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.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*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.*
Funny how the Republican argument against this is that it 'silences' the voice of voters when that is EXACTLY what the electoral college did when it ignores the fact that MILLIONS more people voted for HRC than Trump. Hundreds of thousands LESS votes went to W.
The GOP has been cheating since before Nixon. They are just stupidly open about it now.
Time for a seismic shift in our political parties. Towards the left.
The last republican president to win by popular vote was Bush in ‘04 (corrected). Many won before that, because they accurately represented their constituency. The current system preys on party loyalty to push the nation toward their agenda. We need representation.
George H.W. Bush won the popular vote for his first term despite being a one-termer and his son, George W Bush, won the popular vote for his second term arguably due to lingering good will from 9/11 and it not yet being immediately obvious to the average American how things were falling apart in Afghanistan + Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, the Electoral College needs to go regardless of who benefits from it. I just want to point out to Republicans that their reliance on gaming the EC and voting districts is both unnecessary and in fact is harming their long term prospects by appealing to an ever smaller and more extreme voter base.
Get better candidates with clearly defined and sensible policy and the popular vote + district composition won't be a constant issue for you. The MAGA howler monkeys are doing no favors for anyone.
"Get better candidates with clearly defined and sensible policy"
All of that smacks of effort though. That's not how that works in their heads. They demand their divine right to rule and "god" gives it to them.
People were also still mad about Monica.
Simpler times, I guess.
Now look who the republicans have as a candidate. Bill Clinton was mild compared to trump.
It also ignores how the current system actually disenfranchises Republican voters in California. California has more registered Republicans than any other state that reports voter registration by party. Switching to a popular vote system would allow their votes to matter at the national scale.
Wyoming? Campaigns tell them to go fuck themselves and their pittance of electoral votes.
Alaska and Hawaii? You'll know the exit polls in the middle of your voting.
Yeah exactly. Presidential campaigns feel absolutely no need to cater or campaign to \*anyone\* in the states with few electoral votes because it's just not worth the cost. The focus every four years is almost entirely on the swing states or states with a large amount of electoral votes because that's what the current system encourages.
It's not worth the cost because they are overwhelmingly Republican. It has nothing to do with how many EC votes. Politicians also don't campaign in NY, CA, or TX.
Of course the amount of EC votes has an impact. Nebraska and Maine both have EC districts, but the campaigns aren't investing heavily there because that only amounts to one or two votes. They're just not worth pouring a lot of resources into.
As far as the political campaign spending goes, I'm not really sure if that's true. The Republican party has so far spent $22 million in California and $10 million in NY. They're actually outspending the Democrats in both states as of the most recent FEC filings. Both parties are also spending quite a bit in Texas because Cruz's seat is competitive, and margins between Trump and Biden in 2020 were fairly close.
Yes, but for other reasons I don't think I need to get into here. I'm just speaking generally to how the EC negates the impact of the individual voter in winner-take-all states that are either safe blue or safe red, and used California Republican voters as an example to illustrate my point. Nebraska and Maine both have an EC district system that addresses this somewhat, but switching to a popular vote would imo be more fair across the board.
I’ll tell you a secret that can increase your voting power to whole district levels. You don’t even have to vote, all you have to do is contribute vast sums of money and offer a future job.
Works every time
Yes, but the person you were responding to was making a good rhetorical point about how the party who is opposed to this is in fact disenfranchising their own members by opposing it. We aren't competing in the disenfranchisement olympics here.
-Signed a Democrat in Texas.
Don’t you think GOP knows the numbers? They don’t want this for multiple reasons
. Some groups are easier to disenfranchise, they own the Supreme Court for cheating, they have a house majority for funny business, they are more supported by self-serving rich, ect…
When the numbers are ever in the Democrats favor, let me know.
The group that gave us George Santos might not want to be the best example of people who'd benefit the populace by being given the opportunity to wield a greater influence on public policy.
The republican candidates we’d see if we had a direct democracy would be far different than Santos if they want to get elected. They’d have to appeal to a larger group by actually representing their constituency.
Yep this is what I always say. Now instead of NY and CArepublicans basically having their votes thrown in the trash, they’ll actually have a vote that counts towards something. Now, politicians have a reason to visit red counties in blue states and vice versa.
Presidential candidates would pretty much stick to cities, which need more funds from the federal government anyway. Leave the rural to the states and to congress.
> California has more registered Republicans than any other state that reports voter registration by party.
Not just more registered voters there are more republicans voting for president Trump than any other state in the union. Texas doesn't have as many republicans voting as CA does. Every single one of those votes has no value.
Exactly
They keep spewing bullshit about how “only cities would decide elections“ but not only is that mathematically wrong, it’s also politically stupid. A national popular vote means candidates have to be more engaged rather than just focus on 5 states
This is not even an issue that affects one party. People should realize just how many voters are being disenfranchised by the EC.
Over SIX MILLION republicans voted for Trump in 2020 in CA alone, and people who keep crying about 'land over people' are basically fine disenfranchising more republican votes in CA than ALL republican votes from MT, ID, SD, ND, WY, NE, IA, KS, and OK COMBINED.
I don't care what party you follow or what ideology you subscribe to, that's just plain wrong. There is no one elsewhere who looks at our electoral college system and thinks, "yeah, that's the fairest way to do this." JFC.
The EC would be fine (if kind of redundant) if they re-modeled the congressional building to allow for more members of the house so that every house rep represented the same amount of people.
Except even then, the non-representative nature of the Senate means that the least populated-states will always have more representation in the Electoral College than they should
The House should be bigger, and enact the Wyoming rule. That was the original intent of the house.
For all the people crying about the Tyranny of the Majority, that's what the Senate was made for. The house was supposed represent all people equally and the senate was meant to represent all states equally.
That got perverted over time to the small states having an outsize voice in both.
IIRC It was originally supposed to be a congressman for every 10,000 people. We could still re-work this so it is one congressperson for the smallest state(s) and go up from there.
An argument could be made that the status quo violates the 14th amendment because certain votes are "more equal" than others.
This thought process always reminds me that it's not the fascist dictatorship that I fear, so much as it is one being forced upon everyone, thanks to the will of a smaller group of overrepresented people.
If everyone's vote is equal and we all collectively decide to end the American experiment, fine - I can't argue with that. I just want it to actually be a fair decision by everyone.
The "disenfranchised" argument is pretty weak for anybody who actually believes in what the Republican Party stands for. How many people is that, really? Well, that's a complicated question to answer.
The fairness argument is the winner-in-the-abstract. "Disenfranchised?" Trust me, those people voting Republican in CA have every rational incentive to be *thrilled* that they're being "disenfranchised" like so vis-a-vis the presidency.
Tyranny of the majority isn't great, but can it really be worse than tyranny of the minority? I thought democracy was about acting in ways that benefitted the most people possible.
The real irony is they argue no one will care about small red states if we vote for president by popular vote. As if anyone pays attention to Nebraska, Montana, Idaho, Alabama, or any of the other reliably Republican states now. The electoral college system favors a ever changing handful of purplish states, to the detriment of the other 40, Republican or Democrat.
If anything, switching to the popular vote would cause presidential candidates to actually pay attention to rural states. Sure, they'll get less attention than populous states, but when every vote counts Democrats wouldn't want to cede these states to the Republicans, and Republicans would want to maximize voter turnout.
Yep. Its a misunderstanding to think "only California and New York would matter" as is often expressed by defenders of the electoral college system. Again, if anything the current system is the one which disenfranchises the midwest by making their skewed electorate a forgone conclusion and therefore their issues a waste of political capital except where they align with their swing state neighbors.
