The NPV may be closer than you think

[Concerned American]

So you are fine with having voters not counted under winner take all by state.

That decision is made by the state in question.

 

[Concerned American]

He runs his yap endlessly about everything else

And still he can't yap as well as you do, eh? You're rep is safe.

 

[Concerned American]

The state controls how EC votes are allocated.

48 states use winner take all.

2 states award by district.

States * * * DO * * * control how EC votersvotes are allocated. They could choose not to have a vote, the legislature can award directly. Hell the legislature could use round robin tiddly winks if the want.

Ww

I didn't dispute any of that. Thanks for agreeing that ALL states use the EC and they cannot unilaterally cease its use.

 

[WorldWatcher]

See post 113. I'm interested in your opinion.

See Post 24.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

I didn't dispute any of that. Thanks for agreeing that ALL states use the EC and they cannot unilaterally cease its use.

The NPV doesn’t cease the use of the EC.

It’s the state legislature determining the method of allocation per the Constitution.

WW

 

[Concerned American]

The NPV doesn’t cease the use of the EC.

It’s the state legislature determining the method of allocation per the Constitution.

WW

Is that why they call it the national POPULAR VOTE act? I think you're mistaken.

 

[Independent thinker]

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-decades-long-plan-to-abolish-the-electoral-college-may-finally-pay-off/ar-AA22qrwV#comments

You folks on the right will go beserk if it happens.

The National Popular Vote Act may be in position to jump the shark this fall.

That means that it could put an end to the Electoral College and the excess of power that a minority of Americans have in several of the small states thwarting the will of the majority in the larger states.

The Electoral College — our nation’s bizarre system that hands a few narrowly-divided states the privilege to choose our presidents — has been entrenched for two centuries.

But a long-game effort from reformers, which has played out quietly in blue states across the country over the past 20 years, has gotten it surprisingly close to toppling.

Throughout the 20th century, it was believed that the only chance for nationwide Electoral College reform was a constitutional amendment, and there was a real bipartisan push to do so after the 1968 election, endorsed by President Richard Nixon. Third-party candidate George Wallace’s strength in the South had risked depriving Nixon of his electoral vote majority, meaning the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives would have determined the outcome. Despite initial momentum in Congress for a popular vote, a trio of segregationist Southerners filibustered the proposed amendment to death in 1970 with help from senators in smaller states.

The 2000 election, in which Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush was declared the winner in the decisive state of Florida after much controversy, rejuvenated interest in reform. Democrats were of course furious that Bush won, but much of the country believed it was absurd that a 537-vote margin in a single state determined the outcome. Polls showed a large majority of respondents supporting a move to a popular vote system by constitutional amendment. But amending the Constitution is toweringly difficult; ratification requires the backing of 38 states.


An alternative route was that the states could do it themselves — states could simply pledge their own electoral votes to the popular vote winner. The problem there was that if states stuck their necks out to go first, they’d be throwing away their influence under the current system. So several experts and thinkers batted around the idea of a trigger mechanism — a state law that wouldn’t go into effect until the 270-electoral-vote threshold was reached.

After the 2004 election once again came down to a single swing state, John R. Koza had had enough. A computer scientist who had become wealthy from a lottery ticket business (he co-invented the scratch-off ticket), Koza told me he “got all agitated about the fact that Ohio was the key state that reelected George W. Bush, and the rest of the country was basically ignored, including California” — his home state.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Koza had gone from state to state trying to get state lotteries established; if multiple states wanted to work together on a single lottery, they’d create an interstate compact. Koza believed the same device — a binding agreement — could work for Electoral College reform. So in 2006, he launched National Popular Vote Inc., which was (and remains) the major group lobbying for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact around the country.

And a blue wave in the 2026 midterms could finish the job.

• Since 2006, a plan to change the US presidential elections to a popular vote — by getting states controlling 270+ electoral votes to pledge their electors to the popular vote winner — has been gaining support in blue states.
• The 2026 midterms could sweep Democrats to power in enough swing states to cross that threshold, potentially putting a popular vote system in place for 2028.
• But there are legal, practical, and political questions about what, exactly, would replace the Electoral College — and whether carrying out this reform without GOP support could doom it to failure.

