Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[muon2]

This would make elections much, much fairer. I can sum it up in a couple points.

-Whoever gets the most votes, wins. (Does this not make sense to anyone? Is it fair that someone who got less votes than an opponent should win?)

-Every vote will have an impact in the election, not just the swing states. (cough, Ohio, cough.)

-It will almost entirely eliminate the practice of "pork barreling" e.g. giving undue attention to swing states in order to better your political party's standing.

-Every person's vote weighs the same, so Californians don't have to have barely a quarter of the voting power of a person from Wyoming.

When most people's votes don't matter at all (just look at all the states where the political parties didn't spend any money), you no longer live in a democracy, where every person's voice should count.

If you think a proportionally representational system doesn't work, all you have to do is look at, say, Sweden. Why would people want to stick with an Industrial revolution aged voting system like the Electoral College?
 

I presume that you are also then in favor of going to direct elections for PM of Canada (or Governor General?) based on your avatar.

If not, then wouldn't US electors elected by district, who then select a president based on the majority party, be equivalent to MPs determining who the prime minister should be based on the majority party? Certainly it's possible that the PM's party could have fewer total votes than the runner-up party as long as they win a majority of seats.

No, I don't think the US should adopt Canada's system (I never said that, and really, Canada's system isn't much better than the American system)

This campaign isn't designed to switch the American system to the Canadian system anyways. It is simply designed to make American elections more fair and sensible (Whoever gets the most votes of any party wins, every vote has an impact,  no more pork barreling , votes weigh the same).

I think this new and improved system proposed by the campaign is simply a stepping stone to a "true" rep-by-pop system (e.g. Sweden) in which pretty much everything is as good as it can possibly get, as far as I'm concerned.

Incidentally, does everyone know how Nordic elections work? Read the full article to find out what we're missing over here (no skimming!)

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

I did not suggest that you think the US should adopt Canada's system. I'm suggesting that if you are consistent you should advocate direct election of the PM of Canada as well as that of the US.

[muon2]

This would make elections much, much fairer. I can sum it up in a couple points.

-Whoever gets the most votes, wins. (Does this not make sense to anyone? Is it fair that someone who got less votes than an opponent should win?)

-Every vote will have an impact in the election, not just the swing states. (cough, Ohio, cough.)

-It will almost entirely eliminate the practice of "pork barreling" e.g. giving undue attention to swing states in order to better your political party's standing.

-Every person's vote weighs the same, so Californians don't have to have barely a quarter of the voting power of a person from Wyoming.

When most people's votes don't matter at all (just look at all the states where the political parties didn't spend any money), you no longer live in a democracy, where every person's voice should count.

If you think a proportionally representational system doesn't work, all you have to do is look at, say, Sweden. Why would people want to stick with an Industrial revolution aged voting system like the Electoral College?
 

I presume that you are also then in favor of going to direct elections for PM of Canada (or Governor General?) based on your avatar.

If not, then wouldn't US electors elected by district, who then select a president based on the majority party, be equivalent to MPs determining who the prime minister should be based on the majority party? Certainly it's possible that the PM's party could have fewer total votes than the runner-up party as long as they win a majority of seats.

No, I don't think the US should adopt Canada's system (I never said that, and really, Canada's system isn't much better than the American system)

This campaign isn't designed to switch the American system to the Canadian system anyways. It is simply designed to make American elections more fair and sensible (Whoever gets the most votes of any party wins, every vote has an impact,  no more pork barreling , votes weigh the same).

I think this new and improved system proposed by the campaign is simply a stepping stone to a "true" rep-by-pop system (e.g. Sweden) in which pretty much everything is as good as it can possibly get, as far as I'm concerned.

Incidentally, does everyone know how Nordic elections work? Read the full article to find out what we're missing over here (no skimming!)

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

I did not suggest that you think the US should adopt Canada's system. I'm suggesting that if you are consistent you should advocate direct election of the PM of Canada as well as that of the US.

[muon2]

Maybe. maybe not.  While in 2000, the NPVIC would have worked to Gore's advantage, in both 2008 and 2012 it would have potentially worked to the advantage of the GOP assuming a uniform swing to a tight election.  So it makes some sense that GOP states would start to sign on, but also that some Democratic states would choose to leave it.

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama. The buildup of overwhelming margins in the cities for Dems and their inroads with information economy voters in the traditionally GOP suburbs has shifted the structural advantage to the Dems. As a partisan activity, that should shift the interest in popular vote to the GOP.

I still think that the NPVIC remains flawed as long as it has no run-off for candidates who fail to get a majority on the initial ballot. The run off can be IRV or some other modern mechanism, but there's a reason why most countries use a run off for the direct election of their chief executive.

[muon2]

I think this underscores the real motivation for legislative action - which party stands to gain by NPVIC. The GOP had a clear structural advantage in the EC for a long time such that no non-Southern Dem won the presidency after Kennedy until Obama.

That's not evidence of a structural advantage: counting Gore as a southern Democrat, no non-southern Dem won the popular vote after Kennedy until Obama. No non-right-handed Republican won the presidency after Nixon until Bush Jr. - it's a structural advantage! Or, maybe, coincidence, or the way these things work.

You reversed my two clauses and their dependency. The structural advantage is measured by how the EC would go if the vote shifted to an even split between the two candidates. Until the last decade that advantage was typically for the GOP and an even race would be expected to go for the GOP. Since a big piece of that base since 1960 was in the South, a southern candidate could swing regional votes and get a win like Carter did in 1976. Gore was not really considered a Southern candidate after his 8 years as VP.

[muon2]

What Antonio's fine work suggests to me is that from 1964-80 there was no clear advantage to either party in the EC. After the reapportionment of 1980, there seems to be a Pub advantage through 2000 with 4 of 5 elections having an R lean. After 2000 the EC seems to shift to the Dems, so it will be interesting to see if that continues for the remaining elections this decade.

[muon2]

Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) You can theoretically win with 27% of the vote under the electoral college already
2) The two party system would still be a thing as long as first past the post is used.
3) I fail to see how it's a bad thing if third parties become relevant.

It's not about third parties being relevant, it's about fringe parties winning with well less than a majority. Though one could theoretically win the EC with 27% of the vote, one needs to win the plurality in all those states to get a majority of the EV. A few regional candidates in a large field would probably block any fringe candidate in the states where the regional candidates are strong.

Similarly in a many-party parliamentary system, one party may win the popular vote with well less than a majority, but without a majority of parliamentary seats they will fail to win the government outright. It takes a broad-based party that can win a majority of seats on a national scale to prevail. The EC simply replaces the parliament with a temporary body to select the executive.

For those nation's that directly elect their executive, the best model is to use a run off, like in France. That way a fringe candidate can get blocked when a coalition of voters representing opposing parties selects the more mainstream candidate. Fifty years ago Congress considered an amendment that would move the US to a directly elected president, and it included a run off provsion if the winner was too far under 50%. That is a far better solution than NPVIC which lacks any protective run off.

[muon2]

Analysis of why this would cause unintended consequences:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/25/popular_vote_plan_would_do_more_harm_than_good.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) You can theoretically win with 27% of the vote under the electoral college already
2) The two party system would still be a thing as long as first past the post is used.
3) I fail to see how it's a bad thing if third parties become relevant.

You're absolutely right. Two party system would be in tact. Think about it this way: we already elect all 50 state governors by a simple FPTP plurality vote. It would be exactly the same, but if the entire country was a state. Gubernatorial elections are almost exclusively two party affairs where the winner often has an overall majority.

That's not quite true. A number of states use a run off system. That can either be a direct run off, or a de facto run off in the form of a top two primary.