Nevada set to join NPVIC (UPDATE: vetoed by idiot governor)

[Nyvin]

I really don't see why people think scrapping the EC is an outrageous idea... it's clearly an outdated system that was originally intended to keep the interests of white rich landowning guys in the WH....

Fine since this is most people's beef with the EC...here's my compromise: The presidential winner is the one who wins the popular majority...of the most states.  No EC numbers, no delegates.

You just to win the popular majority in 26 or more of the 50 states.  And looking back at the last few elections, we would've had the same winners each time.

But no you won't like that, because Wyoming would be the most powerful and the masses in Cali wouldn't.  Well, that balances out what happens in the House, doesn't it?

This is idiotic.   It would be going in the complete opposite direction of electing by popular vote and would be nightmarishly unfair.

[Cashew]

I really don't see why people think scrapping the EC is an outrageous idea... it's clearly an outdated system that was originally intended to keep the interests of white rich landowning guys in the WH....

Fine since this is most people's beef with the EC...here's my compromise: The presidential winner is the one who wins the popular majority...of the most states.  No EC numbers, no delegates.

You just to win the popular majority in 26 or more of the 50 states.  And looking back at the last few elections, we would've had the same winners each time.

But no you won't like that, because Wyoming would be the most powerful and the masses in Cali wouldn't.  Well, that balances out what happens in the House, doesn't it?

1. "Balance" in itself is not a valid argument.

2. The electoral college as it currently functions takes state population into account, and since the goal of the national popular vote is to make all voters equal that means your proposal is the opposite of a compromise. I know you are smart enough to understand this, so the only reasonable conclusion is that you are being flat out dishonest when you call this a compromise.

3. Of course we "won't like that", the supporters of a popular vote have been very clear that they want all voters to be equal, is this supposed to be some sort of gotcha?

[SteveRogers]

I really don't see why people think scrapping the EC is an outrageous idea... it's clearly an outdated system that was originally intended to keep the interests of white rich landowning guys in the WH....

Fine since this is most people's beef with the EC...here's my compromise: The presidential winner is the one who wins the popular majority...of the most states.  No EC numbers, no delegates.

You just to win the popular majority in 26 or more of the 50 states.  And looking back at the last few elections, we would've had the same winners each time.

But no you won't like that, because Wyoming would be the most powerful and the masses in Cali wouldn't.  Well, that balances out what happens in the House, doesn't it?

The Senate balances out what happens in the House. The President is supposed to look after the interests of the American people as a whole, so why shouldn’t they be elected by the American people? And the “but California will control everything” schtick is a non-argument. Under a national popular vote, the strength of your vote wouldn’t depend on where you live. A voter in California would have just as much of a voice as a voter in Wyoming. Moreover, the millions of Republicans in California would have just as much of a say in the election as everyone else, as would the millions of Democrats in Texas.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The EC does not benefit big or small states, it benefits states that are close. In 1988 commentators were saying that the EC benefits the Big States as Dukakis could still win the Presidency by sweeping the big states(with the exceptions of TX and FL) despite losing the popular vote due to Bush running up the margin in the small states.


What the EC does is ensure someone cant win by just running up the margins in their base states.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I really don't see why people think scrapping the EC is an outrageous idea... it's clearly an outdated system that was originally intended to keep the interests of white rich landowning guys in the WH....

Fine since this is most people's beef with the EC...here's my compromise: The presidential winner is the one who wins the popular majority...of the most states.  No EC numbers, no delegates.

You just to win the popular majority in 26 or more of the 50 states.  And looking back at the last few elections, we would've had the same winners each time.

But no you won't like that, because Wyoming would be the most powerful and the masses in Cali wouldn't.  Well, that balances out what happens in the House, doesn't it?

1. "Balance" in itself is not a valid argument.

2. The electoral college as it currently functions takes state population into account, and since the goal of the national popular vote is to make all voters equal that means your proposal is the opposite of a compromise. I know you are smart enough to understand this, so the only reasonable conclusion is that you are being flat out dishonest when you call this a compromise.