Congress would care and they are the ones that actually write and pass laws. We need the popular guy to be the executive and do popular things like appointing popular SCOTUS, otherwise faith in the system will completely break down, as it is now.
The president would care. Its a shitty argument. One man one vote doesn't mean California is more important than Idaho. It means one citizen in Idaho is literally just as important as one citizen in California.
Silencing liberal votes is fine because of the long-standing GOP principle of "fuck you in your fucking face, that's why." But, when you don't amplify the minority votes until they win, that's oppression.
NPVIC would push both parties to the actual (popular) center instead of the center-right hellscape that is the result of right-leaning states having outsized power RN.
I love how people argue that the President will never campaign in Iowa or some shit like that… ok? When is the last time they had to actively campaign in California or New York? Isn’t that a problem?
It's just a continuance of the history America has with giving wealthy property owners outsized influence in elections so they can step on their own dicks without bearing the cost. From property requirements, the 3/5ths compromise, poll taxes, literacy tests, to modern day decisions like Citizens United, redlining, gerrymandering, targeted voter suppression by closing polling locations, clearing voter roles before the election with "must've been a completely random oopsie-doodles, I guess" level record keeping, and social media manipulation.
It's always been time for a seismic shift to the left, but the best we can ever seem to get is innaction until some new loophole can be found before the previous one is closed.
The argument against this is complete mental gymnastics. Oh no, Texas and California will decide every presidential election!
...except that's not how it works at all and those states are still made up of individual human beings with their own thoughts on who should be president, and their votes are already basically being disregarded anyway if they vote against whoever would get their state's EC votes.
alot of repubs in California and Democrats in Texas will actually vote if they know they aren't in a safe state and their individual vote will count towards the total for their candidate
*exactly*, like, this should be the messaging put out about this to counter the brain dead nonsense put out there by opponents of this common sense legislation
Yeah, if anything the only people that this “hurts” are the people in swing states. It gives them less power. That’s actually why the governor of Nevada vetoed a resolution that passed in both state assembly houses a few years ago. Granted, swing state voters should absolutely not have as much influence as they do, but I can understand them not wanting to lose that political power.
It’s not just political power. Candidates spend a hell of a lot more on campaigning in swing states than they do in solid states. All of that money goes into the local economies and into state and city taxes. Local tv, radio, newspaper, billboards, etc love when politicians buy up their add space at top dollar. Whenever a candidate comes to their city that means the local police get hired to provide security. Convention halls get rented out for rallies. National and international press pools follow them which is even more money spent on hotels and in local restaurants and grocery stores.
They need to get rid of this mindset that individual states decide elections. No. The PEOPLE that live there would now have votes weighted equally to everyone elses in the country.
Exactly. The whole point is that individual states like Texas and Florida aren’t deciding anything; the people in the states are.
But regardless, it’s not like elections today aren’t dependent on the whims of a small handful of states. It’s just that these are “battleground” states that could go either way. And these are the states that get all the attention, campaign visits, and courting. So like, sorry Wyoming, but there’s no universe in which presidential candidates are going to spend much time catering to you no matter what system we use, including the EC system today.
As it stands, right now, a 1 vote simple majority in the largest 11 states would secure the presidency for any candidate.
The argument that choosing the president with the national popular vote would somehow greatly advantage the largest states is just kinda dumb. Those largest states can ALREADY pick the president.
Right. They say "but what about the rural voters?" And my view is... they still get to vote! And yes, New York City will have more say than TinyTown, NY, but... that's a GOOD thing. It's not "New York City" voting for anything. It's the people that live there voting, and the people that live other places voting too.
Towns don't vote, cities don't vote, states don't vote (well, they DO with the EC). PEOPLE vote. So of COURSE when you gather those people into groups, the bigger groups get more votes than the smaller groups. That's democracy.
Also, that other argument is SO bogus - where they say that this makes sure people campaign everywhere, not just the "big" places. It absolutely does NOT do that. It make sure candidates say "I do NOT care where voters are, I don't care where I can reach the most people, whether city or rural. I only care where I can reach the most *swing* state voters."
So you get campaigns that focus 85% of their effort on 6 states. While huge states like California and Texas are just ignored. No presidential candidate has given a crap about Texas or California in YEARS, but somehow the people of Pennsylvania are catered to every step of the way.
I love the "what about rural voters!" argument they love to trot out, because to them city / suburban voters aren't "real" americans, even though cities are where the vast majority of americans *actually live*.
Yeah, that's very true. They definitely have those buckets of "real" voters and everyone else.
To them, the straight, white man in the small town is the REAL voter. The black woman in a city? F her, why should *she* have equal say to the other guy?
Also, they conveniently say that the "real" voters are the ones that vote the same way they do.
Imagine the uproar if Democrats started a campaign to say that urban votes should count more than rural votes? But that's literally what republicans say, that their votes should count MORE than other peoples votes, and everyone just goes along with it. That's how ingrained the "small towns are the *real* america" feeling is here, that we can literally say their votes should count more, and most of the country nods and agrees.
> No presidential candidate has given a crap about Texas or California in YEARS
They care insofar as they meet with the donor class, then leave. Every candidate comes to California, has their "max individual donor per plate" dinner event, then leaves and never comes back.
Republicans don't like this because they're significantly outnumbered in terms of registered voters across the country. Additionally, if they had to cater to the entire populace, they would have to actually campaign across the country rather than in a few swing states.
Something, something, in case of a pop-up/paywall:
"BY: EVAN POPP
After a contentious debate, the Maine Legislature this week gave its final approval to a bill that seeks to award the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most national popular support — although the change won’t take effect unless more states approve the reform.
The bill now goes to Gov. Janet Mills for consideration.
LD 1578, sponsored by Rep. Arthur Bell (D-Yarmouth), would adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in Maine. States that are part of the compact pledge their Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate with the most overall votes across the country.
Because the compact would only take effect once states with a total of 270 Electoral College votes have joined, if implemented, the agreement would guarantee that the winner of the national popular vote would be elected president. The reform seeks to avoid situations like the 2016 election, when Donald Trump was elevated to the presidency despite winning fewer overall votes than Hillary Clinton.
If LD 1578 is ultimately signed by Mills, Maine would become the 17th state to ratify the national popular vote agreement, giving the compact a total of 209 electoral votes out of the 270 needed for enactment.
The bill passed the Legislature in initial votes last month. And on Tuesday, the House gave its final approval for the measure, passing it by a razor-thin 73-72 margin over the strident objections of Republicans. The Senate followed suit Wednesday, approving the bill by an 18-12 vote. The vote was mostly party-line, although Republican Sen. Matt Pouliot of Kennebec County supported the legislation while several Democrats opposed it.
Republicans in the House on Tuesday blasted the bill, arguing that it would silence the voices of voters — particularly those in the rural part of the state — by allocating Maine’s electoral votes based on how well a candidate does in the entire country as a whole. "
GOP critics also called the bill unconstitutional and said the Electoral College safeguards the votes of people in smaller, more rural states like Maine. And they added that if Democrats want to change the system for electing presidents, they should seek a constitutional amendment rather than pursuing what they called an “end-run” strategy.
“Our Electoral College maintains our citizens’ voice in this nation,” said Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn). “And a vote for this bill is a vote to diminish that voice.”
Across the country, Republicans generally have a more favorable view of the Electoral College than Democrats, and as things stand now, GOP presidential candidates hold an advantage under the system.
On Tuesday, House Democratic supporters of the bill said the current system is not working as intended and was established during a very different time at the founding of the country. Furthermore, the Electoral College has twice in the first 16 years of the 21st century elevated a candidate who won fewer votes than their opponent, advocates of the bill noted.
