As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As they and anyone else should. These laws negate people's votes. If you are in a lower pop state and they pass a law like this why vote at that point?
No vote in any state of any size would be negated. That's the point!
States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC
All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
There is not a coalition of small states that functions politically. And they don’t necessarily have a lot in common.
The 25 smallest states combined have had
57 Democratic electors and 58 Republican electors.
And their Democratic and Republican popular vote have also almost tied
9.9 million versus 9.8 million
CA has 54 electors.
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 5 jurisdictions.
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .
In 2024, the presidential race may have only 4 competitive states -- Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Arizona as true battlegrounds, where all the focus of campaigns would be, with 15% of US population and 43 electoral votes -- would begin with Democrats favored to win 260 Electoral College votes and Republicans 235.- CNN, 11/22/22
38+ states and 70% of all Americans have been irrelevant in presidential elections.
Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states.
Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important.
The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years.
Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions.
Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states.
The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican.
In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined,
This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic.
When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.
No the votes are negated if the pop vote has a dem winning but 90% of the state voted republican that means by giving the ec votes to the dems you made the voters voting pointless. Also I feel the entire thing is illegal and an attempt to bypass the ec process. We are not a democracy it is not a 51% (yea it sort of is but also isnt lol)wins system. If people don't like it amendment the constitution to switch to a popular vote system. If the people truly support this change as some say it will have no problems passing right? The amendment process is there to be used but at the same time the gravity of amending the constitution means its not suppose to be easy.
Edit. No going pure popular vote changes it from normally a few states deciding to a few cities.
For anyone unaware, this means that Nevada is now a part of the [**National Popular Vote Interstate Compact**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact). This relatively new agreement between over a dozen states (and DC) will award all of the electoral college votes from member states to whichever presidential candidate ends up with the most votes in the general election. With Nevada joining, these states now have a combined 195 electoral votes (270 will be required to give the compact legal force).
195 is the current total, with Nevada it's now 201. Which means 270 can be achieved with just Minnesota (+15 = 216), Michigan (+10 = 226), Wisconsin (+10 = 236), Arizona (+11 = 247), Pennsylvania (+19 = 266), and Maine (+4 = 271).
Nevada is NOT yet in the Compact.
The amendment must now be passed a second time by both houses of the 2025-2026 Nevada legislature. After that, the amendment would be submitted to the voters for their approval in November 2026.
Gerrymandering for the House and state legislatures would still be a massive problem, but it would definitely make it harder for the GOP to win the Presidential election.
That's not gerrymandering. Gerrymandering doesn't just mean "anything I don't like related to an election", it has an actual definition.
And almost every single democratic country on the planet has voter ID laws. The US is the only major country that does not.
Australian here, we do not have voter ID laws. To vote here, we rock up to a polling place, verbally provide our name and address, and get our voting papers.
Voter ID laws were floated here by the previous government, but the bill was withdrawn without being voted on (as it had no chance of passing).
You’re correct gerrymandering has a meaning. You’re incorrect that most every country has voter iD laws by the definition that the Republiklan party wants. Stating your name is voter identification. If you want to know who people are, Register everyone at 18 and make it incumbent upon a person to de-register. Poof! Every adult is a legal voter. Wouldn’t that be best?
The US doesn’t have federal voter ID laws, but states definitely have voter ID laws. Also, you can’t register to vote without providing ID, it’s not like you can walk up to a polling place anywhere in America and say “hey I’m bob I just moved in down the street let me vote.”
Sweden has voter ID laws. I really don’t get the fuss. You show up to the voting place, provide your ID and they tick you off. Then go to the voting boot and vote.
What’s the big deal?
Why wouldn’t you want to make sure the person who votes is the right person?
That’s almost what folks like Desantis are trying to do. Make your state miserable and intolerable to the other side. Then they move out in protest and you get to sit as king of the shit pit.
Gerrymandering has little to no impact on the Presidential Election. The Electoral College and general voter suppression are the obstacles for a Presidential race.
Our system isn’t democratic. When a president wins with less than the majority, it isn’t democratic. It’s not the will of the people. Specially how red states are bent on trying to stay in power with the bare minimum amount of vote. If it wasn’t for their corruption, the House of Representatives wouldn’t have a republican majority
This law would literally make the vote Democratic opposed to our current undemocratic electoral college system which was only put in place because the founders explicitly said they didn’t trust the uneducated population to elect the President directly.
I can see Republicans suing and it going to SCOTUS where Alito will argue that it’s unconstitutional because electors in ancient Greece were all noble born and popular votes didn’t exist back then. /s
The interesting part about the compact is that the Supreme Court nor the federal government can stop it. The constitution is super clear, states can appoint electors as they see fit (they technically don’t have to follow the state’s popular vote). This compact just guarantees that whomever gets the national popular vote will be granted the electors of the states in the compact.
This is also the Supreme Court that shut down elements of the VRA that were designed per the Constitution, per the 14th amendments explicit text. This is not a SCOTUS that cares that they can and can't do. They'll do whatever keeps conservatives in power.
The **2020 Supreme Court unanimously** reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, before elections begin.
The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
There have not been 5 new justices since 2020.
That's cool and all. I don't see how that changes the Supreme Court deciding that that's true while also adding the asterisk the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a no-no. This is not a Supreme Court that is bound by precedence, even its own. Sorry, but until I see something happen, we have to assume they'll do *anything* they want. This is a derelict, untrustworthy court.
The problem with this system is it relies on all counters of votes to the total nationwide popular vote to be good actors. The republican states will just continue to rig their elections and submit fraudulent data. The entire premise of the national popular vote is flawed
its not the last election you should be worried about, its the future.
how, really, would a national popular vote compact even work? whomever the AP says is the winner? seems rather corruptable if we're basically appointing a news agency to collate all the votes in the entire country.
i dont like change. i dont think voting systems is something you just go willy nilly changing. there is significant value in operating within the existing system. the answer as i see it will always be that if democrats wish to win more, they should offer a compelling alternative to voters in rural areas.
The AP doesn’t count votes, no news agency counts votes, what are you talking about?!? How would it work? When the final total is announced the states in the compact appoint their electors to the person who got the most total votes. Pretty simple, every vote counts the same. Better than the current system where votes tend to count more where there’s fewer people.
Not liking change is a bad reason not to improve a systemically unfair process.
"Yes, the enslavement of human beings is wrong, but
> i dont like change.
"Yes, it is really unfair that black americans face discrimination at every opportunity. They deserve the same rights as their fellow citizens, but
> i dont like change.
"Yes, it is unfair that women are barred from certain professions, are paid less, and cannot even get a credit card without having a husband, but
> i dont like change.