3. Of course we "won't like that", the supporters of a popular vote have been very clear that they want all voters to be equal, is this supposed to be some sort of gotcha?

1. Balance is the goal of life, bro.

2. Your sense of "equality" of voters is not congruent to how people actually vote.  Also why should populous states get the edge in the House and less populous states not get an edge in the presidency.

3. No gotcha, just knowing the response is practically Pavlovian at this point.

 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In gubernatorial races, which run on FPTP, do candidates only bother campaigning in the biggest two cities?

[Cashew]

I really don't see why people think scrapping the EC is an outrageous idea... it's clearly an outdated system that was originally intended to keep the interests of white rich landowning guys in the WH....

Fine since this is most people's beef with the EC...here's my compromise: The presidential winner is the one who wins the popular majority...of the most states.  No EC numbers, no delegates.

You just to win the popular majority in 26 or more of the 50 states.  And looking back at the last few elections, we would've had the same winners each time.

But no you won't like that, because Wyoming would be the most powerful and the masses in Cali wouldn't.  Well, that balances out what happens in the House, doesn't it?

1. "Balance" in itself is not a valid argument.

2. The electoral college as it currently functions takes state population into account, and since the goal of the national popular vote is to make all voters equal that means your proposal is the opposite of a compromise. I know you are smart enough to understand this, so the only reasonable conclusion is that you are being flat out dishonest when you call this a compromise.

3. Of course we "won't like that", the supporters of a popular vote have been very clear that they want all voters to be equal, is this supposed to be some sort of gotcha?

1. Balance is the goal of life, bro.

2. Your sense of "equality" of voters is not congruent to how people actually vote.  Also why should populous states get the edge in the House and less populous states not get an edge in the presidency.

3. No gotcha, just knowing the response is practically Pavlovian at this point.

 

1. Whether the electoral college is good or bad has little to do with whether the way we elect representatives is good or bad, they should both be questioned on their own merits and attempting to link the two is just another deflection.

2. There is nothing sacred about states. Hypothetically you could separate the panhandle from Florida to make the rest of Florida more Dem leaning and both the resulting states would be as legitimate as Wyoming. Would it be gerrymandering the electoral college? Yes, but the current 50 states+DC are themselves a gerrymander, it may vary in which party it benefits each election, but any system other than a popular vote will in some way or form be a gerrymander.

[7,052,770]

I really don't see why people think scrapping the EC is an outrageous idea... it's clearly an outdated system that was originally intended to keep the interests of white rich landowning guys in the WH....

Fine since this is most people's beef with the EC...here's my compromise: The presidential winner is the one who wins the popular majority...of the most states.  No EC numbers, no delegates.

You just to win the popular majority in 26 or more of the 50 states.  And looking back at the last few elections, we would've had the same winners each time.

But no you won't like that, because Wyoming would be the most powerful and the masses in Cali wouldn't.  Well, that balances out what happens in the House, doesn't it?

Why not whoever wins the most counties? Because the statewide winners are just going to be determined by the big metro areas in every state.

Or why not whoever wins the most precincts? Because the countywide winners are just going to be determined by the biggest precincts in each county...

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I really don't see why people think scrapping the EC is an outrageous idea... it's clearly an outdated system that was originally intended to keep the interests of white rich landowning guys in the WH....

Fine since this is most people's beef with the EC...here's my compromise: The presidential winner is the one who wins the popular majority...of the most states.  No EC numbers, no delegates.

You just to win the popular majority in 26 or more of the 50 states.  And looking back at the last few elections, we would've had the same winners each time.

But no you won't like that, because Wyoming would be the most powerful and the masses in Cali wouldn't.  Well, that balances out what happens in the House, doesn't it?

Why not whoever wins the most counties? Because the statewide winners are just going to be determined by the big metro areas in every state.

Or why not whoever wins the most precincts? Because the countywide winners are just going to be determined by the biggest precincts in each county...

Too easy to create new counties/gerrymander districts.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

3. No gotcha, just knowing the response is practically Pavlovian at this point.

Well, yeah, people who believe in democracy are going to respond to disingenuous defenses of undemocratic institutions by stressing that we believe in democracy. What is that supposed to prove?