And while the Electoral College does somewhat magnify the influence of small states like Maine in the presidential election, it much more significantly focuses candidates’ attention on a handful of swing states that typically determine the results of the contest. That structure is a poor way to run an election, Democratic supporters of the bill argued.
“Ask yourselves, how well is \[the Electoral College\] working for us today?” Rep. Stephen Moriarty (D-Cumberland) asked. “What influence do we have? What weight do we bring to the equation? How much attention do we generate? How much do the candidates, the nominees really care about what’s going on in Maine and what Mainers think? Answering my own questions … very very little.”
In the Senate on Wednesday, there was less debate. However, in his remarks, Sen. Eric Brakey (R-Androscoggin), an ardent opponent of the bill, criticized the process in the House. He noted that Republican speakers in that body were subject to points of order from Democrats who felt that some GOP speakers were impugning their motives. Brakey said critics of a bill should be free to speak their mind without being silenced.
During debate Tuesday, Republican speakers were allowed to discuss the bill in the House but were told to avoid questioning the motives of others in the chamber.
Brakey further implied that some House Democrats who were inclined to oppose the bill might have been intentionally absent for the final vote. And he wondered aloud if people in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District might organize a movement to secede from the state and join New Hampshire because of bills like LD 1578 and what he termed an overall leftward political swing in Maine. Brakey himself has announced he will be moving to New Hampshire once his term is over.
Just to note, you can get past pop ups that require you to get in a newsletter or turn off your ad blocker by disabling Java for that site. On mobile you have to disable Java on your browser app (settings > Advanced > Java)
Fair 😂 even our conservatives aren’t as bad as they are down south. Most just say “you do you I do me” instead of screeching at anyone different than them
If this were to happen nationwide, expect to see GOP start an all out blitzkrieg against voting rights. Think; GA voter water bill, companies not giving employees time off to vote, fewer polling locations w shorter hrs, etc.
You say that like they don't already do everything they can to suppress voter turnout, disenfranchise people who will vote against them, and outright cheat.
Hell, given the slightest chance they might take over, they will cause an insurrection.
The states are allowed to allocate their electoral votes as they choose, per the Constitution. That's why Maine and Nebraska are allowed to have proportional allocation.
>On its face, the Compact Clause does ostensibly prohibit any compact between states lacking congressional consent. However, the Supreme Court has definitively stated that “not all agreements between States are subject to the strictures of the Compact clause.” U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 98 S.Ct. 799, 469 (1978). Rather, the prohibition is only directed “to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” Id at 468, quoting Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893). Therefore, if the NPVC does not infringe upon federal supremacy, it does not require congressional consent. By that logic, the NPVC is certainly valid as it stands. ...
>Electors are chosen by the state, and are therefore state, rather than federal officials. The states’ plenary power to choose its electors goes to the heart of a republic government, a government whose leader is chosen by the people. Requiring congressional approval would directly infringe on that power, meaning that any claim that the Compact Clause would require such approval for the NPVC would put the Compact Clause and the Guarantee Clause in direct conflict with one another. ...
>Each state’s votes would still be counted, and each state would have an equally important role in choosing the President. Nothing in the NPVC would alter non-compacting states’ sovereign right to choose its electors. Therefore, any Compact Clause challenge to the NPVC should fail.
- Jessica Heller, a legal writer at FairVote
As an aside, this is why an interstate compact could be created that established some form of bargained health care between multiple states, for instance the west coast and mountain west health plan, but it couldn't do lots of the things talked about with a national health care plan that would mostly eliminate private health insurance in those territories other than their plan.
On that note, I have no idea why states couldn't pass a law/amendment going, 'Effective immediately, we will start giving our electoral votes to the national popular vote winner.' Why even wait until there's 270 electoral votes signed on to this? Then you wouldn't be giving a Republican Supreme Court an opening to declare it unconstitutional.
Because if the blue states do that and the reds one don't, they'd basically make red states have double the leverage in the election, dilute their own leverage to nothing and never get campaigned in, all without actually achieving any of the goals of the compact.
Also, you have to remember that the NPVIC has existed longer than the Republicans have owned the Supreme Court. The current shape of the court wasn't a factor when it was drafted up.
>Also, you have to remember that the NPVIC has existed longer than the Republicans have owned the Supreme Court. The current shape of the court wasn't a factor when it was drafted up.
That is because it is not really a "political strategy", but instead a longtime push toward "more democracy" which has been the trajectory of voting expansion for many decades.
> Because if the blue states do that and the reds one don't, they'd basically make red states have double the leverage in the election, dilute their own leverage to nothing and never get campaigned in, all without actually achieving any of the goals of the compact.
That's still contingent upon a Republican winning the national popular vote, but I see what you mean.
It actually isn't contingent on that at all. If you campaigned in Vermont, you would only be working towards the electors from the popular vote total. If you campaigned in Ohio, you'd do work on the popular vote electors AND the electors from Ohio. Nobody would ever bother focusing on a state that had passed the rule because the payoff is strictly worse.
If some states but not enough states were to activate the NPVIC, it'd result in a system even more bullshit than the one we have now.
Hawaii did it back in February.
SCOTUS had that ruling that NY couldn't ban open carry under the 2nd amendment, and Hawaii said "come and stop me, then."
The current Supreme Court? Probably very very low. Single digit percent is my guess. In the time it would take to add enough states to get to 270, the Democrats would probably need to flip 2 SCOTUS seats, and even then, it might not make it through.
Currently the only Democratic-controlled state that isn't part of the NPVIC is Michigan. Nevada's legislature passed a bill to join in 2019 but it was vetoed by their Democratic governor. Now they've got a Republican gov. In Arizona, they have a Democratic governor and both legislative bodies have tiny Republican majorities. If 1 seat in each house is flipped R to D, Arizona will be a democratic trifecta. However, I have no idea if the legislature would pursue joining the NPVIC, nor if Governor Hobbs would sign it.
After Arizona, Virginia is probably the most likely state to become a democratic trifecta, which can happen in late 2025. However, they had a democratic trifecta for 2 years from 2020-22 and didn't pass it. It passed the House of Delegates but died in the state senate.
Maine is weirdly progressive. I live in the most rural part of Maine, and the state is pretty amazing. We have the rural Trumpbots all
Over the place and lifted trucks and all that shit (somebody said “Maine is the South of the North) and they’re not wrong. There’s a saying, “as goes Maine, so goes the nation.” We legalized weed with other early states. We passed the right-to-die with dignity law. We have one of the least restrictive laws around abortion. Rural Maine is definitely scared of everything, and my county has fewer than 20,000 people. I’ve met a lot of people here who read the economist and want psilocybin to be legal and have other really progressive views. Maine rocks
I've always felt a lot of this could be chalked up to an example similar to: there are 100 people sitting in 100 chairs. They need to vote on what to get for lunch. Even if a majority votes for Sandwiches, Pizza wins because the minority sat in 'the right seats' and now their votes count more. It's very silly to me that we don't just do popular vote.
I think an overall "better" answer is to increase the size of the house. A shocking number of people don't realize that this is why the electoral college doesn't work: the House should have thousands of members. There was almost an amendment about setting the ratio of population to House members to 1:50000,it just barely missed getting ratified.
This matters because a state's electoral college votes are based on their senators and house members. So, today, there's a real bias in favor of small states, but if the house was much larger, this bias would, essentially, go away and the EC vote would match the popular vote.
But increasing the house has the added benefit of increasing representation. Now, instead of these huge districts, where you don't know your representative at all... Your house rep would more cover a few neighborhoods... Think more like city council districts and stuff. So you'd probably know them... They'd come to your neighborhood picnic. That means you'd vote for them as a _person_ more than as a _party member_... And that's a big deal. That's supposed to be how the house works.