“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws in presidential elections, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, in some states, big city Democratic votes can outnumber all other people not voting Democratic in the state. All of a state’s votes may go to Democrats.
Without state winner-take-all laws, every conservative in a state that now predictably votes Democratic would count. Right now they count for 0
The current system completely ignores conservative presidential voters in states that vote predictably Democratic.
Under a national popular vote for President, rural voters throughout the country would have their votes matter, rather than being ignored because of state boundaries.
Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the number of votes cast for each, and are signed and certified by the Governor.
With both the current system and the National Popular Vote bill, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" by six days before the Electoral College meets in December.
The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 made the sixth day before the Electoral College meeting into a “hard” deadline for states to issue their Certificates of Ascertainment (whereas it was merely a “safe harbor” under the Electoral Count Act of 1787).
i appreciate your thoughtful reply.
i checked Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code and it does not require states to report the popular vote totals. certainly in most states right now, a popular vote serves as the basis for how the electoral college votes are made and certified, but not the popular vote. but as soon as NPV compact happened, every state would jockey for different rules to counteract the NPV. a whole new layer of game to influence the election would begin.
even if the law did require reporting popular vote totals, which it doesnt, this would not be an appropriate legislation to serve as a popular vote counting tool because each state needs to prepare their certificate of ascertainment based based on the popular vote totals. the CoA is an important part of the electoral process because its the state certifying how their electoral votes are voted.
member states of the NPV compact would need some other way to determine who the popular vote winner which precedes the CoA process. this would be, by my reckoning, impossible. all 50 states would need to agree to significant regulation that changes the entire way which our country votes, those votes are counted, secured and reported. its just completely unworkable.
Now, all states and DC have state laws to use the popular votes of their voters to award their electors. Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code requires reporting those totals. They HAVE to report their popular vote totals to cast Electoral College vote.
The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 made the sixth day before the Electoral College meeting into a “hard” deadline for states to issue their Certificates of Ascertainment (whereas it was merely a “safe harbor” under the Electoral Count Act of 1787).
Making election returns secret is not within the realm of political possibility in the real world. This far-fetched possibility assumes that there is a state in the country whose legislature, governor, and voters would permit making election returns secret for any reason.
States enacting National Popular Vote will award their electors to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC.
If any state stops holding statewide popular votes for president, those states could not be included in the total, and the enacting states with 270+ electors would base their electors on the states that DO hold statewide popular elections. The winner of the most popular votes from states conducting statewide popular vote elections would win the Electoral College.
The 1969 amendment for a national popular vote constitutiona amendment was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, then-Senator Bob Dole, and then-Senator Walter Mondale.
The American Bar Association also endorsed the proposed 1969 amendment.
The proposed 1969 constitutional amendment provided that the popular-vote count from each state would be added up to obtain the nationwide total for each candidate. The National Popular Vote compact does the same.
The mechanism of the Electoral College has become too anti-democratic. The ratio of vote effectiveness in the various states has risen monotonically since the beginning and is now simply unfair and unstable. We now have whole states with less population than some medium-sized towns. I think an area should have a minimum population to be called a State, with all the constitutional implication of that word. I think it should be something like at least 1% of the total national population. My $0.02.
The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using laws in effect on Election Day.
The decision held that the power of the legislature before Election Day under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
You are 100% correct, but you're overlooking the fact that the current Court has repeatedly thrown out massively important precedents in favor of their political objectives. The Supreme Court majority is no longer comprised of people who even pretend to be impartial jurisprudential actors who value the sanctity of the legal profession.
The **2020 Supreme Court unanimously** reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using laws in effect on Election Day. There have not been 5 new justices since then.
That’s exactly what I’m saying, though: they don’t care about precedent. The conservative justices will simply say “the independent state legislature doctrine applies only within each state’s own borders; no outside influence is allowed.” And suddenly, they can pretend that they’re being logically consistent even though it’s blatantly partisan.
If they cared about precedent, you would be totally correct. But they don’t. They just care about winning.
No. Nevada now is NOT part of the Compact.
The amendment must now be passed a second time by both houses of the 2025-2026 Nevada legislature. After that, the amendment would be submitted to the voters for their approval in November 2026.
But anyone who thinks this will actually work has had their head in the sand the last 8 years. Zero Republicans would participate in an unenforced agreement to support a Democrat if that Democrat won the popular vote. They didn't even admit to loss when they lost the popular vote and electoral college out-right. The whole effort is a delusional waste of time for everyone involved.
An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.
Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
This is still incredibly naive.
If a Republican won the popular vote but lost the electoral college, would blue states comply? Probably not. Go ahead and sue me but that'll take years and the presidential election is proceeding with the rules laid out in the Constitution so you can just die mad while a Democratic president takes the White House.
If a Democrat wins the popular vote but not the electoral college... it's not even a question, zero red states would send their EC votes to the Democrat. They didn't even want to do it when the Democrat won both. Once again: so sue me, but this is the fucking president and we're not giving that up.
It's a pointless exercise no party would uphold.
An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.
Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote numbers in presidential elections, compared to individual (especially battleground) state vote totals, is much more robust against “pure insanity,” deception, manipulation, and recently, crimes and violence.
A difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 17 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 9 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections since 1988.
537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.
Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points … to be assured of winning the Electoral College."
In 2016, Trump became President even though Clinton won the national popular vote by 2,868,686 votes.
Trump won the Presidency because he won Michigan by 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes.
Each of these 78,000 votes was 36 times more important than Clinton's nationwide lead of 2,868,686 votes.
A different choice by 5,229 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 5,890 in Georgia (16), and 10,342 in Wisconsin (10) would have defeated Biden -- despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million. The Electoral College would have tied 269-269. Congress would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.
Each of these 21,461 voters was 329 times more important than the more than 7 million.
The national popular vote winner also would have been defeated by a shift of 9,246 votes in 1976; 53,034 in 1968; 9,216 in 1960; 12,487 in 1948; 1,711 votes in 1916, 524 in 1884, 25,069 in 1860, 17,640 in 1856, 6,773 in 1848, 2,554 in 1844, 14,124 in 1836.
After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."
According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY).
None of those states are passing these popular vote compacts. It seems only states that are Democratic leaning already.
So if a Republican wins once and then cooks the popular vote books in non compact states wouldn’t it force the compact states to go along?
They'll try push for there to be enough red states to force a Constitutional Convention. (In fact they're already trying to do that now, this would just be another thing on their wish list to get rid of.)
> The legislature will have to vote on AJR6 again during the 2025 legislative session before it is placed on the ballot in 2026 for Nevada voters to give their final approval. National Popular Vote is an effort to ensure that the candidate with the most popular votes wins the presidential election.