[SteveRogers]

Also why should populous states get the edge in the House and less populous states not get an edge in the presidency.

Because the Senate already exists. That’s literally the whole reason why we have a bicameral legislature.

No states should have an edge in electing the executive of the whole country because pieces of land shouldn’t be electing the executive of the whole country, people should.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I cannot accept any defense of the Electoral College for so many reasons, many that were espoused in this thread already. But to me, what it comes down to is that our national election should be national, not 56 separate state elections! It's really not that complicated!

[Brittain33]

The electoral college is an irrational anachronism.

The NPVIC is not the way to fix it. If we ever had an election where it would reverse the outcome in favor of the Democrat, whichever state in the compact voted Republican would drop the whole thing so fast it would make your head spin.

[Cashew]

The electoral college is an irrational anachronism.

The NPVIC is not the way to fix it. If we ever had an election where it would reverse the outcome in favor of the Democrat, whichever state in the compact voted Republican would drop the whole thing so fast it would make your head spin.

The National Popular Vote compact permits a state to withdraw; however, it delays the effective date of a withdrawal until after the inauguration of the new President if the withdrawal occurs during the six-month period between July 20 of a presidential election year and Inauguration Day.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.11

[Badger]

What are the odds of an override?

0

Ouch. Vermont, RI, California, and Hawaii had vetoes, but they were from Republican governors. Hawaii overrode the veto, while the other 3 passed it later under Democratic/Chafee governors.

It's a setback, for sure, and as it's unlikely he'll be successfully primaried in 2022 (unless he really forks everything up and gets himself Gibbons'd), then the earliest we'll see another attempt at this is in 2027.

Oh well... patience is a virtue, right? 

Joe. Why I think this is a horribly stupid idea obviously, and I would guess the vast majority of Nevada Democrats do as well, do you really see this as something potentially starting to pick up steam for a primary against sisolak?

[SteveRogers]

The electoral college is an irrational anachronism.

The NPVIC is not the way to fix it. If we ever had an election where it would reverse the outcome in favor of the Democrat, whichever state in the compact voted Republican would drop the whole thing so fast it would make your head spin.

The National Popular Vote compact permits a state to withdraw; however, it delays the effective date of a withdrawal until after the inauguration of the new President if the withdrawal occurs during the six-month period between July 20 of a presidential election year and Inauguration Day.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.11

The NPVIC itself wouldn’t be able to stop a state from withdrawing from the compact after Election Day. Whatever the compact itself says about the withdrawal date, the state legislature could just repeal that law.

However, while there would definitely be a court battle in such a scenario, constitutionally I don’t  think a state could change the rules after the election has already occurred. While the states have discretion in deciding how to assign their electors, the Constitution gives congress the authority to set the day for the choosing of the electors, and currently that date is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The states can’t change their mind about which slate of electors was chosen after the fact.

[Cashew]

The electoral college is an irrational anachronism.

The NPVIC is not the way to fix it. If we ever had an election where it would reverse the outcome in favor of the Democrat, whichever state in the compact voted Republican would drop the whole thing so fast it would make your head spin.

The National Popular Vote compact permits a state to withdraw; however, it delays the effective date of a withdrawal until after the inauguration of the new President if the withdrawal occurs during the six-month period between July 20 of a presidential election year and Inauguration Day.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.11

The NPVIC itself wouldn’t be able to stop a state from withdrawing from the compact after Election Day. Whatever the compact itself says about the withdrawal date, the state legislature could just repeal that law.

However, while there would definitely be a court battle in such a scenario, constitutionally I don’t  think a state could change the rules after the election has already occurred. While the states have discretion in deciding how to assign their electors, the Constitution gives congress the authority to set the day for the choosing of the electors, and currently that date is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The states can’t change their mind about which slate of electors was chosen after the fact.

It's not just that, the contract clause would be violated as well.