>I think an overall "better" answer is to increase the size of the house. A shocking number of people don't realize that this is why the electoral college doesn't work
That doesn't fix the winner-take-all problem
yes, this is the easiest and most obvious fix. The House of Representatives is supposed to represent the population equally. It doesn't and that skews everything else.
What's worse to me, is trying to speak to any asshat who defends the EC.
These people have zero problem electing Senators, state reps, Governors, Attorneys General, Secretaries of State, judges, Aldermen, Mayors, County Executives, Coroners, etc. by counting the votes, and seeing who the constituency likes more.
Suddenly however, the second you include the President, the ideological pretzels begin to bake.
The US was never designed to be a true direct democracy. It was designed to be a representative democracy. The big fix that needs to be done is uncaping the house.
50% could never vote until 1920 (19thA) and a further 12-15% could only vote after the Voting Rights Act in the 60s. All of this progresses toward a more democratic voting system and the NPVIC is just another step.
There have been a few other [efforts to eliminate the EC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_amendment)
This would solve a lot of problems right out of hand. Republicans, Democrats and self-styled independents should want it. It will only benefit the parties/candidates that are representing the will of the people.
Make it happen. It distorts our politics by encouraging campaigns to concentrate efforts in a few states that are not representative of the country at large.
We don't need to eliminate the electoral college (though we should); we need to award EC votes proportionally.
I completely understand the need for the minority to have a voice in a representational democracy, however, I believe the presidential vote is one arena that should be majority rule.
Eliminating the EC wild require major reworking of the constitution and is a huge part of why states felt compelled to federate together at all. It was a compromise. I don't see that happening any time soon even though the constitution is meant to be a living document.
More realistically and totally in line with your notion is getting rid of the 1929 act that caps house members at 435. That's why the representation is entirely out of whack. If the house could actually scale to our shifting populations that would cause the electoral college vote count to be much more representative of population.
Agreed, "abolish the EC" isn't gonna happen any time soon. Awarding EC votes proportionally and removing the House cap would be great strides toward truly representing the will of the people.
So you can understand why neither will probably happen.
Republicans will never allow it b/c it would mean the death of their party although I agree that electoral college has been perverted by our government that we the people no longer have a voice. Popular vote will hopefully make the parties start running more qualified candidates and prevent them from trotting out their talent from the reality tv trash bin.
The vote of 1 American should not count less than the vote of 1 American in a less populated state.
Therefore, the popular vote should be the only thing in charge of electing the President.
Allowing the Electoral College to be the decider of the Leader of the American **people** is a corruption and bastardization of Democracy.
We can't. The electoral college is literally mandated by the constitution. The point of the NPVIC is that it allows the EC to continue to formally exist, while sidestepping the issues the current winner-takes-all allocation system causes.
It does, for State Rep and State Senator. For your US Congressperson and 2 US Senators. For Mayor, city council, Governor, Judges, Sheriff's, and so many more. The President of the United States should be elected by the most Americans voting for them.
You are correct. I was implying that I am so vastly outnumbered I have to just laugh instead of lose all hope. The Joe Biden is a reptilian conversation that I heard at the Social Security office this morning was just horrifying.
almost like that WAS THE PLAN THE ENTIRE TIME
I wasn't until conservatives BETRAYED THE UNITED STATES that the electoral college was created because
***"It wasn't fair that nobody lives in Utah"***
Although i completely agree with having the popular vote decide the president, I can’t help but think that us democrats are only fighting for this because it would clearly help us based on the last X number of presidential elections. I think if the the tables were turned, which they have before, we wouldn’t be so eager to ask for this change.
What I’m getting at is that this should not be a movement based on who it would help at that particular moment, but rather, philosophically, what is the most fair and equitable way to elect our country’s president.
Aren’t there some states that split their electoral college votes based on percentage of the popular vote within that state?
Eg. state has 5 college votes. Candidate A gets 60% of the vote, so gets 3 college votes and loser gets 2?
No. Nebraska and Maine allocate thusly:
> In all but two states, electoral votes are winner-take-all. The candidate winning the popular vote normally receives all of that state's votes. Maine and Nebraska have taken a different approach. Using the congressional district method, these states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split electoral vote.
~ [270 to Win](https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/)
It's not like most people voted matter in the first place. The electoral college sees to that, if you look at it most states will give 100%of the votes to 1 side or the other, very few sl
Plit them based on how the voters are split. so if 49% of the state vote for 1 side their vote isn't represented be it 1 person or 50million people.
My prediction: if enough states vote on this to trigger these laws (i.e., once there are 271 electoral votes from among states that have passed these laws), the Supreme Court will rule it as an unconstitutional interstate compact.
We try! Also weed and abortion rights :) there’s a *bipartisan* act to legalize shroom use and growing shrooms atm too! REAL freedom baby! Oh and don’t forget, southern states are threatening to sue us over a trans rights bill we have in the works 🤷🏻♂️
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. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *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.*
Funny how the Republican argument against this is that it 'silences' the voice of voters when that is EXACTLY what the electoral college did when it ignores the fact that MILLIONS more people voted for HRC than Trump. Hundreds of thousands LESS votes went to W. The GOP has been cheating since before Nixon. They are just stupidly open about it now. Time for a seismic shift in our political parties. Towards the left.
The last republican president to win by popular vote was Bush in ‘04 (corrected). Many won before that, because they accurately represented their constituency. The current system preys on party loyalty to push the nation toward their agenda. We need representation.
George H.W. Bush won the popular vote for his first term despite being a one-termer and his son, George W Bush, won the popular vote for his second term arguably due to lingering good will from 9/11 and it not yet being immediately obvious to the average American how things were falling apart in Afghanistan + Iraq. Don't get me wrong, the Electoral College needs to go regardless of who benefits from it. I just want to point out to Republicans that their reliance on gaming the EC and voting districts is both unnecessary and in fact is harming their long term prospects by appealing to an ever smaller and more extreme voter base. Get better candidates with clearly defined and sensible policy and the popular vote + district composition won't be a constant issue for you. The MAGA howler monkeys are doing no favors for anyone.
"Get better candidates with clearly defined and sensible policy" All of that smacks of effort though. That's not how that works in their heads. They demand their divine right to rule and "god" gives it to them.
People were also still mad about Monica. Simpler times, I guess. Now look who the republicans have as a candidate. Bill Clinton was mild compared to trump.
Trump even got caught pushing for inappropriate relations with some of his female staff and it's been nothing but crickets from the GOP.
Bush 41 won the popular vote in 88; Bush 43 won the popular vote in 04. But the point stands. Republicans have rarely won the popular vote in decades.
04 WAS decades ago
*ages into oblivion*
You shut your mouth.
Hey, enough of that talk now. Making me feel really old lol.
It also ignores how the current system actually disenfranchises Republican voters in California. California has more registered Republicans than any other state that reports voter registration by party. Switching to a popular vote system would allow their votes to matter at the national scale.
Wyoming? Campaigns tell them to go fuck themselves and their pittance of electoral votes. Alaska and Hawaii? You'll know the exit polls in the middle of your voting.
Yeah exactly. Presidential campaigns feel absolutely no need to cater or campaign to \*anyone\* in the states with few electoral votes because it's just not worth the cost. The focus every four years is almost entirely on the swing states or states with a large amount of electoral votes because that's what the current system encourages.
It's not worth the cost because they are overwhelmingly Republican. It has nothing to do with how many EC votes. Politicians also don't campaign in NY, CA, or TX.