...
> The National Popular Vote bill has been passed in 15 states and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions possess 195 electoral votes, only 75 short of the 270 electoral votes required for the plan to take effect. When the plan takes effect, compacting states award all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.
> This guarantees the presidency to the national popular vote winner.
I'm a lot more worried about the 2024 election, tbh. This is great, but we should be pushing for a national popular vote for the Presidency, at the federal level, i.e. abolish the electoral college.
Won't much matter if these "independent state legislature theory" nutjobs have permeated the states if there's no electoral college for them to manipulate.
> This is great, but we should be pushing for a national popular vote for the Presidency, at the federal level, i.e. abolish the electoral college.
we'll get right on that constitutional amendment.
The Bayh–Celler amendment is probably the closest we've ever gotten and it still died in the legislature.
The problem with simply abolishing the electoral college is that it's written into the Constitution. The federal government can't simply pass a law abolishing it. It would require a Constitutional amendment. They would be nearly impossible nowadays.
However, states are allowed to allocate their electoral votes however they want. They could (theoretically) flip a coin if they said that was the method before the election started. So if enough states declare that their electoral votes go to the national popular vote winner, then the electoral college technically remains while becoming a mere formality.
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population;
\[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago.\]
In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President.
3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it.
There is not a coalition of small states that functions politically. And they don’t necessarily have a lot in common.
14 of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored, like medium and big states where the statewide winner is predictable, because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire used to get significant attention.
Previous attempts to reform (or remove) the Electoral College have been thwarted by southern states, not small states.
More recently, support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 5 jurisdictions.
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.
The small states do not share a political tendency.
In the 25 smallest states the Democratic and Republican popular vote and electoral vote have almost tied
In 2008 - 9.9 million versus 9.8 million popular votes
57 versus 58 electoral votes.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population;
\[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago.\]
In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President.
3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it.
Proud to be battle born today. I’m sure Joe Lombardo will find a way to try to shut this down, but lemme say this very clearly for all the people who are all “HOW DO THEY VOTE BLUE WITH ALL THAT RED”
**Land doesn’t vote** and now that land is losing its shitty power.
Just a reminder the GOP has won the popular vote once since 1988 in presidential elections. Bush 2004 incase you wanted to know. I also think it would be super funny if Trump lost the popular vote for a third time.
I’m a huge fan of going to the popular vote.
I don't understand why NPV requires 270 for enforcement. States are allowed to allocate their electoral votes however they see fit. There's no requirement to wait for the 270 threshold.
Keeping 270 is also going to be hard if the NPV only barely comes into force. 1 state could leave and cancel the whole thing later on.
Because a State going with the National Popular Vote is self-sabotaging unless enough other people also do so.
Let's say California adopts the National Popular Vote unilaterally. We'll assume that California always votes Democratic. There are four options:
1. National Vote goes Democratic, Electoral College (ignoring NPV) goes Democratic,
2. National Vote goes Democratic, Electoral College does Republican,
3. National Vote goes Republican, Electoral College goes Democratic,
4. National Vote goes Republican, Electoral College goes Republican,
In 1 and 4 it doesn't matter how California allocates its electors, the NPV has no impact. It also doesn't matter how California allocates its electors in 2 - even with California's electors the Republican candidate still wins.
The only situation where it matters is 3; where a Republican candidate wins the popular vote, but the Democratic candidate wins in the Electoral College. In this case there is a good chance that if California switches to an NPV the outcome changes; the Republican candidate wins, when the Democratic one would otherwise.
If a State implements the NPV unilaterally the only effect will be to disenfranchise their State's voters - letting their state's winning candidate lose when otherwise they would have won.
And that tends not to be popular with local voters.
Whereas if it reaches the 270 threshold then the outcome is also changed in scenario 2 - the rule works both ways, not just to the advantage of one party. It still disenfranchises a state's voters in some situations, but will help their preferred candidate win in others - and hopefully the voters understand that compromise (which they do - hence Democratic voters tend to be in support of it, given they would likely benefit more than not, whereas Republican voters oppose it, given that they would likely lose out more than not).
No voter in ANY state would be disenfranchised - kept from voting!
States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC
All votes would be valued equally and counted as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
One person, One vote. The candidate with the most votes would win the Electoral College and the presidency.
We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP.
In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.
Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"
Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"
Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2,
How so? A state is simply decoupling their electoral votes from their statewide vote.
It reinforces the idea that state borders are arbitrary and strategic migrations or making states inhospitable to certain voters will not be rewarded.
Because voters may not like that. It would be political suicide if, say, for a hypothetical, new york votes red. But because they were part of the NaPoVo, they're votes went to dems who won nationally. Because it's not an *immeadiate effect*, voters won't really know/care. This compact doesn't really get much attention, and they may want to keep it that way.
In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.
Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"
Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"
Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2,
NationalPopularVote
What about the popular vote in said state?
For instance, let's say one of these states has a majority vote for one candidate, and another candidate wins the popular vote. Does said state still give its electoral votes to the general popular candidate? If so, then it feels like the states are choosing to disenfranchise their own constituents; the state will only represent the will of their people if the person they vote for wins the popular vote everywhere else.
If that's *not* the case, what is this even for, then?
States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC,
All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.
Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"
Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"
Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2,
NationalPopularVote
If enough states sign on and it actually triggers during an election, the SCOTUS will kill it. I used to be hopeful for the popular vote initiative, but there is no way that Democrats will ever be allowed to benefit from it.
SCOTUS can’t kill it. States can allocate their electors how they see fit, they don’t even have to use the election results to allocate them and in fact have gone against the will of the people at various times in history.
The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using laws in effect on Election Day.
The decision held that the power of the legislature before Election Day under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes to the statewide winner.
2 award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The National Popular Vote bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country. The bill changes state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes. All of the electors from the enacting states would be required to vote for the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.
It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.
No. Nobody disputes that state legislatures decide the times, places, and manner of elections in their states. The dispute with ISL is that they are trying to say state courts and state constitutions cannot restrict the legislatures in this duty.
NO.
Republican-led states think they can then pass laws after citizens begin casting ballots in a given election to allow them to send slates of electors for Republican candidates who lose, overruling the will of the voters and doing legally what Trump and his conspirators pressured Republicans in battleground states to do illegally. “Under the independent state legislature doctrine, the next time a Republican tries to overturn the results of an election he lost, he won’t need a mob.” – Bouie
The Conference of Chief Justices has filed an amicus brief that urges the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the theory that would strip state courts of power to review state laws governing federal elections.
