with Maine's slightly more urban District 1. (The two exceptions since 1990: Obama won Omaha in 2008; Trump won rural Maine in 2016.) The urban-rural political divide has strengthened, and these districts cannot be taken for granted this cycle.

(If it seems odd that Omaha [and suburbs] should get its own ev, note that it is the 40th U.S. city in size, ahead of Cleveland, Minneapolis, Oakland and New Orleans.)
 
Running the numbers, if Biden wins AZ, PA, and either WI or MI and all the Clinton states, he wins. He wins PA, WI, and MI and the Clinton states, he wins.

Let's just say Trump can be given a bump of 6 points for all states to cover the "silent" majority via a look at where polls were in 2016 and how they finished, that gives Biden WI, AZ, MI. We are royally fucked if we finish that way and nothing else changed because that in 269 math! :boom:
 
From the outside looking in, the Electoral College is gerrymandering that is considered sacred/sacrosanct for some inexplicable reason.
 
I think my list of seven states (and 2 districts) provides a good "crib sheet" to see what Biden needs to win. Be careful of analyses based on "all the states Clinton won." Minnesota and New Hampshire are two Clinton states that must not be taken for granted. In this election, the EC margin will be razor-thin. A small state like New Hampshire could easily be the difference between victory and defeat. Even Omaha might be decisive!

From the outside looking in, the Electoral College is gerrymandering that is considered sacred/sacrosanct for some inexplicable reason.
The E.C. has roots in racism. (Counting black slaves as 3/5 did not discriminate against the slaves because 3/5 is less than 1 — Just the opposite! Those extra votes were cast by the slave-owners.) However, the way the system favors the GOP seems to have evolved more by chance than design. Recall that when Jimmy Carter (a Democrat) nosed out Ford in 1976, Carter swept the south but lost California and every Western state except Hawaii.

Or was there "design"? Normally "gerrymandering" means drawing district lines with regard to one's supporters, but the Trumpist strategy was to attract supporters with regard to district lines! It's no coincidence that Trump prattled on and on about lost factories and the wonders of coal mining — all lies of course — while knowing that these messages would resonate in the swingable Rust Belt.

The Democrats operate under a big disadvantage electorally: Their conscience drives them toward honest policies that actually help the needy and help the country generally, rather than mindless prattling to fool specific constituencies.
 
... National Popular Vote is a workaround: if enough states agree, they will award their electoral votes to the popular-vote winner. So far, most of the states that have agreed to it are reliably blue states, with only a few purple ones and no red ones....
NPVIC is a horrible idea. It may sound good on paper, but it ignores the realities of today's malicious GOP practices.

First note that the NPVIC has no effect unless (1) the popular-vote and normal EC winners are different; and (2) some state signatory to NPVIC votes one way (say, R) while the national vote is for D.

Let's look at what would actually happen in the relevant scenario. For starters, who decides the national popular vote? There is no federal authority; each state counts its own votes. But under NPVIC a voter in Alabama would have standing to sue for a recount in California. Or the Alabama authorities could claim fraud, reject another states' counts, and impose their own.

And if Alabama votes for Ivanka Trump — or whoever the Rs run in 2036 — will they abide by their signing of NPVIC and cast their evs for Buttigieg? If you think they would, let me try to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge! No; there would be "faithless electors," or lawsuits filed (settled by Alabama judges) declaring NPVIC unconstitutional, or otherwise inapplicable.

NPVIC sounds good to us Ds now, because the EC system favors the Rs. But this bias may reverse in the future, with demographic or policy shifts. If we assume that cheaters will cheat, NPVIC gives elections to the Rs if they win either the popular vote or the traditional EC vote.

Yes, the Electoral College system has flaws. But the evil-doers are ready to seize on any procedural modification and twist it to their advantage.
 
... This leaves just seven six states plus two districts that will decide the election. These tipping states (and districts) are
  • Retirement states
    • 29 Florida
    • 11 Arizona
  • Rust Belt and New Hampshire
    • 20 Pennsylvania
    • 10 Wisconsin
    • 10 Minnesota
    • 16 Michigan
    • 4 New Hampshire
  • Single Districts
    • 1 Omaha and its suburbs
    • 1 Rural Maine
These constituencies sum to 102 92 ev's; Biden needs 53 to win; Trump needs 51 41.

It appears that the GOP has already successfully sabotaged one swing state. I've corrected the above summary to reflect the new reality.
 
1-page paper on the National Popular Vote
The National Popular Vote interstate compact will go into effect when enacted by states with a majority of the presidential electors—that is, 270 of 538. After the compact comes into effect, every voter in all 50 states and DC will acquire a direct vote in the choice of all of the presidential electors from all of the states that enacted the compact. The presidential candidate supported by the most voters in all 50 states and DC will thereby win a majority of the presidential electors in the Electoral College(at least 270), and therefore become President.
Answering Myths | National Popular Vote - addresses a wide range of issues with NPV.

2020 Candidates Are Only Campaigning in a Small Number of Closely Divided Battleground States | National Popular Vote - listing NH, PA, NC, MI, WI, MN.

That was not what the Founders had in mind when they decided on the Electoral College.
 
... National Popular Vote is a workaround: if enough states agree, they will award their electoral votes to the popular-vote winner. So far, most of the states that have agreed to it are reliably blue states, with only a few purple ones and no red ones....
NPVIC is a horrible idea. It may sound good on paper, but it ignores the realities of today's malicious GOP practices.

First note that the NPVIC has no effect unless (1) the popular-vote and normal EC winners are different; and (2) some state signatory to NPVIC votes one way (say, R) while the national vote is for D.
That's not true. Because it will be known in advance when the pact takes effect, the candidates and parties supporting them would campaign differently and that itself will affect the election. In the long run it might even affect primaries and who gets nominated for candidacy, as well as how presidents behave and which states or groups they pander to while in office.

Let's look at what would actually happen in the relevant scenario. For starters, who decides the national popular vote? There is no federal authority; each state counts its own votes. But under NPVIC a voter in Alabama would have standing to sue for a recount in California. Or the Alabama authorities could claim fraud, reject another states' counts, and impose their own.

And if Alabama votes for Ivanka Trump — or whoever the Rs run in 2036 — will they abide by their signing of NPVIC and cast their evs for Buttigieg? If you think they would, let me try to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge! No; there would be "faithless electors," or lawsuits filed (settled by Alabama judges) declaring NPVIC unconstitutional, or otherwise inapplicable.

NPVIC sounds good to us Ds now, because the EC system favors the Rs. But this bias may reverse in the future, with demographic or policy shifts. If we assume that cheaters will cheat, NPVIC gives elections to the Rs if they win either the popular vote or the traditional EC vote.

Yes, the Electoral College system has flaws. But the evil-doers are ready to seize on any procedural modification and twist it to their advantage.
You're right, the pact would be very shaky if/when it has just the bare minimum number of states agreeing to it. But you have to start somewhere.
 
Back
Top Bottom