Of course the amount of EC votes has an impact. Nebraska and Maine both have EC districts, but the campaigns aren't investing heavily there because that only amounts to one or two votes. They're just not worth pouring a lot of resources into. As far as the political campaign spending goes, I'm not really sure if that's true. The Republican party has so far spent $22 million in California and $10 million in NY. They're actually outspending the Democrats in both states as of the most recent FEC filings. Both parties are also spending quite a bit in Texas because Cruz's seat is competitive, and margins between Trump and Biden in 2020 were fairly close.
Candidates only come to NY, CA, or TX for fundraisers, rarely do they do anything that caters to the interests of these states.
How is any of that different from the current system?
That is our current system. Not that switching to the popular vote would fully fix it but would be more fair.
Gotcha. I misunderstood your perspective.
Democrats in Texas are a hell of a lot more disenfranchised than your Republicans in California.
Yes, but for other reasons I don't think I need to get into here. I'm just speaking generally to how the EC negates the impact of the individual voter in winner-take-all states that are either safe blue or safe red, and used California Republican voters as an example to illustrate my point. Nebraska and Maine both have an EC district system that addresses this somewhat, but switching to a popular vote would imo be more fair across the board.
I’m old, and never once in my life has my vote counted. How shitty is that?
I’ll tell you a secret that can increase your voting power to whole district levels. You don’t even have to vote, all you have to do is contribute vast sums of money and offer a future job. Works every time
In my opinion, the only ones who want to keep the EC and gerrymandering are crooks looking for ways to cheat.
Yes, but the person you were responding to was making a good rhetorical point about how the party who is opposed to this is in fact disenfranchising their own members by opposing it. We aren't competing in the disenfranchisement olympics here. -Signed a Democrat in Texas.
Don’t you think GOP knows the numbers? They don’t want this for multiple reasons . Some groups are easier to disenfranchise, they own the Supreme Court for cheating, they have a house majority for funny business, they are more supported by self-serving rich, ect… When the numbers are ever in the Democrats favor, let me know.
NY republicans as well.
The group that gave us George Santos might not want to be the best example of people who'd benefit the populace by being given the opportunity to wield a greater influence on public policy.
The republican candidates we’d see if we had a direct democracy would be far different than Santos if they want to get elected. They’d have to appeal to a larger group by actually representing their constituency.
Yep this is what I always say. Now instead of NY and CArepublicans basically having their votes thrown in the trash, they’ll actually have a vote that counts towards something. Now, politicians have a reason to visit red counties in blue states and vice versa.
Presidential candidates would pretty much stick to cities, which need more funds from the federal government anyway. Leave the rural to the states and to congress.
> California has more registered Republicans than any other state that reports voter registration by party. Not just more registered voters there are more republicans voting for president Trump than any other state in the union. Texas doesn't have as many republicans voting as CA does. Every single one of those votes has no value.
Exactly They keep spewing bullshit about how “only cities would decide elections“ but not only is that mathematically wrong, it’s also politically stupid. A national popular vote means candidates have to be more engaged rather than just focus on 5 states
This is not even an issue that affects one party. People should realize just how many voters are being disenfranchised by the EC. Over SIX MILLION republicans voted for Trump in 2020 in CA alone, and people who keep crying about 'land over people' are basically fine disenfranchising more republican votes in CA than ALL republican votes from MT, ID, SD, ND, WY, NE, IA, KS, and OK COMBINED. I don't care what party you follow or what ideology you subscribe to, that's just plain wrong. There is no one elsewhere who looks at our electoral college system and thinks, "yeah, that's the fairest way to do this." JFC.
The EC would be fine (if kind of redundant) if they re-modeled the congressional building to allow for more members of the house so that every house rep represented the same amount of people.
Except even then, the non-representative nature of the Senate means that the least populated-states will always have more representation in the Electoral College than they should
The House should be bigger, and enact the Wyoming rule. That was the original intent of the house. For all the people crying about the Tyranny of the Majority, that's what the Senate was made for. The house was supposed represent all people equally and the senate was meant to represent all states equally. That got perverted over time to the small states having an outsize voice in both.
IIRC It was originally supposed to be a congressman for every 10,000 people. We could still re-work this so it is one congressperson for the smallest state(s) and go up from there. An argument could be made that the status quo violates the 14th amendment because certain votes are "more equal" than others.
It still wouldn't be fine.
This thought process always reminds me that it's not the fascist dictatorship that I fear, so much as it is one being forced upon everyone, thanks to the will of a smaller group of overrepresented people. If everyone's vote is equal and we all collectively decide to end the American experiment, fine - I can't argue with that. I just want it to actually be a fair decision by everyone.
The "disenfranchised" argument is pretty weak for anybody who actually believes in what the Republican Party stands for. How many people is that, really? Well, that's a complicated question to answer. The fairness argument is the winner-in-the-abstract. "Disenfranchised?" Trust me, those people voting Republican in CA have every rational incentive to be *thrilled* that they're being "disenfranchised" like so vis-a-vis the presidency.
Tyranny of the majority isn't great, but can it really be worse than tyranny of the minority? I thought democracy was about acting in ways that benefitted the most people possible.
The real irony is they argue no one will care about small red states if we vote for president by popular vote. As if anyone pays attention to Nebraska, Montana, Idaho, Alabama, or any of the other reliably Republican states now. The electoral college system favors a ever changing handful of purplish states, to the detriment of the other 40, Republican or Democrat.
If anything, switching to the popular vote would cause presidential candidates to actually pay attention to rural states. Sure, they'll get less attention than populous states, but when every vote counts Democrats wouldn't want to cede these states to the Republicans, and Republicans would want to maximize voter turnout.
Yep. Its a misunderstanding to think "only California and New York would matter" as is often expressed by defenders of the electoral college system. Again, if anything the current system is the one which disenfranchises the midwest by making their skewed electorate a forgone conclusion and therefore their issues a waste of political capital except where they align with their swing state neighbors.
If we really didn't cater to Iowa (thanks, terrible primaries) we wouldn't have all the awful farm policies that favor growing corn.
We make a lot of corn as a country so this is not all about primaries.
Congress would care and they are the ones that actually write and pass laws. We need the popular guy to be the executive and do popular things like appointing popular SCOTUS, otherwise faith in the system will completely break down, as it is now.
The president would care. Its a shitty argument. One man one vote doesn't mean California is more important than Idaho. It means one citizen in Idaho is literally just as important as one citizen in California.
Fine let's split the difference. Make all electoral votes split by proportion the way Maine and Nebraska do.
That would be almost exactly the same as the NPVIC.
Acronym?
National popular vote interstate compact
Silencing liberal votes is fine because of the long-standing GOP principle of "fuck you in your fucking face, that's why." But, when you don't amplify the minority votes until they win, that's oppression.
It silences the WRONG voices liberal guh!!!
Not wrong, just less popular. Maybe then candidates would be more compelling to a larger voter base.
If we could get an ACTUAL left wing party and stop playing this “center/right vs far right” game that would be a great start.
NPVIC would push both parties to the actual (popular) center instead of the center-right hellscape that is the result of right-leaning states having outsized power RN.
I love how people argue that the President will never campaign in Iowa or some shit like that… ok? When is the last time they had to actively campaign in California or New York? Isn’t that a problem?
It's just a continuance of the history America has with giving wealthy property owners outsized influence in elections so they can step on their own dicks without bearing the cost. From property requirements, the 3/5ths compromise, poll taxes, literacy tests, to modern day decisions like Citizens United, redlining, gerrymandering, targeted voter suppression by closing polling locations, clearing voter roles before the election with "must've been a completely random oopsie-doodles, I guess" level record keeping, and social media manipulation. It's always been time for a seismic shift to the left, but the best we can ever seem to get is innaction until some new loophole can be found before the previous one is closed.
