The NPV may be closer than you think

No it’s not.

The legislature doesn’t even have to authorized a vote. They can change the law for direct appointment as long as they do it prior to an election.

WW
As I explained in an earlier post, a state that went for Candidate A would have to have their vote overturned and their electoral votes given to Candidate B.

This is inevitable in any NPV situation which flips the outcome.

It's simple math.
 
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.

Yes they are gerrymandered, but that is a different problem.

As it stands now, in 48 of 50 states, that a 50%+1 vote in most states result in 100% of the EC votes.

WW
 
Yes they are gerrymandered, but that is a different problem.

As it stands now, in 48 of 50 states, that a 50%+1 vote in most states result in 100% of the EC votes.

WW
Which is better than leaving it up to gerrymandered districts which rig the system to give one party more seats than their portion of the population warrants.
 
As I explained in an earlier post, a state that went for Candidate A would have to have their vote overturned and their electoral votes given to Candidate B.

This is inevitable in any NPV situation which flips the outcome.

It's simple math.

So?

If that’s the way a state legislature chooses to allocate their EC votes- that is a power they have under the Constitution.

I’m not saying p the people would like the results.

WW
 
Which is better than leaving it up to gerrymandered districts which rig the system to give one party more seats than their portion of the population warrants.

Again, you are using a right/wrong metric.

The question was is NPV Constitutional? And the answer is yes if that is the method chosen be the State Legislature.

Wwy
 
Granted. That doesn't include doing away with the EC in federal elections.
The argument is that the states can decide this.

The problem is that if Colorado votes for Commie Harris but Trump wins the popular vote....Colorado committs it's EC votes to Trump.

Nobody in the state will stand for that and will easily win a voter disenfranchisement case.
 
The argument is that the states can decide this.

The problem is that if Colorado votes for Commie Harris but Trump wins the popular vote....Colorado committs it's EC votes to Trump.

Nobody in the state will stand for that and will easily win a voter disenfranchisement case.

There is no requirement to even have a vote for EC electors in the Constitution.

The state legislature can use direct appointment with no vote by the people at all.

They just gave to choose a method prior to Election Day.
WW
 
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!!!
I'm fine with popular or electoral.

I'm afraid my Democrat friends will be mighty disappointed if they think a popular vote will help them win the White House. If any party, the EC advantages the Democrats who currently have two to three large Elector states while Repubs have two that are smaller, Texas and Florida.

But that doesn't matter, really. Republicans run electoral campaigns because that is the system, while Democrats run as if the EC were not a thing. If the change is made, the next Repub will run a popular campaign and still win.
 
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.

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.

You don't think Reagan got more votes in 1980 and 1984 in democrat districts than Carter or Mondale got?
 
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.

You don't think Reagan got more votes in 1980 and 1984 in democrat districts than Carter or Mondale got?
The Democrats won the House, didn't they? That means they won more districts.

Duh.
 
The House members won more votes, and many Dems voted for Reagan.
Again, the Democrats won more districts.

So if we went with the idea propounded in post 24, Reagan would have lost in 1980.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom