CDZ “National Popular Vote” ... in 2024 and beyond ?

[westwall]

The electoral college--in it's current form--isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't. We need the Electoral College; without it the large cities on the coasts will decide the elections using the National Popular Vote format where the person with the plurality becomes President.

One thing that proponents of the NPV never address is this: What happens if we have 3 viable candidates...or 5 viable candidates...that get 20% of the vote each? You really want a President who gets 29% of the vote?

So I think the winning position is to keep the EC in it's current form but add in the stipulation that the President Elect get a plurality of the Popular Vote as well. If both the threshold of the EC majority of 270 AND the plurality of the popular vote are not met, the remedies we have in place currently where the Congress gets involved are activated.

I'll be happy to say this again if Biden is declared the winner of the EC--that we need to change the system that elected the person for whom I am voting. Its really not a political thing with me. Its more of a right and wrong thing. The ordinary voters should have a direct say in who becomes President and the notion of the majority (or at least the plurality) deciding should be addressed.

Get this through your collective heads Liberals:

The president IS NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

THE PRESIDENT IS CHOSEN BY THE STATES

And the NPV will allow the states to reflect accurately the majority of the country

Wrong on all counts. You know, mindlessly saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it real.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Constitution specifically grants states authority to determine their electoral votes in any way they wish. States do not need even have to assign elEctoral votes on the basis of elections. They can have their state legislature decide, or even their governor. Our two party elections and winner-take-all selection of electors is simply evolved, and the states can altere this system.

This is certainly true. The state legislatures do have the authority to change the rules any way they wish. But, on the other hand, this is not the original intent. The original intent was to send people from the community to the convention and pick the president. But, again, it has been changed because they do have that authority. I believe 26 or 27 states have done that. Something like that.

Personally, I'd like to see it done percentage-wise. Meaning that if my libertarian candidate receives ten percent of the vote , then, he or she recieves ten votes.

As an aside, I've written in Ron Paul the last three general elections. He did recieve 1 electoral vote in the 2016, even though he wasn't running for the office of the presidency in the 2016. In that instance, it was a perfect reflection of the original intent in how the electoral college was supposed to work.

Now. Heh heh. You mentioned looking forward to the 2024 and beyond. And you did so in the context of benefitting third parties. I'd certainly agree with you in that this is how defeating the party of one is done. But, the flip side of that is that there are also interested parties who would rather go that route in the interest of centralizing power. That's really where the battle lies looking forward.Strategically speaking. But nobody ever really talks about that. For which I am glad. I don't really want mainstream republicans and democrats leading that charge.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

One thing that proponents of the NPV never address is this: What happens if we have 3 viable candidates...or 5 viable candidates...that get 20% of the vote each? You really want a President who gets 29% of the vote?

See 9.7 Myths about Proliferation of Candidates, Absolute Majorities, and Breakdown of the Two-Party System . In fact our present system often elects a President with a mere plurality of the popular vote. But the “two-party system” is deeply entrenched in this country. This is for many reasons, but especially due to our “first past the post,” non-“Parliamentary,” non-“proportional” voting system. To me we would be wise to try to decrease the stranglehold the two party “Duopoly” has on the nation, but the NPVIC should not seriously effect this issue. Indeed, by itself it may well have a perverse tendency to strengthen the two-party system.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A compact that invalidated the popular vote of a State is UNCONSTITUTIONAL on it's face.

The NPViC does not “Invalidate the popular vote” of any state in or out of the the Compact, since states in the compact simply by law pledge they will send delegates to the Convention supporting the slate which received the largest popular vote cast nationwide.

As the situation stands now, the popular vote could be “invalidated” in any state by that state simply passing legislation to select their electors without any popular vote whatever, by appointment of the governor or the legislature for example. Such a decision would be perfectly Constitutional at present.

As usual your ilk ignores reality and facts, A State election is by law a STATE election. Individual states vote on President and each state has nothing to do with the other states, so Long as the state law says a popular vote will happen that state can not legally change the results of that popular vote.

 

[Faun]

The Constitution specifically grants states authority to determine their electoral votes in any way they wish. States do not need even have to assign elEctoral votes on the basis of elections. They can have their state legislature decide, or even their governor. Our two party elections and winner-take-all selection of electors is simply evolved, and the states can altere this system.