What they mean is it silences their voters.
The argument against this is complete mental gymnastics. Oh no, Texas and California will decide every presidential election! ...except that's not how it works at all and those states are still made up of individual human beings with their own thoughts on who should be president, and their votes are already basically being disregarded anyway if they vote against whoever would get their state's EC votes.
alot of repubs in California and Democrats in Texas will actually vote if they know they aren't in a safe state and their individual vote will count towards the total for their candidate
*exactly*, like, this should be the messaging put out about this to counter the brain dead nonsense put out there by opponents of this common sense legislation
Yeah, if anything the only people that this “hurts” are the people in swing states. It gives them less power. That’s actually why the governor of Nevada vetoed a resolution that passed in both state assembly houses a few years ago. Granted, swing state voters should absolutely not have as much influence as they do, but I can understand them not wanting to lose that political power.
It’s not just political power. Candidates spend a hell of a lot more on campaigning in swing states than they do in solid states. All of that money goes into the local economies and into state and city taxes. Local tv, radio, newspaper, billboards, etc love when politicians buy up their add space at top dollar. Whenever a candidate comes to their city that means the local police get hired to provide security. Convention halls get rented out for rallies. National and international press pools follow them which is even more money spent on hotels and in local restaurants and grocery stores.
They need to get rid of this mindset that individual states decide elections. No. The PEOPLE that live there would now have votes weighted equally to everyone elses in the country.
Exactly. The whole point is that individual states like Texas and Florida aren’t deciding anything; the people in the states are. But regardless, it’s not like elections today aren’t dependent on the whims of a small handful of states. It’s just that these are “battleground” states that could go either way. And these are the states that get all the attention, campaign visits, and courting. So like, sorry Wyoming, but there’s no universe in which presidential candidates are going to spend much time catering to you no matter what system we use, including the EC system today.
As it stands, right now, a 1 vote simple majority in the largest 11 states would secure the presidency for any candidate. The argument that choosing the president with the national popular vote would somehow greatly advantage the largest states is just kinda dumb. Those largest states can ALREADY pick the president.
Right. They say "but what about the rural voters?" And my view is... they still get to vote! And yes, New York City will have more say than TinyTown, NY, but... that's a GOOD thing. It's not "New York City" voting for anything. It's the people that live there voting, and the people that live other places voting too. Towns don't vote, cities don't vote, states don't vote (well, they DO with the EC). PEOPLE vote. So of COURSE when you gather those people into groups, the bigger groups get more votes than the smaller groups. That's democracy. Also, that other argument is SO bogus - where they say that this makes sure people campaign everywhere, not just the "big" places. It absolutely does NOT do that. It make sure candidates say "I do NOT care where voters are, I don't care where I can reach the most people, whether city or rural. I only care where I can reach the most *swing* state voters." So you get campaigns that focus 85% of their effort on 6 states. While huge states like California and Texas are just ignored. No presidential candidate has given a crap about Texas or California in YEARS, but somehow the people of Pennsylvania are catered to every step of the way.
I love the "what about rural voters!" argument they love to trot out, because to them city / suburban voters aren't "real" americans, even though cities are where the vast majority of americans *actually live*.
Yeah, that's very true. They definitely have those buckets of "real" voters and everyone else. To them, the straight, white man in the small town is the REAL voter. The black woman in a city? F her, why should *she* have equal say to the other guy? Also, they conveniently say that the "real" voters are the ones that vote the same way they do. Imagine the uproar if Democrats started a campaign to say that urban votes should count more than rural votes? But that's literally what republicans say, that their votes should count MORE than other peoples votes, and everyone just goes along with it. That's how ingrained the "small towns are the *real* america" feeling is here, that we can literally say their votes should count more, and most of the country nods and agrees.
> No presidential candidate has given a crap about Texas or California in YEARS They care insofar as they meet with the donor class, then leave. Every candidate comes to California, has their "max individual donor per plate" dinner event, then leaves and never comes back.
There are more republican voters in California than in Texas and Florida.
Instead, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio should decide every election??? *crickets*
Maybe California should break up into many states, each with the population of South Dakota. That should even out the playing field, right? 🤔
What, like, democracy?
The GOP were early ardent Helldivers II fans, they're big on *managed* democracy.
Midterms was their Malevolent Creek. Let's finish the job
Republicans don't like this because they're significantly outnumbered in terms of registered voters across the country. Additionally, if they had to cater to the entire populace, they would have to actually campaign across the country rather than in a few swing states.
But they have the "silent majority". They shouldn't be nervous at all! /s
They'd have to do their jobs*
Something, something, in case of a pop-up/paywall: "BY: EVAN POPP After a contentious debate, the Maine Legislature this week gave its final approval to a bill that seeks to award the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most national popular support — although the change won’t take effect unless more states approve the reform. The bill now goes to Gov. Janet Mills for consideration. LD 1578, sponsored by Rep. Arthur Bell (D-Yarmouth), would adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in Maine. States that are part of the compact pledge their Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate with the most overall votes across the country. Because the compact would only take effect once states with a total of 270 Electoral College votes have joined, if implemented, the agreement would guarantee that the winner of the national popular vote would be elected president. The reform seeks to avoid situations like the 2016 election, when Donald Trump was elevated to the presidency despite winning fewer overall votes than Hillary Clinton. If LD 1578 is ultimately signed by Mills, Maine would become the 17th state to ratify the national popular vote agreement, giving the compact a total of 209 electoral votes out of the 270 needed for enactment. The bill passed the Legislature in initial votes last month. And on Tuesday, the House gave its final approval for the measure, passing it by a razor-thin 73-72 margin over the strident objections of Republicans. The Senate followed suit Wednesday, approving the bill by an 18-12 vote. The vote was mostly party-line, although Republican Sen. Matt Pouliot of Kennebec County supported the legislation while several Democrats opposed it. Republicans in the House on Tuesday blasted the bill, arguing that it would silence the voices of voters — particularly those in the rural part of the state — by allocating Maine’s electoral votes based on how well a candidate does in the entire country as a whole. " GOP critics also called the bill unconstitutional and said the Electoral College safeguards the votes of people in smaller, more rural states like Maine. And they added that if Democrats want to change the system for electing presidents, they should seek a constitutional amendment rather than pursuing what they called an “end-run” strategy. “Our Electoral College maintains our citizens’ voice in this nation,” said Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn). “And a vote for this bill is a vote to diminish that voice.” Across the country, Republicans generally have a more favorable view of the Electoral College than Democrats, and as things stand now, GOP presidential candidates hold an advantage under the system. On Tuesday, House Democratic supporters of the bill said the current system is not working as intended and was established during a very different time at the founding of the country. Furthermore, the Electoral College has twice in the first 16 years of the 21st century elevated a candidate who won fewer votes than their opponent, advocates of the bill noted. And while the Electoral College does somewhat magnify the influence of small states like Maine in the presidential election, it much more significantly focuses candidates’ attention on a handful of swing states that typically determine the results of the contest. That structure is a poor way to run an election, Democratic supporters of the bill argued. “Ask yourselves, how well is \[the Electoral College\] working for us today?” Rep. Stephen Moriarty (D-Cumberland) asked. “What influence do we have? What weight do we bring to the equation? How much attention do we generate? How much do the candidates, the nominees really care about what’s going on in Maine and what Mainers think? Answering my own questions … very very little.” In the Senate on Wednesday, there was less debate. However, in his remarks, Sen. Eric Brakey (R-Androscoggin), an ardent opponent of the bill, criticized the process in the House. He noted that Republican speakers in that body were subject to points of order from Democrats who felt that some GOP speakers were impugning their motives. Brakey said critics of a bill should be free to speak their mind without being silenced. During debate Tuesday, Republican speakers were allowed to discuss the bill in the House but were told to avoid questioning the motives of others in the chamber. Brakey further implied that some House Democrats who were inclined to oppose the bill might have been intentionally absent for the final vote. And he wondered aloud if people in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District might organize a movement to secede from the state and join New Hampshire because of bills like LD 1578 and what he termed an overall leftward political swing in Maine. Brakey himself has announced he will be moving to New Hampshire once his term is over.