The EC does not benefit big or small states, it benefits states that are close. In 1988 commentators were saying that the EC benefits the Big States as Dukakis could still win the Presidency by sweeping the big states(with the exceptions of TX and FL) despite losing the popular vote due to Bush running up the margin in the small states.


What the EC does is ensure someone cant win by just running up the margins in their base states.

Why is "running up the margins" a bad thing? Please clarify, so I can be 100% sure I won't misunderstand or misrepresent your position.

[Joe Republic]

What are the odds of an override?

0

Ouch. Vermont, RI, California, and Hawaii had vetoes, but they were from Republican governors. Hawaii overrode the veto, while the other 3 passed it later under Democratic/Chafee governors.

It's a setback, for sure, and as it's unlikely he'll be successfully primaried in 2022 (unless he really forks everything up and gets himself Gibbons'd), then the earliest we'll see another attempt at this is in 2027.

Oh well... patience is a virtue, right? 

Joe. Why I think this is a horribly stupid idea obviously, and I would guess the vast majority of Nevada Democrats do as well, do you really see this as something potentially starting to pick up steam for a primary against sisolak?

Oh, absolutely not.  Nobody actually cares about this except us political nerds.  The only way Sisolak loses a primary is if he reeeeally messes everything else up and becomes a total embarrassment, a la Jim Gibbons.

[Badger]

What are the odds of an override?

0

Ouch. Vermont, RI, California, and Hawaii had vetoes, but they were from Republican governors. Hawaii overrode the veto, while the other 3 passed it later under Democratic/Chafee governors.

It's a setback, for sure, and as it's unlikely he'll be successfully primaried in 2022 (unless he really forks everything up and gets himself Gibbons'd), then the earliest we'll see another attempt at this is in 2027.

Oh well... patience is a virtue, right? 

Joe. Why I think this is a horribly stupid idea obviously, and I would guess the vast majority of Nevada Democrats do as well, do you really see this as something potentially starting to pick up steam for a primary against sisolak?

Oh, absolutely not.  Nobody actually cares about this except us political nerds.  The only way Sisolak loses a primary is if he reeeeally messes everything else up and becomes a total embarrassment, a la Jim Gibbons.

Yeah, I misread your earlier post.

[Brittain33]

The electoral college is an irrational anachronism.

The NPVIC is not the way to fix it. If we ever had an election where it would reverse the outcome in favor of the Democrat, whichever state in the compact voted Republican would drop the whole thing so fast it would make your head spin.

The National Popular Vote compact permits a state to withdraw; however, it delays the effective date of a withdrawal until after the inauguration of the new President if the withdrawal occurs during the six-month period between July 20 of a presidential election year and Inauguration Day.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.11

The NPVIC itself wouldn’t be able to stop a state from withdrawing from the compact after Election Day. Whatever the compact itself says about the withdrawal date, the state legislature could just repeal that law.

However, while there would definitely be a court battle in such a scenario, constitutionally I don’t  think a state could change the rules after the election has already occurred. While the states have discretion in deciding how to assign their electors, the Constitution gives congress the authority to set the day for the choosing of the electors, and currently that date is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The states can’t change their mind about which slate of electors was chosen after the fact.

I feel like possession is nine-tenths of the law here and if the state’s electors vote for the Republican because its legislature directs it to, we are in 2000 Florida territory and the courts will let it stand. It would be hard to use NPVIC to counter a) the state’s voters giving Republicans a majority and b) electors casting their votes for the Republican especially given decades of precedent of electors following the state’s popular vote.

[Inmate Trump]

I really don't see why people think scrapping the EC is an outrageous idea... it's clearly an outdated system that was originally intended to keep the interests of white rich landowning guys in the WH....

Fine since this is most people's beef with the EC...here's my compromise: The presidential winner is the one who wins the popular majority...of the most states.  No EC numbers, no delegates.

You just to win the popular majority in 26 or more of the 50 states.  And looking back at the last few elections, we would've had the same winners each time.

But no you won't like that, because Wyoming would be the most powerful and the masses in Cali wouldn't.  Well, that balances out what happens in the House, doesn't it?

