we need to build a coalition around amending the Constitution and getting rid of the Electoral

[CTyankee]

College. It would be a tough, hard fight but worth it.

[LonePirate]

1. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is much more likely to be enacted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[eniwetok]

5. Leaving aside Congress can veto the PVIC...

Leaving aside Congress has to approve all such interstate compacts, even if it's approved and put into action... as soon as a state votes against how its people did... the compact will fall apart.

There is no substitute for abolishing the EC... but we have an antidemocratic and reformproof system and it will take a drastic shock to the system to get this reform through. Sadly, there are too many Dems who buy into the antidemocratic rationale for the federal system... and if the Dems aren't on board, we know the GOP never will be.

[etherealtruth]

20. Not necessarily true

There is virtual unanimity among scholars that the NPVIC—which, notably, was designed by the extremely influential legal experts Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar—passes constitutional muster. The Constitution declares that “each state shall appoint” in electors “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct”; if the state directs the appointment of electors through the NPVIC, the Constitution doesn’t stand in its way. Opponents argue that the Compact Clause of the Constitution requires congressional consent of the NPVIC before it could take effect. But that clause only requires congressional approval of interstate compacts that encroach on federal supremacy or the sovereignty of other states. The NPVIC does neither, because states that don’t sign on can still “appoint” electors however they so choose, and it doesn’t infringe on Congress’ sphere of election regulation. In short, the NPVIC simply creates a mechanism by which participating states assign electors—which presents no Compact Clause problems.http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/10/the_electoral_college_could_be_abolished_without_an_amendment.html

[JustAnotherGen]

2. I'd like to see more congressional districts first

By population. So - NJ, NY, CA, TX, etc. etc. wouldn't have such a 'far removed' Congress. It actually makes the House of Representatives 'smaller' and closer to the people.

They can all take pay cuts for the increase. Seriously. Knock em down to $60K. If they don't want the job at that salary then I'm sure a well qualified Teacher, Wait person, Retail Assistant Mgr, High School coach, Public Works employee would like to apply to represent the people in these new districts and they won't balk at the money.

[eniwetok]

3. who would have thought Dems would be an obstacle?

We expect establishment GOPers to have contempt for democratic principles... but what's shocking is how many liberal Dems buy into their own disenfranchisement. I've been having these "make the Constitution democratic" debates for nearly 20 years and I have to say maybe 80-90% are pigheaded defenders of an antidemocratic system.

I long ago realize that too many these liberal Dems want to believe they have some monopoly on democracy... but when you explore what they mean, it's all bandaids. If they valued democratic principles they'd bother to DEFINE them. But to do that is to come into conflict with their cognitive dissonance.

[tableturner]

4. I agree that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is much more likely to be enacted.

Unfortunately, getting rid of the electoral college will be next to impossible, and a waste of resources. The small states will never go along with it, and given that the GOP has recently won two presidential elections, they will never go along with it.

[CTyankee]

7. Yes, I agree. I didn't know about the Interstate Compact. I like it. It's more democratic...

so there, GOP assholes...

[MichMary]

11. It won't happen

This is a list of the states that are signatories to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:
California
Washington, D.C.
Hawaii
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York (state)
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington (state)

Every single one of them is a solidly blue state. Red states will never go along with it, because the Electoral College, as it is now, is much more likely to benefit them.

Right now, like it or not, there are a lot more solidly red states than blue states.

Before there will be any changes to the EC we will have to start winning some state legislatures and governorships, and only THEN can we expect to see some progress on the EC.

[tableturner]

21. I agree...it will be a while, but it is more likely than a constitutional amendment.

[TheFrenchRazor]

6. repugs will never go for it because the EC benefits them and they know it. secession is really the

only option.

[Xolodno]

8. Flyover states won't go for it.

It effectively removes any say they have in the election. And given many vote GOP and we know how much they like to hold on to power....

If Texas turned blue, I suspect the GOP would try to move to an apportioned reward system by district, with the popular vote winner getting the remaining two. Similar to Nebraska and Maine.

That will put Texas, California, et. al. back into play in some regards and shift strategies from tilting states to specific districts. It would also lessen the chances of the popular vote winner not winning. But it still can happen.

Right now the winner take all system is here to stay until one of the major parties (probably the GOP) can no longer viably take the executive office.

[eniwetok]

17. Yes... but maybe no.

I don't entirely buy the red/blue state model. It's based on votes but in off year elections only about 35% of the voting age public shows up and in presidential years it's only 50-55%. There is a huge piece of electorate that we're not hearing from and my take is they are turned off from an electoral system that doesn't offer enough choices, and a political system that is unresponsive waiting for issues that will inspire them to vote. One of those issues is someone to finally say our system is broken and needs to be changed. I bet this message would appeal to GOP voters in CA and here in MA, as well as Dem voters in so-called red states. Right now their votes count for shit.

[uponit7771]

9. ... and stopping voter suppression... I really think that should come first... the EC isn't as much

... of an issue when there are free and fair elections

[CTyankee]

10. I agree. It's a vital point that you make...

[eniwetok]

18. OF COURSE THE EC's A PROBLEM!!

First, the GOP isn't going to give up on voter suppression. The GOP elites hate democracy and since they have a minority agenda of protecting wealth, they play dirty. Second if all the EC can do is ratify the popular vote, then it's not needed. If it can OVERTURN the popular vote, then it should not be tolerated. Nothing short of a popular vote can insure a fair election because by its very nature the EC was DESIGNED to be antidemocratic.

[loyalsister]

12. And bound to fail

We will not be modifying the constitution anytime soon. Challenging the constitutionality of Trump's conflicts of interest while trying to modify is glaringly hypocritical.

Although, individual states may be able to find ways to work toward better representing voter individually. Elections are local.

[CTyankee]

13. "bound to fail"???

It's hard to do, yes, but giving up before we even start with a campaign strategy? Nah, not doin' that. The Constitution of the United States of America HAS been amended when it was urgently needed.

And sure, it could and might very well maybe, fail. But it would engender OTHER movements to right this wrong we've been handed, as a country.

[loyalsister]

15. We can either have a movement to defend it or ammend it

To ask for both at once is unfocused and inconsistent. Right now, Trump's conflicts of interest are a much bigger threat than the electoral college.

It has not been ammended recently, BTW. In fact the ERA was signed by Jimmy Carter and still has not been passed in enought states to enact it.

To eliminate the EC requires a significant number of states to give up their power. It's a smarter use of time, money, and energy to work to recover voting rights and to find legislative solutions that are consistent with the system we have.

[deaniac21]

14. I'm thinking of a word......

impossible

[Dan]

16. If you can get

Enough states to seek a constitutional convention with the goal of amending the constitution - then why not go all the way a seek or at least recognize that this nation as currently defined is two separate nations-states. Red and Blue - and not only seek the amendments you desire, but also the separation that would work for both...

[H2O Man]

19. True.