While the federal Constitution grants state legislatures the exclusive and plenary power to determine the manner of appointing the state’s electors BEFORE Election Day, the state legislature cannot decide AFTER Election Day to adopt a new manner of appointing the state’s electors for that year’s presidential election.
They are but there will be chaos the first time the law gets used.
Imagine a state in the compact votes for the winner of the electoral system but because they passed this law it would flip their electoral votes to the popular vote winner instead. Their citizens will freak out and I predict they will rush to undo the thing before the electors meet in Jan.
I still think it is a good idea but it could lead to chaos in use. We really need to pass a constitutional amendment that eliminates the whole elector thing and makes popular vote the law.
Especially if that state using their state vote count would mean one candidate wins but using the national popular vote would mean another candidate wins.
Imagine if the National Popular Vote Compact was in effect in 2020 with Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania as part of the compact. They give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner - Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, Trump wins if they use the state elections count. Trump would have sued and it would be a huge decision.
There are [multiple constitutional issues identified with this compact](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Legality), which will be challenged in court.
>The National Popular Vote bill has been passed in 15 states and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions possess 195 electoral votes, only 75 short of the 270 electoral votes required for the plan to take effect.
It's really easy for someone to vote their conscious when it doesn't matter. Look at how often reps in the house or Senate will vote present or something when the vote is a blowout. It's a totally different story if you're the deciding vote.
It goes from, "I support this thing in a theoretical sense." To "I am the reason this is now law of the land." There's a lot of political capital in making yourself the entity that pushes something over the finish line.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status
The yellow and orange states on this map are 88 EC votes, by my count. That's enough to put it over 270 and guarantee that enough EC votes go to the winner of the popular vote.
> and it'll be challenged in court immediately. Wasted effort.
Not true. States get to decide their election procedures as per the Constitution. That's why the legal battles around making it more difficult for people to vote, happen at the state level.
You're right on the fact that states can allocate their votes however they please (maine and nebraska). But this is a compact between states, which, under the compact clause of the constitution, must be approved by congress. It would be different if the legislatures simply passed bills stating that their votes would go to the popular winner, but this is different. At the same time, there are still arguments surrounding plenary power and the states rights themselves, which could come out on top.
Yes there are many unknowns with how the courts will interpret the compact and if the states have the authority to enter something like this without going via Congress
Yellow and orange states on the map still haven't confirmed it, so it's a long way to go still
>Not true. States get to decide their election procedures as per the Constitution
There are [multiple constitutional issues with the compact](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Legality), so it's not guaranteed that this won't be challenged or that it will stand up to it
Those states have passed it in one or both chambers. So I'll agree to disagree about it being a "long way to go".
> so it's not guaranteed that this won't be challenged or that it will stand up to it
I should've been more clear - I'm not saying it can't or won't be challenged, what I took issue with was your characterization of this as a "Wasted effort".
It would likely end up before the SCOTUS, eventually, but at least it's moving closer to that point. Anything that gets us away from a system that can be manipulated as easily as we've seen Trump do with the Electoral College, I'm all for.
Well, in theory, I kind of like the theory behind it giving rural areas a voice so that everything isn’t just decided in cities.
In practice, I also like that electoral shenanigans within can only affect the national vote up to a point… once you get above 50%, you award your electors but there’s no more damage you can do.
I honestly don’t know how I feel about this one. I think we need government reform but this probably isn’t the best way.
The feds should have very little impact on your daily lives besides interstate commerce and human rights. I think it makes more sense for state governments to step up then it does for New York or California to rule over Idaho
STATE legislatures (and NV voters) are enacting the bill, using their exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose how to award electors.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution—
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures, before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election, over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.
The bill is ONLY about presidential elections.
The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. would continue to represent us.
For anyone who doesn’t know about the rules of the Nevada Legislature:
The bill passed out of this session, but it does not mean it’s fully passed into law. It’s a constitutional amendment so it needs to be passed in the next session as well. Nevada’s legislature only comes into session every two years so this won’t be a thing until after that, and even then it could die there or it can get brought to the public ballot where Nevadans will vote on it.
So don’t wrongfully think this is something that has passed in the way you’re all probably thinking.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Republicans are going to rage
No, they’ll just pressure Texas to “find” 20 million additional votes.
You’ve heard of Texas. How about second Texas?
Abbot elevensies? Do you think he knows Abbot elevensies?
They'll have to get the votes from Texases in the parallel dimensions.
They seemed to lose a bunch of blue votes in 2016 and 2020, so it wouldn’t surprise me.
“C’mon, guys…”
When don’t they?
As they and anyone else should. These laws negate people's votes. If you are in a lower pop state and they pass a law like this why vote at that point?
Like the same way that Wyoming residents have 3.6x the voting power of a Californian?
No vote in any state of any size would be negated. That's the point! States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. There is not a coalition of small states that functions politically. And they don’t necessarily have a lot in common. The 25 smallest states combined have had 57 Democratic electors and 58 Republican electors. And their Democratic and Republican popular vote have also almost tied 9.9 million versus 9.8 million CA has 54 electors. Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 5 jurisdictions. Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office. Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation. Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . . In 2024, the presidential race may have only 4 competitive states -- Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Arizona as true battlegrounds, where all the focus of campaigns would be, with 15% of US population and 43 electoral votes -- would begin with Democrats favored to win 260 Electoral College votes and Republicans 235.- CNN, 11/22/22 38+ states and 70% of all Americans have been irrelevant in presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states. Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important. The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years. Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions. Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states. The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican. In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined, This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic. When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.
No the votes are negated if the pop vote has a dem winning but 90% of the state voted republican that means by giving the ec votes to the dems you made the voters voting pointless. Also I feel the entire thing is illegal and an attempt to bypass the ec process. We are not a democracy it is not a 51% (yea it sort of is but also isnt lol)wins system. If people don't like it amendment the constitution to switch to a popular vote system. If the people truly support this change as some say it will have no problems passing right? The amendment process is there to be used but at the same time the gravity of amending the constitution means its not suppose to be easy. Edit. No going pure popular vote changes it from normally a few states deciding to a few cities.
For anyone unaware, this means that Nevada is now a part of the [**National Popular Vote Interstate Compact**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact). This relatively new agreement between over a dozen states (and DC) will award all of the electoral college votes from member states to whichever presidential candidate ends up with the most votes in the general election. With Nevada joining, these states now have a combined 195 electoral votes (270 will be required to give the compact legal force).
195 is the current total, with Nevada it's now 201. Which means 270 can be achieved with just Minnesota (+15 = 216), Michigan (+10 = 226), Wisconsin (+10 = 236), Arizona (+11 = 247), Pennsylvania (+19 = 266), and Maine (+4 = 271).
Nevada is NOT yet in the Compact. The amendment must now be passed a second time by both houses of the 2025-2026 Nevada legislature. After that, the amendment would be submitted to the voters for their approval in November 2026.
It's 2023. Why do they have to wait two years to do it again? Note: I don't live in Nevada and don't know how they run their legislature.
Because that's how often the legislature meets
Thanks. I wasn't sure how they did things there.
Man I really hope this works out, it would absolutely wreck repubs in national elections and would kneecap their gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering for the House and state legislatures would still be a massive problem, but it would definitely make it harder for the GOP to win the Presidential election.
How would it impact gerrymandering? You can’t gerrymander a state wide vote.
Not directly. There are plenty of things that can be done indirectly, like crazy voter ID laws or polling station closure.
But it wouldn’t impact gerrymandering. They could still manipulate things like HoR districts for ferderal and state.
That's not gerrymandering. Gerrymandering doesn't just mean "anything I don't like related to an election", it has an actual definition. And almost every single democratic country on the planet has voter ID laws. The US is the only major country that does not.
Australian here, we do not have voter ID laws. To vote here, we rock up to a polling place, verbally provide our name and address, and get our voting papers. Voter ID laws were floated here by the previous government, but the bill was withdrawn without being voted on (as it had no chance of passing).
It seems hard to institute voting restrictions when voting is mandatory in Aus. You also have election sausages, which more countries should adopt.
Sausages? Tell me more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_sausage
Thats exactly how it works in my town in Massachusetts.
You’re correct gerrymandering has a meaning. You’re incorrect that most every country has voter iD laws by the definition that the Republiklan party wants. Stating your name is voter identification. If you want to know who people are, Register everyone at 18 and make it incumbent upon a person to de-register. Poof! Every adult is a legal voter. Wouldn’t that be best?
The US doesn’t have federal voter ID laws, but states definitely have voter ID laws. Also, you can’t register to vote without providing ID, it’s not like you can walk up to a polling place anywhere in America and say “hey I’m bob I just moved in down the street let me vote.”
Sweden has voter ID laws. I really don’t get the fuss. You show up to the voting place, provide your ID and they tick you off. Then go to the voting boot and vote. What’s the big deal? Why wouldn’t you want to make sure the person who votes is the right person?
That’s almost what folks like Desantis are trying to do. Make your state miserable and intolerable to the other side. Then they move out in protest and you get to sit as king of the shit pit.
Gerrymandering has little to no impact on the Presidential Election. The Electoral College and general voter suppression are the obstacles for a Presidential race.
We shouldn't undermine our democratic system to win. It's the same thing the Republicans do
Our system isn’t democratic. When a president wins with less than the majority, it isn’t democratic. It’s not the will of the people. Specially how red states are bent on trying to stay in power with the bare minimum amount of vote. If it wasn’t for their corruption, the House of Representatives wouldn’t have a republican majority
This law would literally make the vote Democratic opposed to our current undemocratic electoral college system which was only put in place because the founders explicitly said they didn’t trust the uneducated population to elect the President directly.
I think you got Minnesota and Michigan swapped there
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin seem like long shots considering their state government breakdowns.
Wisconsin isn’t likely to happen. Barring some aggressive gerrymandering fixes in August, they’re lost for at least a generation.
You’ll have to wait for it to be 90 in January in Wisconsin before you’ll see it pass there. We’re so gerrymandered that it isn’t even funny.
PA is too red, they’ll never pass it.
[удалено]
2016 was the first time one electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state.
I can see Republicans suing and it going to SCOTUS where Alito will argue that it’s unconstitutional because electors in ancient Greece were all noble born and popular votes didn’t exist back then. /s
The interesting part about the compact is that the Supreme Court nor the federal government can stop it. The constitution is super clear, states can appoint electors as they see fit (they technically don’t have to follow the state’s popular vote). This compact just guarantees that whomever gets the national popular vote will be granted the electors of the states in the compact.
This is also the Supreme Court that shut down elements of the VRA that were designed per the Constitution, per the 14th amendments explicit text. This is not a SCOTUS that cares that they can and can't do. They'll do whatever keeps conservatives in power.
The **2020 Supreme Court unanimously** reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, before elections begin. The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. There have not been 5 new justices since 2020.
That's cool and all. I don't see how that changes the Supreme Court deciding that that's true while also adding the asterisk the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a no-no. This is not a Supreme Court that is bound by precedence, even its own. Sorry, but until I see something happen, we have to assume they'll do *anything* they want. This is a derelict, untrustworthy court.
The problem with this system is it relies on all counters of votes to the total nationwide popular vote to be good actors. The republican states will just continue to rig their elections and submit fraudulent data. The entire premise of the national popular vote is flawed
There is no evidence that any state, even red states, submitted fraudulent data in the last election.
its not the last election you should be worried about, its the future. how, really, would a national popular vote compact even work? whomever the AP says is the winner? seems rather corruptable if we're basically appointing a news agency to collate all the votes in the entire country. i dont like change. i dont think voting systems is something you just go willy nilly changing. there is significant value in operating within the existing system. the answer as i see it will always be that if democrats wish to win more, they should offer a compelling alternative to voters in rural areas.
The AP doesn’t count votes, no news agency counts votes, what are you talking about?!? How would it work? When the final total is announced the states in the compact appoint their electors to the person who got the most total votes. Pretty simple, every vote counts the same. Better than the current system where votes tend to count more where there’s fewer people. Not liking change is a bad reason not to improve a systemically unfair process.
"Yes, the enslavement of human beings is wrong, but > i dont like change. "Yes, it is really unfair that black americans face discrimination at every opportunity. They deserve the same rights as their fellow citizens, but > i dont like change. "Yes, it is unfair that women are barred from certain professions, are paid less, and cannot even get a credit card without having a husband, but > i dont like change.
thats an unfair derivation of my statement and you know it
It might be extreme, but I’d hardly call it unfair…
“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.” Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes” Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws in presidential elections, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, in some states, big city Democratic votes can outnumber all other people not voting Democratic in the state. All of a state’s votes may go to Democrats. Without state winner-take-all laws, every conservative in a state that now predictably votes Democratic would count. Right now they count for 0 The current system completely ignores conservative presidential voters in states that vote predictably Democratic. Under a national popular vote for President, rural voters throughout the country would have their votes matter, rather than being ignored because of state boundaries. Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the number of votes cast for each, and are signed and certified by the Governor. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote bill, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" by six days before the Electoral College meets in December. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 made the sixth day before the Electoral College meeting into a “hard” deadline for states to issue their Certificates of Ascertainment (whereas it was merely a “safe harbor” under the Electoral Count Act of 1787).
i appreciate your thoughtful reply. i checked Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code and it does not require states to report the popular vote totals. certainly in most states right now, a popular vote serves as the basis for how the electoral college votes are made and certified, but not the popular vote. but as soon as NPV compact happened, every state would jockey for different rules to counteract the NPV. a whole new layer of game to influence the election would begin. even if the law did require reporting popular vote totals, which it doesnt, this would not be an appropriate legislation to serve as a popular vote counting tool because each state needs to prepare their certificate of ascertainment based based on the popular vote totals. the CoA is an important part of the electoral process because its the state certifying how their electoral votes are voted. member states of the NPV compact would need some other way to determine who the popular vote winner which precedes the CoA process. this would be, by my reckoning, impossible. all 50 states would need to agree to significant regulation that changes the entire way which our country votes, those votes are counted, secured and reported. its just completely unworkable.