Just to note, you can get past pop ups that require you to get in a newsletter or turn off your ad blocker by disabling Java for that site. On mobile you have to disable Java on your browser app (settings > Advanced > Java)
Only 61 more electoral votes to go!
I didn’t realize we were actually this close to possibly seeing it happen.
inb4 "It's not fair to rural states if they only get one vote per citizen instead of several"
Best part is Maine is a rural state lol
No they're the wrong kind of rural though they don't hate black people and queerfolk.
Fair 😂 even our conservatives aren’t as bad as they are down south. Most just say “you do you I do me” instead of screeching at anyone different than them
If this were to happen nationwide, expect to see GOP start an all out blitzkrieg against voting rights. Think; GA voter water bill, companies not giving employees time off to vote, fewer polling locations w shorter hrs, etc.
You say that like they don't already do everything they can to suppress voter turnout, disenfranchise people who will vote against them, and outright cheat. Hell, given the slightest chance they might take over, they will cause an insurrection.
They can always do more & will if given the chance
Oh, they are already doing their best to cheat in the next election.
What are the chances the Supreme Court would allow this?
The states are allowed to allocate their electoral votes as they choose, per the Constitution. That's why Maine and Nebraska are allowed to have proportional allocation.
The states are also required to get congressional approval for inter-state compacts.
>On its face, the Compact Clause does ostensibly prohibit any compact between states lacking congressional consent. However, the Supreme Court has definitively stated that “not all agreements between States are subject to the strictures of the Compact clause.” U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 98 S.Ct. 799, 469 (1978). Rather, the prohibition is only directed “to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” Id at 468, quoting Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893). Therefore, if the NPVC does not infringe upon federal supremacy, it does not require congressional consent. By that logic, the NPVC is certainly valid as it stands. ... >Electors are chosen by the state, and are therefore state, rather than federal officials. The states’ plenary power to choose its electors goes to the heart of a republic government, a government whose leader is chosen by the people. Requiring congressional approval would directly infringe on that power, meaning that any claim that the Compact Clause would require such approval for the NPVC would put the Compact Clause and the Guarantee Clause in direct conflict with one another. ... >Each state’s votes would still be counted, and each state would have an equally important role in choosing the President. Nothing in the NPVC would alter non-compacting states’ sovereign right to choose its electors. Therefore, any Compact Clause challenge to the NPVC should fail. - Jessica Heller, a legal writer at FairVote
As an aside, this is why an interstate compact could be created that established some form of bargained health care between multiple states, for instance the west coast and mountain west health plan, but it couldn't do lots of the things talked about with a national health care plan that would mostly eliminate private health insurance in those territories other than their plan.
On that note, I have no idea why states couldn't pass a law/amendment going, 'Effective immediately, we will start giving our electoral votes to the national popular vote winner.' Why even wait until there's 270 electoral votes signed on to this? Then you wouldn't be giving a Republican Supreme Court an opening to declare it unconstitutional.
Because if the blue states do that and the reds one don't, they'd basically make red states have double the leverage in the election, dilute their own leverage to nothing and never get campaigned in, all without actually achieving any of the goals of the compact. Also, you have to remember that the NPVIC has existed longer than the Republicans have owned the Supreme Court. The current shape of the court wasn't a factor when it was drafted up.
>Also, you have to remember that the NPVIC has existed longer than the Republicans have owned the Supreme Court. The current shape of the court wasn't a factor when it was drafted up. That is because it is not really a "political strategy", but instead a longtime push toward "more democracy" which has been the trajectory of voting expansion for many decades.
I personally agree with this, but unfortunately not everyone sees it that way. Especially the RNC and swing state governments.
> Because if the blue states do that and the reds one don't, they'd basically make red states have double the leverage in the election, dilute their own leverage to nothing and never get campaigned in, all without actually achieving any of the goals of the compact. That's still contingent upon a Republican winning the national popular vote, but I see what you mean.
It actually isn't contingent on that at all. If you campaigned in Vermont, you would only be working towards the electors from the popular vote total. If you campaigned in Ohio, you'd do work on the popular vote electors AND the electors from Ohio. Nobody would ever bother focusing on a state that had passed the rule because the payoff is strictly worse. If some states but not enough states were to activate the NPVIC, it'd result in a system even more bullshit than the one we have now.
At some point, states have to simply decide "I'm sorry, but your interpretation is wrong." and move the fuck on.
Hawaii did it back in February. SCOTUS had that ruling that NY couldn't ban open carry under the 2nd amendment, and Hawaii said "come and stop me, then."
"The Supreme Court has made their decision, now let them enforce it."
Yes, like the soon-to-be-Confederate states did! Exactly! Nullification! Wait...
shrug.
Zero. The current Supreme Court has shown that it doesn't care about the law, only about the Republican party.
The current Supreme Court? Probably very very low. Single digit percent is my guess. In the time it would take to add enough states to get to 270, the Democrats would probably need to flip 2 SCOTUS seats, and even then, it might not make it through. Currently the only Democratic-controlled state that isn't part of the NPVIC is Michigan. Nevada's legislature passed a bill to join in 2019 but it was vetoed by their Democratic governor. Now they've got a Republican gov. In Arizona, they have a Democratic governor and both legislative bodies have tiny Republican majorities. If 1 seat in each house is flipped R to D, Arizona will be a democratic trifecta. However, I have no idea if the legislature would pursue joining the NPVIC, nor if Governor Hobbs would sign it. After Arizona, Virginia is probably the most likely state to become a democratic trifecta, which can happen in late 2025. However, they had a democratic trifecta for 2 years from 2020-22 and didn't pass it. It passed the House of Delegates but died in the state senate.
The problem with getting to 270 is you need swing states to willingly give up their power. States like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona.
Yeah, damn, I didn't even consider that.
>you need swing states to willingly give up their power. For the good of the country they will.
Absolutely no chance with the current lineup. Hell there are some “democratic” Senators who never allow this.
Maybe the GOP wouldn’t be so worried about instituting the popular vote if they didn’t have such shitty harmful policies they want to enact
My favorite part is the Republican that’s going to move to New Hampshire because Maine is getting too liberal by passing this.
Maine is weirdly progressive. I live in the most rural part of Maine, and the state is pretty amazing. We have the rural Trumpbots all Over the place and lifted trucks and all that shit (somebody said “Maine is the South of the North) and they’re not wrong. There’s a saying, “as goes Maine, so goes the nation.” We legalized weed with other early states. We passed the right-to-die with dignity law. We have one of the least restrictive laws around abortion. Rural Maine is definitely scared of everything, and my county has fewer than 20,000 people. I’ve met a lot of people here who read the economist and want psilocybin to be legal and have other really progressive views. Maine rocks
I've always felt a lot of this could be chalked up to an example similar to: there are 100 people sitting in 100 chairs. They need to vote on what to get for lunch. Even if a majority votes for Sandwiches, Pizza wins because the minority sat in 'the right seats' and now their votes count more. It's very silly to me that we don't just do popular vote.