This is certainly true. The state legislatures do have the authority to change the rules any way they wish. But, on the other hand, this is not the original intent. The original intent was to send people from the community to the convention and pick the president. But, again, it has been changed because they do have that authority. I believe 26 or 27 states have done that. Something like that.

Personally, I'd like to see it done percentage-wise. Meaning that if my libertarian candidate receives ten percent of the vote , then, he or she recieves ten votes.

As an aside, I've written in Ron Paul the last three general elections. He did recieve 1 electoral vote in the 2016, even though he wasn't running for the office of the presidency in the 2016. In that instance, it was a perfect reflection of the original intent in how the electoral college was supposed to work.

Now. Heh heh. You mentioned looking forward to the 2024 and beyond. And you did so in the context of benefitting third parties. I'd certainly agree with you in that this is how defeating the party of one is done. But, the flip side of that is that there are also interested parties who would rather go that route in the interest of centralizing power. That's really where the battle lies looking forward.Strategically speaking. But nobody ever really talks about that. For which I am glad. I don't really want mainstream republicans and democrats leading that charge.

The biggest problem is disparity in the ratio of representation. For example...

STATE .................. EV ......... POPULATION
California ........... 55 .............. 39,512,223

California alone is 55 electoral votes for a population of 39.5 million. Whereas all the following states combined equal 55 electoral votes but have 36% fewer people.

STATE .................. EV ......... POPULATION
Arkansas .............. 6 .................. 3,017,804
Idaho .................... 4 ................... 1,787,065
Iowa ...................... 6 ................... 3,155,070
Kansas .................. 6 .................. 2,913,314
Missouri ............. 10 .................. 6,137,428
Montana ............... 3 .................. 1,068,778
Nebraska .............. 5 .................. 1,934,408
North Dakota ...... 3 ..................... 762,062
South Dakota ...... 3 ..................... 884,659
Utah ........................ 6 .................. 3,205,958
Wyoming .............. 3 ...................... 578,759

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wrong on all counts. You know, mindlessly saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it real.

You can mindlessly deny it over and over, and you are still wrong, as you have been about so many things. It is good to be here to witness all of this with you.

 

[westwall]

Wrong on all counts. You know, mindlessly saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it real.

You can mindlessly deny it over and over, and you are still wrong, as you have been about so many things. It is good to be here to witness all of this with you.

Indeed it is. How good a job do you Hillary is doing as president?


.....oh....wait.

Nevermind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hillary is not the candidate, this is not 2016, but I do encourage you to look back at it and make comparisons that are not comparable.

NPV is an almost done deal, and America will be better for it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nothing seems likely to prevent the upcoming Presidential Election from being another disaster for U.S. political institutions and popular confidence in elections. My (worthless) gut feeling is that Trump will win another term. Whether it will be overwhelming, a squeaker in which he again loses the popular vote but wins the electoral vote, or whether Biden gets elected, popular unhappiness with the Electoral College system (certainly not the only problem with elections or our political system!) will likely remain highly disruptive going forward.

There was a long and interesting article Sept. 8 in the “liberal” NY. Times which discussed the proposal for a “National Popular Vote” for President. Unfortunately, you may find it’s behind an Internet pay wall. It was rather provocatively titled “The Electoral College Will Destroy America...” A few excerpts below:

“If Mr. Biden wins by five percentage points or more — if he beats Donald Trump by more than seven million votes — he’s a virtual shoo-in. If he wins 4.5 million more votes than the president? He’s still got a three-in-four chance to be president.

Anything less, however, and Mr. Biden’s odds drop like a rock. A mere three million-vote Biden victory? A second Trump term suddenly becomes more likely than not. If Mr. Biden’s margin drops to 1.5 million — about the populations of Rhode Island and Wyoming combined — forget about it. The chance of a Biden presidency in that scenario is less than one in 10....

“Given that abolishing the Electoral College is not on the table at the moment, for a number of reasons, the best solution would be to do what Madison tried to do more than two centuries ago: get rid of statewide winner-take-all laws. That can be achieved through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ...