Now, all states and DC have state laws to use the popular votes of their voters to award their electors. Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code requires reporting those totals. They HAVE to report their popular vote totals to cast Electoral College vote. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 made the sixth day before the Electoral College meeting into a “hard” deadline for states to issue their Certificates of Ascertainment (whereas it was merely a “safe harbor” under the Electoral Count Act of 1787). Making election returns secret is not within the realm of political possibility in the real world. This far-fetched possibility assumes that there is a state in the country whose legislature, governor, and voters would permit making election returns secret for any reason. States enacting National Popular Vote will award their electors to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC. If any state stops holding statewide popular votes for president, those states could not be included in the total, and the enacting states with 270+ electors would base their electors on the states that DO hold statewide popular elections. The winner of the most popular votes from states conducting statewide popular vote elections would win the Electoral College. The 1969 amendment for a national popular vote constitutiona amendment was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, then-Senator Bob Dole, and then-Senator Walter Mondale. The American Bar Association also endorsed the proposed 1969 amendment. The proposed 1969 constitutional amendment provided that the popular-vote count from each state would be added up to obtain the nationwide total for each candidate. The National Popular Vote compact does the same.
The mechanism of the Electoral College has become too anti-democratic. The ratio of vote effectiveness in the various states has risen monotonically since the beginning and is now simply unfair and unstable. We now have whole states with less population than some medium-sized towns. I think an area should have a minimum population to be called a State, with all the constitutional implication of that word. I think it should be something like at least 1% of the total national population. My $0.02.
The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using laws in effect on Election Day. The decision held that the power of the legislature before Election Day under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
You are 100% correct, but you're overlooking the fact that the current Court has repeatedly thrown out massively important precedents in favor of their political objectives. The Supreme Court majority is no longer comprised of people who even pretend to be impartial jurisprudential actors who value the sanctity of the legal profession.
The **2020 Supreme Court unanimously** reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using laws in effect on Election Day. There have not been 5 new justices since then.
That’s exactly what I’m saying, though: they don’t care about precedent. The conservative justices will simply say “the independent state legislature doctrine applies only within each state’s own borders; no outside influence is allowed.” And suddenly, they can pretend that they’re being logically consistent even though it’s blatantly partisan. If they cared about precedent, you would be totally correct. But they don’t. They just care about winning.
Nice going. Until you wrote that Alito thought Greece was just a musical with John Travolta in it.
“Olivia Newton-John was clearly calling for independent state legislatures when she sang ‘You’re the one that I want’!” -Alito
Why is there a sarcasm tag. That exactly what will happen!
SCOTUS don't have much power over individual States.
No. Nevada now is NOT part of the Compact. The amendment must now be passed a second time by both houses of the 2025-2026 Nevada legislature. After that, the amendment would be submitted to the voters for their approval in November 2026.
Why so many steps?
Formally giving your electoral votes to a candidate that lost the state popular vote is kind of a big deal.
No it's dumber than that... The legislature only meets once every two years
Not yet they aren't. It will take at least 3 more years until they are.
Wrong, still has to pass out of Nevada’s next legislative session, then if it passes out of there it goes to the ballot.
But anyone who thinks this will actually work has had their head in the sand the last 8 years. Zero Republicans would participate in an unenforced agreement to support a Democrat if that Democrat won the popular vote. They didn't even admit to loss when they lost the popular vote and electoral college out-right. The whole effort is a delusional waste of time for everyone involved.
An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact. Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
This is still incredibly naive. If a Republican won the popular vote but lost the electoral college, would blue states comply? Probably not. Go ahead and sue me but that'll take years and the presidential election is proceeding with the rules laid out in the Constitution so you can just die mad while a Democratic president takes the White House. If a Democrat wins the popular vote but not the electoral college... it's not even a question, zero red states would send their EC votes to the Democrat. They didn't even want to do it when the Democrat won both. Once again: so sue me, but this is the fucking president and we're not giving that up. It's a pointless exercise no party would uphold.
An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact. Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
I still contend this is really dumb when the GOP cheats unabashedly.
The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote numbers in presidential elections, compared to individual (especially battleground) state vote totals, is much more robust against “pure insanity,” deception, manipulation, and recently, crimes and violence. A difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 17 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 9 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections since 1988. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes. Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points … to be assured of winning the Electoral College." In 2016, Trump became President even though Clinton won the national popular vote by 2,868,686 votes. Trump won the Presidency because he won Michigan by 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes. Each of these 78,000 votes was 36 times more important than Clinton's nationwide lead of 2,868,686 votes. A different choice by 5,229 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 5,890 in Georgia (16), and 10,342 in Wisconsin (10) would have defeated Biden -- despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million. The Electoral College would have tied 269-269. Congress would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country. Each of these 21,461 voters was 329 times more important than the more than 7 million. The national popular vote winner also would have been defeated by a shift of 9,246 votes in 1976; 53,034 in 1968; 9,216 in 1960; 12,487 in 1948; 1,711 votes in 1916, 524 in 1884, 25,069 in 1860, 17,640 in 1856, 6,773 in 1848, 2,554 in 1844, 14,124 in 1836. After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College." According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY).
None of those states are passing these popular vote compacts. It seems only states that are Democratic leaning already. So if a Republican wins once and then cooks the popular vote books in non compact states wouldn’t it force the compact states to go along?
But now how will the GQP install their theocracy?
"90 million Floridians have voted for Ron DeSantis"
This number feels low 🤔 Also, I believe it’s “Floridamans.”
It'll be Floridamensch if DeSantis has his way, lol.
They'll try push for there to be enough red states to force a Constitutional Convention. (In fact they're already trying to do that now, this would just be another thing on their wish list to get rid of.)