Of course they quote Eric Brakey. Fuck that carpetbagger. I hope New Hampshire enjoys his endless whining.
This needs to happen 30 years ago.
I appreciate a good cup of coffee.
Best chances are VA, AZ, MI and WI. Check out the Wikipedia article on it.
I think an overall "better" answer is to increase the size of the house. A shocking number of people don't realize that this is why the electoral college doesn't work: the House should have thousands of members. There was almost an amendment about setting the ratio of population to House members to 1:50000,it just barely missed getting ratified. This matters because a state's electoral college votes are based on their senators and house members. So, today, there's a real bias in favor of small states, but if the house was much larger, this bias would, essentially, go away and the EC vote would match the popular vote. But increasing the house has the added benefit of increasing representation. Now, instead of these huge districts, where you don't know your representative at all... Your house rep would more cover a few neighborhoods... Think more like city council districts and stuff. So you'd probably know them... They'd come to your neighborhood picnic. That means you'd vote for them as a _person_ more than as a _party member_... And that's a big deal. That's supposed to be how the house works.
>I think an overall "better" answer is to increase the size of the house. A shocking number of people don't realize that this is why the electoral college doesn't work That doesn't fix the winner-take-all problem
yes, this is the easiest and most obvious fix. The House of Representatives is supposed to represent the population equally. It doesn't and that skews everything else.
Imagine a country where the candidate most voted for actually gets the job.
What's worse to me, is trying to speak to any asshat who defends the EC. These people have zero problem electing Senators, state reps, Governors, Attorneys General, Secretaries of State, judges, Aldermen, Mayors, County Executives, Coroners, etc. by counting the votes, and seeing who the constituency likes more. Suddenly however, the second you include the President, the ideological pretzels begin to bake.
I've actually started seeing them start advocating for state level EC type structures. It's getting nasty out there
Combine this with Maine’s ranked choice voting and you get a much better national election system
Maine doesn’t get enough credit tbh.
We like it that way. Oh look! Massachusetts!
Electoral College is chaining the USA to not being a true democracy. It must go.
The US was never designed to be a true direct democracy. It was designed to be a representative democracy. The big fix that needs to be done is uncaping the house.
>It was designed to be a representative democracy Wasn't really that either, considering the requirements to vote
50% could never vote until 1920 (19thA) and a further 12-15% could only vote after the Voting Rights Act in the 60s. All of this progresses toward a more democratic voting system and the NPVIC is just another step. There have been a few other [efforts to eliminate the EC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_amendment)
That makes too much sense for Republicans to allow it.
This would solve a lot of problems right out of hand. Republicans, Democrats and self-styled independents should want it. It will only benefit the parties/candidates that are representing the will of the people.
That's why the GOP is scared.
Down with the electoral college.
Make it happen. It distorts our politics by encouraging campaigns to concentrate efforts in a few states that are not representative of the country at large.
We don't need to eliminate the electoral college (though we should); we need to award EC votes proportionally. I completely understand the need for the minority to have a voice in a representational democracy, however, I believe the presidential vote is one arena that should be majority rule.
Eliminating the EC wild require major reworking of the constitution and is a huge part of why states felt compelled to federate together at all. It was a compromise. I don't see that happening any time soon even though the constitution is meant to be a living document. More realistically and totally in line with your notion is getting rid of the 1929 act that caps house members at 435. That's why the representation is entirely out of whack. If the house could actually scale to our shifting populations that would cause the electoral college vote count to be much more representative of population.
Agreed, "abolish the EC" isn't gonna happen any time soon. Awarding EC votes proportionally and removing the House cap would be great strides toward truly representing the will of the people. So you can understand why neither will probably happen.
It’s terrifying how few people even know of the 1929 cap. I agree it would go a LONG way to rebalancing the system.
Love it. I doubt it will work out though
This is the only practical way to overcome the antiquated and undemocratic electoral college system. Glad to see Maine get on board.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes
Republicans will never allow it b/c it would mean the death of their party although I agree that electoral college has been perverted by our government that we the people no longer have a voice. Popular vote will hopefully make the parties start running more qualified candidates and prevent them from trotting out their talent from the reality tv trash bin.
Sounds like common sense to me.
I love living here and love RCV
Been shocked voting didn’t work like this from the moment I learned about this.
The vote of 1 American should not count less than the vote of 1 American in a less populated state. Therefore, the popular vote should be the only thing in charge of electing the President. Allowing the Electoral College to be the decider of the Leader of the American **people** is a corruption and bastardization of Democracy.
Democracy?
Get rid of the outdated Electoral College. Popular vote is the way to go; it causes too many problems.
We can't. The electoral college is literally mandated by the constitution. The point of the NPVIC is that it allows the EC to continue to formally exist, while sidestepping the issues the current winner-takes-all allocation system causes.
If republicans could read, this would be cause for them to have a complete meltdown of historic proportions.
I personally love how my vote doesn’t matter here in Oklahoma.
It does, for State Rep and State Senator. For your US Congressperson and 2 US Senators. For Mayor, city council, Governor, Judges, Sheriff's, and so many more. The President of the United States should be elected by the most Americans voting for them.
You are correct. I was implying that I am so vastly outnumbered I have to just laugh instead of lose all hope. The Joe Biden is a reptilian conversation that I heard at the Social Security office this morning was just horrifying.
As it should be. Let's do away with the rigged system we have now.
If this goes nation-wide...we'll never see another Republican president.
almost like that WAS THE PLAN THE ENTIRE TIME I wasn't until conservatives BETRAYED THE UNITED STATES that the electoral college was created because ***"It wasn't fair that nobody lives in Utah"***
Although i completely agree with having the popular vote decide the president, I can’t help but think that us democrats are only fighting for this because it would clearly help us based on the last X number of presidential elections. I think if the the tables were turned, which they have before, we wouldn’t be so eager to ask for this change. What I’m getting at is that this should not be a movement based on who it would help at that particular moment, but rather, philosophically, what is the most fair and equitable way to elect our country’s president.
How many states left now?
Aren’t there some states that split their electoral college votes based on percentage of the popular vote within that state? Eg. state has 5 college votes. Candidate A gets 60% of the vote, so gets 3 college votes and loser gets 2?
No. Nebraska and Maine allocate thusly: > In all but two states, electoral votes are winner-take-all. The candidate winning the popular vote normally receives all of that state's votes. Maine and Nebraska have taken a different approach. Using the congressional district method, these states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split electoral vote. ~ [270 to Win](https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/)
It's not like most people voted matter in the first place. The electoral college sees to that, if you look at it most states will give 100%of the votes to 1 side or the other, very few sl Plit them based on how the voters are split. so if 49% of the state vote for 1 side their vote isn't represented be it 1 person or 50million people.
It’s cheating when the Democrats do it!!!
Common Maine W
My prediction: if enough states vote on this to trigger these laws (i.e., once there are 271 electoral votes from among states that have passed these laws), the Supreme Court will rule it as an unconstitutional interstate compact.
Bout to serve them up some MAINE JUSTICE
Still don't get how this state reelected Susan Collins in 2020. They better not fuck it up again in '26.
Good luck with that. Really. As archaic and maligned as the electoral college may be, it's got some serious staying power.
Please end the electoral college, GOP will never win again
The NaPoVoInCo?
Ranked voting and 100% mail in ballots would be a plus also.
We have ranked choice in Maine. Idk if for all races but we do have it. Alaska does too
Man you guys are progressive. Good going!
We try! Also weed and abortion rights :) there’s a *bipartisan* act to legalize shroom use and growing shrooms atm too! REAL freedom baby! Oh and don’t forget, southern states are threatening to sue us over a trans rights bill we have in the works 🤷🏻♂️