If you think this is a plot by bitter Democrats who just want to win, consider this: Texas is going to turn blue. Maybe not this year, maybe not even in 2024. But it’s headed in that direction, and when it gets there, Republicans will be in for an unpleasant surprise. In 2016, Donald Trump won about 4.5 million votes in Texas. The moment the Democratic nominee wins more, all those Republican voters suddenly disappear, along with any realistic shot at winning the White House....

“Every time a new national poll ... is released, it’s followed by a chorus of responses along the lines of, Who cares? The national popular vote is meaningless. Well, I care. So do tens of millions of other Americans.

“And so does Donald Trump. ‘The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,’ he tweeted on election night 2012. Why? Because he believed Mitt Romney would win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College. Not only has he never taken that tweet down, but he continues to claim that he won the popular vote in 2016. Why does he care so much about making that case unless he believed in his heart, like the rest of us do, that the person who gets the most votes should win?“

Opinion | The Electoral College Will Destroy America

Those are the rules, they've been in place for a very, very long time. If you are an American citizen and this troubles you, maybe move to another country, preferably one that does not share a border with the USA. If you are not an American citizen, please find something more useful to do with your time

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

NPV is inevitable. That will give the Democratic Party a permanent majority party dominance going forward, which will result in blue presidencies, congresses, and an increased number of SCOTUS seats to ensure a Democratic majority.

I do not at all agree that “NPV is inevitable.” I still more do not agree it will give the Democratic Party “a permanent majority party dominance going forward.” Serious examination of history shows that popular vote victories have been won equally by Republicans and Democrats since the early 20th Century.

Both major parties have dramatically changed since those days, along with our society itself. Indeed, our political institutions and our society is coming under extreme pressure, and will almost certainly change dramatically in the future, in ways yet uncertain.

It is the height of foolishness, imo, to imagine that demographic changes, let alone mere passage of an essentially non-partisan NPVIC reform (or others like Ranked Choice Voting) will assure any particular party’s dominance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is the height of false logic, imho, to believe that demographic changes plus passage of NPV legislation will not result in any party's domination of the system.

Such will remain a fact until the minority party starts mirroring the majority party's positions and tactics.

 

[Oddball]

Nothing seems likely to prevent the upcoming Presidential Election from being another disaster for U.S. political institutions and popular confidence in elections. My (worthless) gut feeling is that Trump will win another term. Whether it will be overwhelming, a squeaker in which he again loses the popular vote but wins the electoral vote, or whether Biden gets elected, popular unhappiness with the Electoral College system (certainly not the only problem with elections or our political system!) will likely remain highly disruptive going forward.

There was a long and interesting article Sept. 8 in the “liberal” NY. Times which discussed the proposal for a “National Popular Vote” for President. Unfortunately, you may find it’s behind an Internet pay wall. It was rather provocatively titled “The Electoral College Will Destroy America...” A few excerpts below:

“If Mr. Biden wins by five percentage points or more — if he beats Donald Trump by more than seven million votes — he’s a virtual shoo-in. If he wins 4.5 million more votes than the president? He’s still got a three-in-four chance to be president.

Anything less, however, and Mr. Biden’s odds drop like a rock. A mere three million-vote Biden victory? A second Trump term suddenly becomes more likely than not. If Mr. Biden’s margin drops to 1.5 million — about the populations of Rhode Island and Wyoming combined — forget about it. The chance of a Biden presidency in that scenario is less than one in 10....

“Given that abolishing the Electoral College is not on the table at the moment, for a number of reasons, the best solution would be to do what Madison tried to do more than two centuries ago: get rid of statewide winner-take-all laws. That can be achieved through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ...

If you think this is a plot by bitter Democrats who just want to win, consider this: Texas is going to turn blue. Maybe not this year, maybe not even in 2024. But it’s headed in that direction, and when it gets there, Republicans will be in for an unpleasant surprise. In 2016, Donald Trump won about 4.5 million votes in Texas. The moment the Democratic nominee wins more, all those Republican voters suddenly disappear, along with any realistic shot at winning the White House....