Can you give a well thought out reason for why it's bad to simply have the person who wins the most votes as the winner of the election?

And also..."the masses" in California are just as much American citizens as you.  Are you implying that their voice doesn't matter as much as yours does?

[emailking]

Fine since this is most people's beef with the EC...here's my compromise: The presidential winner is the one who wins the popular majority...of the most states.  No EC numbers, no delegates.

You just to win the popular majority in 26 or more of the 50 states.  And looking back at the last few elections, we would've had the same winners each time.

But no you won't like that, because Wyoming would be the most powerful and the masses in Cali wouldn't.  Well, that balances out what happens in the House, doesn't it?

I have a hard time believing that's a serious proposal.

The electoral college is an irrational anachronism.

The NPVIC is not the way to fix it. If we ever had an election where it would reverse the outcome in favor of the Democrat, whichever state in the compact voted Republican would drop the whole thing so fast it would make your head spin.

I don't think it would make my head spin. But in any case, the change would have to take place after the election in question (for which they are locked in), and they would need Republican control in both houses and control of the governorship.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I really don't see why people think scrapping the EC is an outrageous idea... it's clearly an outdated system that was originally intended to keep the interests of white rich landowning guys in the WH....

Fine since this is most people's beef with the EC...here's my compromise: The presidential winner is the one who wins the popular majority...of the most states.  No EC numbers, no delegates.

You just to win the popular majority in 26 or more of the 50 states.  And looking back at the last few elections, we would've had the same winners each time.

But no you won't like that, because Wyoming would be the most powerful and the masses in Cali wouldn't.  Well, that balances out what happens in the House, doesn't it?

Can you give a well thought out reason for why it's bad to simply have the person who wins the most votes as the winner of the election?

And also..."the masses" in California are just as much American citizens as you.  Are you implying that their voice doesn't matter as much as yours does?

Well it probably would galvanize the middle of the country vs the coasts, if you love this divisiveness so much. I don't want policy dictated from the coasts and Chicago.

[Vespucci]

I really don't see why people think scrapping the EC is an outrageous idea... it's clearly an outdated system that was originally intended to keep the interests of white rich landowning guys in the WH....

Fine since this is most people's beef with the EC...here's my compromise: The presidential winner is the one who wins the popular majority...of the most states.  No EC numbers, no delegates.

You just to win the popular majority in 26 or more of the 50 states.  And looking back at the last few elections, we would've had the same winners each time.

But no you won't like that, because Wyoming would be the most powerful and the masses in Cali wouldn't.  Well, that balances out what happens in the House, doesn't it?

Can you give a well thought out reason for why it's bad to simply have the person who wins the most votes as the winner of the election?

And also..."the masses" in California are just as much American citizens as you.  Are you implying that their voice doesn't matter as much as yours does?

Well it probably would galvanize the middle of the country vs the coasts, if you love this divisiveness so much. I don't want policy dictated from the coasts and Chicago.

And I don't want policy dictated from Podunk, Wyoming. Works both ways.

[Badger]

I really don't see why people think scrapping the EC is an outrageous idea... it's clearly an outdated system that was originally intended to keep the interests of white rich landowning guys in the WH....

Fine since this is most people's beef with the EC...here's my compromise: The presidential winner is the one who wins the popular majority...of the most states.  No EC numbers, no delegates.

You just to win the popular majority in 26 or more of the 50 states.  And looking back at the last few elections, we would've had the same winners each time.

But no you won't like that, because Wyoming would be the most powerful and the masses in Cali wouldn't.  Well, that balances out what happens in the House, doesn't it?

Can you give a well thought out reason for why it's bad to simply have the person who wins the most votes as the winner of the election?

And also..."the masses" in California are just as much American citizens as you.  Are you implying that their voice doesn't matter as much as yours does?

Well it probably would galvanize the middle of the country vs the coasts, if you love this divisiveness so much. I don't want policy dictated from the coasts and Chicago.

No, you want it dictated by rural populations where disproportionately few voters live.

Sorry democracy is so hard on you.