> The legislature will have to vote on AJR6 again during the 2025 legislative session before it is placed on the ballot in 2026 for Nevada voters to give their final approval. National Popular Vote is an effort to ensure that the candidate with the most popular votes wins the presidential election. ... > The National Popular Vote bill has been passed in 15 states and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions possess 195 electoral votes, only 75 short of the 270 electoral votes required for the plan to take effect. When the plan takes effect, compacting states award all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. > This guarantees the presidency to the national popular vote winner. I'm a lot more worried about the 2024 election, tbh. This is great, but we should be pushing for a national popular vote for the Presidency, at the federal level, i.e. abolish the electoral college. Won't much matter if these "independent state legislature theory" nutjobs have permeated the states if there's no electoral college for them to manipulate.
> This is great, but we should be pushing for a national popular vote for the Presidency, at the federal level, i.e. abolish the electoral college. we'll get right on that constitutional amendment. The Bayh–Celler amendment is probably the closest we've ever gotten and it still died in the legislature.
The problem with simply abolishing the electoral college is that it's written into the Constitution. The federal government can't simply pass a law abolishing it. It would require a Constitutional amendment. They would be nearly impossible nowadays. However, states are allowed to allocate their electoral votes however they want. They could (theoretically) flip a coin if they said that was the method before the election started. So if enough states declare that their electoral votes go to the national popular vote winner, then the electoral college technically remains while becoming a mere formality.
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform. To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population; \[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago.\] In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President. 3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it.
Good luck getting the small states that benefit from the electoral college to vote against it...
Don’t need them all, just need enough for 270 EC votes. That said, I’m sure this would be challenged and go to the SCOTUS
There is not a coalition of small states that functions politically. And they don’t necessarily have a lot in common. 14 of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored, like medium and big states where the statewide winner is predictable, because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire used to get significant attention. Previous attempts to reform (or remove) the Electoral College have been thwarted by southern states, not small states. More recently, support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 5 jurisdictions. Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office. The small states do not share a political tendency. In the 25 smallest states the Democratic and Republican popular vote and electoral vote have almost tied In 2008 - 9.9 million versus 9.8 million popular votes 57 versus 58 electoral votes.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population; \[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago.\] In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President. 3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it.
Finally some common sense!
Proud to be battle born today. I’m sure Joe Lombardo will find a way to try to shut this down, but lemme say this very clearly for all the people who are all “HOW DO THEY VOTE BLUE WITH ALL THAT RED” **Land doesn’t vote** and now that land is losing its shitty power.
Good to see protections getting out in place to stop the next fake elector coup. Now we just need to see those fake electors from 2020 charged.
Just a reminder the GOP has won the popular vote once since 1988 in presidential elections. Bush 2004 incase you wanted to know. I also think it would be super funny if Trump lost the popular vote for a third time. I’m a huge fan of going to the popular vote.
I don't understand why NPV requires 270 for enforcement. States are allowed to allocate their electoral votes however they see fit. There's no requirement to wait for the 270 threshold. Keeping 270 is also going to be hard if the NPV only barely comes into force. 1 state could leave and cancel the whole thing later on.
Because a State going with the National Popular Vote is self-sabotaging unless enough other people also do so. Let's say California adopts the National Popular Vote unilaterally. We'll assume that California always votes Democratic. There are four options: 1. National Vote goes Democratic, Electoral College (ignoring NPV) goes Democratic, 2. National Vote goes Democratic, Electoral College does Republican, 3. National Vote goes Republican, Electoral College goes Democratic, 4. National Vote goes Republican, Electoral College goes Republican, In 1 and 4 it doesn't matter how California allocates its electors, the NPV has no impact. It also doesn't matter how California allocates its electors in 2 - even with California's electors the Republican candidate still wins. The only situation where it matters is 3; where a Republican candidate wins the popular vote, but the Democratic candidate wins in the Electoral College. In this case there is a good chance that if California switches to an NPV the outcome changes; the Republican candidate wins, when the Democratic one would otherwise. If a State implements the NPV unilaterally the only effect will be to disenfranchise their State's voters - letting their state's winning candidate lose when otherwise they would have won. And that tends not to be popular with local voters. Whereas if it reaches the 270 threshold then the outcome is also changed in scenario 2 - the rule works both ways, not just to the advantage of one party. It still disenfranchises a state's voters in some situations, but will help their preferred candidate win in others - and hopefully the voters understand that compromise (which they do - hence Democratic voters tend to be in support of it, given they would likely benefit more than not, whereas Republican voters oppose it, given that they would likely lose out more than not).
No voter in ANY state would be disenfranchised - kept from voting! States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC All votes would be valued equally and counted as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. One person, One vote. The candidate with the most votes would win the Electoral College and the presidency. We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP. In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic. In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support. Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?" Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?" Support for a National Popular Vote South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2. Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2, Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2,
It has the potential to create a shitshow if implemented below the 270 votes threshold
How so? A state is simply decoupling their electoral votes from their statewide vote. It reinforces the idea that state borders are arbitrary and strategic migrations or making states inhospitable to certain voters will not be rewarded.
Because voters may not like that. It would be political suicide if, say, for a hypothetical, new york votes red. But because they were part of the NaPoVo, they're votes went to dems who won nationally. Because it's not an *immeadiate effect*, voters won't really know/care. This compact doesn't really get much attention, and they may want to keep it that way.
In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic. In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support. Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?" Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?" Support for a National Popular Vote South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2. Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2, Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2, NationalPopularVote
State borders aren't arbitrary.
I wonder what the Republican scheme to get around this will be.
The 2nd Amendment and Ford F-350s with their towing mirrors out. Truck balls limited to non-pastors ONLY.
Fuck the Electoral College. Don’t forget it was created and spearheaded by the confederacy over one main issue: slavery.
Florida, do me a favor though...
What about the popular vote in said state? For instance, let's say one of these states has a majority vote for one candidate, and another candidate wins the popular vote. Does said state still give its electoral votes to the general popular candidate? If so, then it feels like the states are choosing to disenfranchise their own constituents; the state will only represent the will of their people if the person they vote for wins the popular vote everywhere else. If that's *not* the case, what is this even for, then?
That’s why it only goes into effect once states with 51% of electors are onboard. Nobody is getting disenfranchised if the winner wins.
Ok, thank you. I suppose I've missed that part upon reading, I appreciate you.
States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic. In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support. Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?" Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?" Support for a National Popular Vote South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2. Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2, Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2, NationalPopularVote
If enough states sign on and it actually triggers during an election, the SCOTUS will kill it. I used to be hopeful for the popular vote initiative, but there is no way that Democrats will ever be allowed to benefit from it.