“Every time a new national poll ... is released, it’s followed by a chorus of responses along the lines of, Who cares? The national popular vote is meaningless. Well, I care. So do tens of millions of other Americans.

“And so does Donald Trump. ‘The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,’ he tweeted on election night 2012. Why? Because he believed Mitt Romney would win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College. Not only has he never taken that tweet down, but he continues to claim that he won the popular vote in 2016. Why does he care so much about making that case unless he believed in his heart, like the rest of us do, that the person who gets the most votes should win?“

Opinion | The Electoral College Will Destroy America

Your reasoning makes no sense. Demographic shift means the electoral college will be irrelevant. One party rule for the foreseeable future.


Barring immediate and drastic change in trends.


Besides, your side is refusing to respect the democratic process already. That is the end of democracy right there.

They've been hanging their hats on this "demographic shift" stalking horse since Dubya...Trump blew that one up in their faces.

Beside that, it's racist as hell in the presumption that skin pigmentation dictates political alignment.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Article IV, Section 4

The Meaning
This provision, known as the guarantee clause, is attributed to James Madison. It has not been widely interpreted, but scholars think it ensures that each state be run as a representative democracy, as opposed to a monarchy (run by a king or queen) or a dictatorship (where one individual or group of individuals controls the government). Courts however have been reluctant to specify what exactly a republican form of government means, leaving that decision exclusively to Congress.

This is laughable. As a courtesy, I'll educate you (thoroughly) after I get cleaned up and have some supper, I just got done mowing my lawn.

With regard to your thought there about what 'scholars' think the interetation might mean (lol), The Federalist is rather clear and not difficult to aquire for reference. So, I imagine you're using the term 'scholar' very loosely and arbitrarily.

In the mean time, perhaps a quick review of Federalist #51 by Madison (for starters) might benefit you. Maybe take a peek at #21, too. #45 and so forth.


For the time being...

The American system is "a compound Republic"--a federation, or combination, of central and State Republics--under which: "The different governments will control each other . . . ," while within each Republic there are two safeguarding features: (a) a division of powers, as well as (b) a system of checks and balances between separate departments: "Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people." (The Federalist, number 51, by Madison.)

 

[hadit]

NPV is inevitable. That will give the Democratic Party a permanent majority party dominance going forward, which will result in blue presidencies, congresses, and an increased number of SCOTUS seats to ensure a Democratic majority.

Which would suck greatly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Politely, C N, you have no clue as to the Constitution, Article IV and the EC.

NPV is constitutional, because the individual states makes the decision.

 

[candycorn]

One thing that proponents of the NPV never address is this: What happens if we have 3 viable candidates...or 5 viable candidates...that get 20% of the vote each? You really want a President who gets 29% of the vote?

See 9.7 Myths about Proliferation of Candidates, Absolute Majorities, and Breakdown of the Two-Party System . In fact our present system often elects a President with a mere plurality of the popular vote. But the “two-party system” is deeply entrenched in this country. This is for many reasons, but especially due to our “first past the post,” non-“Parliamentary,” non-“proportional” voting system. To me we would be wise to try to decrease the stranglehold the two party “Duopoly” has on the nation, but the NPVIC should not seriously effect this issue. Indeed, by itself it may well have a perverse tendency to strengthen the two-party system.

The duopoly is a larger question. The electoral college is a separate issue.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Politely, C N, you have no clue as to the Constitution, Article IV and the EC.

NPV is constitutional, because the individual states makes the decision.

Bah. Jake, I don't think you're interested in functional debate.

 

[blackhawk]

How many would want to switch to the popular vote for electing the President if California which under this would pretty decide all of the Presidential elections was a rock solid red state instead of a blue one?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How many would want to switch to the popular vote for electing the President if California which under this would pretty decide all of the Presidential elections was a rock solid red state instead of a blue one?

Not me. The electoral college is genius it ensures we have 50 states and not just mob rule.

 

[blackhawk]

How many would want to switch to the popular vote for electing the President if California which under this would pretty decide all of the Presidential elections was a rock solid red state instead of a blue one?

Not me. The electoral college is genius it ensures we have 50 states and not just mob rule.

Same here we have seen throughout history what happens when one politcal party has absolute or almost absolute power.