The big idea is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and it’s essentially one weird trick for moving to a popular vote system without a constitutional amendment.

How it works is that each participating state agrees that their electors will go to the candidate who wins the highest number of votes nationwide — if, and only if, enough other states agree so that the outcome will be determined that way.

View attachment 1252698

And, if so, yowza!!!

LOL. You guys can't even see that this hurts you more than it hurts Republicans and that is funny. You don't have one green state that is even purple. They're all blue states. So, to translate for you, it is much more likely that this will bite you in the butt at some point. It won't even hurt Republicans because if you get a bunch of blue states with this compact, they were going to win anyway. What's more likely to happen is like in 2024 when Trump won the popular vote and all of those blue states electoral votes would have gone for Trump, making the race even more lopsided than it already was.

 

[jacksonlamb]

You show Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire as target states by the Democrats to join the compact.

In 2016, Donald Trump lost the popular vote. Now pay attention.

Of those target states, Trump won the popular vote in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan in 2016.

What do you suppose would have happened if, as part of this compact, those states gave their electoral votes to Hillary instead of Trump and flipped the election to her even though the voters of those states voted for Trump?

That is textbook disenfranchisement.

You think the January 6, 2021 insurrection was bad? Sheeeeeeeeee-it!

I'm going to blow Oddball 's mind and agree with him. The Supremes would throw this compact out so fast it would make your head spin.

That was before Trump became the worst President history. NV, WI, MI, PA, and NH are very possible. AZ, not sure.

 

[jacksonlamb]

LOL, so you think Trump calls you whenever he makes a decision? Man, you need to just shut up. You're a fool.

They've had secure bunkers for the potus offsite for decades, this one would put the decision makers in one local centralized place with state of the art security. Educate yourself.

It won't pass.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Thanks forth warning. I’ll make sure to order more components for the reloading machine. I’m think I’m down to 16-18K rounds of assorted calibers.

You are a nothing and know it. You will not oppose anyone with firearms.

 

[jacksonlamb]

LOL. You guys can't even see that this hurts you more than it hurts Republicans and that is funny. You don't have one green state that is even purple. They're all blue states. So, to translate for you, it is much more likely that this will bite you in the butt at some point. It won't even hurt Republicans because if you get a bunch of blue states with this compact, they were going to win anyway. What's more likely to happen is like in 2024 when Trump won the popular vote and all of those blue states electoral votes would have gone for Trump, making the race even more lopsided than it already was.

That's your opinion. Not very convincing, but go with it.

 

[jacksonlamb]

You are a nothing and know it. You will not oppose anyone with firearms.

It's true, Concerned America, he is a coward and will push you forward in a gun fight over NPV.

 

[Concerned American]

It's true, Concerned America, he is a coward and will push you forward in a gun fight over NPV.

You assume much for being an ignorant internet troll.

 

[Independent thinker]

That's your opinion. Not very convincing, but go with it.

That's not an opinion, it's fact. Doesn't do you any good at all if only blue states sign the pact, because they were voting blue anyway. If they add up to 270 electoral votes, well, no difference because then the democrat would have won anyway. But, like I said, if the pact had been in affect in 2024 and Trump won the national popular vote (which he did), then all of those 270 electoral votes from the blue state pact would have all gone to Trump, plus all of the other electoral votes as well. The only way the pact could actually work in your favor is if purple states joined and, so far, not one purple state has and no red state is going to.

 

[jacksonlamb]

You assume much for being an ignorant internet troll.

says an ignorant internet troll

 

[g5000]

It is a mathematical inevitability that at least one state's popular vote would have to be overridden by the NPV in the rare situation where the electoral vote winner has the least of the popular vote.

It is unavoidable. And that is unconstitutional.

The Democrats have not thought this through.

 

[g5000]

Not a fan of NPV as a major leap.

I’d rather see EC votes awarded by vote in the House district. The remaining two votes, representing the senators, goes to the state vote winner.

The problem isn’t, IMHO, the national vote - it’s that in 48 of 50 states EC votes are winner take all.

WW

House districts are constantly being gerrymandered. Think about it. Look at who the House Majority Leaders have been to see we would have had a Republican president after the 1996 and 2012 elections, and a Democratic president after the 1980, 1984, and 1988 elections.