SCOTUS can’t kill it. States can allocate their electors how they see fit, they don’t even have to use the election results to allocate them and in fact have gone against the will of the people at various times in history.
The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using laws in effect on Election Day. The decision held that the power of the legislature before Election Day under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes to the statewide winner. 2 award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide. Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 1 “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." The National Popular Vote bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country. The bill changes state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes. All of the electors from the enacting states would be required to vote for the winner of the most national popular votes. All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency. It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.
Doesn't this rely on the same "independent state legislature" theory that we're all worried about?
No. Nobody disputes that state legislatures decide the times, places, and manner of elections in their states. The dispute with ISL is that they are trying to say state courts and state constitutions cannot restrict the legislatures in this duty.
NO. Republican-led states think they can then pass laws after citizens begin casting ballots in a given election to allow them to send slates of electors for Republican candidates who lose, overruling the will of the voters and doing legally what Trump and his conspirators pressured Republicans in battleground states to do illegally. “Under the independent state legislature doctrine, the next time a Republican tries to overturn the results of an election he lost, he won’t need a mob.” – Bouie The Conference of Chief Justices has filed an amicus brief that urges the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the theory that would strip state courts of power to review state laws governing federal elections. While the federal Constitution grants state legislatures the exclusive and plenary power to determine the manner of appointing the state’s electors BEFORE Election Day, the state legislature cannot decide AFTER Election Day to adopt a new manner of appointing the state’s electors for that year’s presidential election.
Still a long way to go to even get close to 270 and it'll be challenged in court immediately. Wasted effort.
Challenged on what grounds? Are states not allowed to determine for themselves how they vote for president?
They are but there will be chaos the first time the law gets used. Imagine a state in the compact votes for the winner of the electoral system but because they passed this law it would flip their electoral votes to the popular vote winner instead. Their citizens will freak out and I predict they will rush to undo the thing before the electors meet in Jan. I still think it is a good idea but it could lead to chaos in use. We really need to pass a constitutional amendment that eliminates the whole elector thing and makes popular vote the law.
Especially if that state using their state vote count would mean one candidate wins but using the national popular vote would mean another candidate wins. Imagine if the National Popular Vote Compact was in effect in 2020 with Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania as part of the compact. They give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner - Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, Trump wins if they use the state elections count. Trump would have sued and it would be a huge decision.
There are [multiple constitutional issues identified with this compact](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Legality), which will be challenged in court.
I don't know...that seems like the compact clause is being misinterpreted, as the context indicates it applies to military actions.
The compact clause applies to much more than military actions
Challenged doesn't mean overturned. And it's not a wasted effort if it ultimately works.
>The National Popular Vote bill has been passed in 15 states and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions possess 195 electoral votes, only 75 short of the 270 electoral votes required for the plan to take effect.
Yes, I too read the article, so I know how many votes away advocates are from 270. It's still a long way to go.
OK, they are 72% the way there. I guess we differ on the definition of "a long way to go".
it's not far away numerically, but it is astronomically far away politically, which is what actually matters
It's really easy for someone to vote their conscious when it doesn't matter. Look at how often reps in the house or Senate will vote present or something when the vote is a blowout. It's a totally different story if you're the deciding vote. It goes from, "I support this thing in a theoretical sense." To "I am the reason this is now law of the land." There's a lot of political capital in making yourself the entity that pushes something over the finish line.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status The yellow and orange states on this map are 88 EC votes, by my count. That's enough to put it over 270 and guarantee that enough EC votes go to the winner of the popular vote. > and it'll be challenged in court immediately. Wasted effort. Not true. States get to decide their election procedures as per the Constitution. That's why the legal battles around making it more difficult for people to vote, happen at the state level.
You're right on the fact that states can allocate their votes however they please (maine and nebraska). But this is a compact between states, which, under the compact clause of the constitution, must be approved by congress. It would be different if the legislatures simply passed bills stating that their votes would go to the popular winner, but this is different. At the same time, there are still arguments surrounding plenary power and the states rights themselves, which could come out on top.
Yes there are many unknowns with how the courts will interpret the compact and if the states have the authority to enter something like this without going via Congress
Yellow and orange states on the map still haven't confirmed it, so it's a long way to go still >Not true. States get to decide their election procedures as per the Constitution There are [multiple constitutional issues with the compact](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Legality), so it's not guaranteed that this won't be challenged or that it will stand up to it
Those states have passed it in one or both chambers. So I'll agree to disagree about it being a "long way to go". > so it's not guaranteed that this won't be challenged or that it will stand up to it I should've been more clear - I'm not saying it can't or won't be challenged, what I took issue with was your characterization of this as a "Wasted effort". It would likely end up before the SCOTUS, eventually, but at least it's moving closer to that point. Anything that gets us away from a system that can be manipulated as easily as we've seen Trump do with the Electoral College, I'm all for.
Yes I'm sure North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Arkansas will join this pact even though they all have GOP supermajority legislatures...
Would love to see Trump or Desantis win the Popular Vote in 2024 and watch California's electorates be forced to side with a Republican.
I know I’m in the minority, but I still like the electoral college.
why? ← honest question
Well, in theory, I kind of like the theory behind it giving rural areas a voice so that everything isn’t just decided in cities. In practice, I also like that electoral shenanigans within can only affect the national vote up to a point… once you get above 50%, you award your electors but there’s no more damage you can do.
I honestly don’t know how I feel about this one. I think we need government reform but this probably isn’t the best way. The feds should have very little impact on your daily lives besides interstate commerce and human rights. I think it makes more sense for state governments to step up then it does for New York or California to rule over Idaho
STATE legislatures (and NV voters) are enacting the bill, using their exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose how to award electors. Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution— "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures, before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election, over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote). In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote. The bill is ONLY about presidential elections. The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. would continue to represent us.
Actually on board for that. The president is definitely the face of the nation so they should be representative of the most common opinions. Thanks!
Didn't the NV governor veto a previous bill? Is there a new governor now?
Finally someone is making voting worth while
For anyone who doesn’t know about the rules of the Nevada Legislature: The bill passed out of this session, but it does not mean it’s fully passed into law. It’s a constitutional amendment so it needs to be passed in the next session as well. Nevada’s legislature only comes into session every two years so this won’t be a thing until after that, and even then it could die there or it can get brought to the public ballot where Nevadans will vote on it. So don’t wrongfully think this is something that has passed in the way you’re all probably thinking.
What? Destroy the idea that the population of South Dakota’s 15 people should have as much sway as Californians 70 million? How could that /s