More states consider working around the Electoral College

[PoliticAverse]

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Frustrated after seeing another candidate secure the presidency without winning the national popular vote, mostly Democratic lawmakers in several capitols want their states to join a 10-year-old movement to work around the Electoral College.

In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state's Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results.

"Every vote in this country should have equal weight. The Electoral College is a relic of a bygone era, and we need to change this system," said Connecticut state Sen. Mae Flexer, who filed a bill with several fellow Democrats requiring Connecticut to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Since 2006, 11 states have signed onto the compact, which require their Electoral College voters to cast ballots for the national popular vote winner. In theory it would take effect once it involves states representing at least 270 electoral votes, the threshold to win the presidency.

Read the rest at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-states-consider-working-around-electoral-college-183558370.html

[Igel]

1. It makes me queasy.

"Hi, I'm in the vast majority in my state that voted for X, but the nation went for Y. That means my legislators have decided that my vote has to yield to others.

"You know, there might just be an interestingly tangled lawsuit in that."

Esp. if I'm (D) and the country goes (R), so my vote put an elector in place that has to vote (R). In order to give my vote weight equal to everybody else's.

We'll leave out the idea that electors should have some sense of freedom in using their discretion.


It's hard to find the right stage or level of abstraction to deal with this problem. A completely federalist system works one way, but a distributed system that empowers states has to work another way. Personally, I like that power's distributed. It slows down things I like, but also slows down things I don't like; in the end, it means that if the people involved can't find a compromise, the compromise is the status quo or very slow movement.

[Abouttime]

2. maybe not..

This seems to be set up to favor our side. If it ever happened that our candidate won the EC and lost he PV the electors could get together and revert to voting for the EC winner.
I think the popular vote compact leaves some wiggle room to reject a popular vote winner such as tRump. In other words it would protect our interests both ways.

[tritsofme]

3. The first time there was an election that activated the compact, it would likely dissolve.

Immediately.

Let's say California is a compact state, and that furthermore their electoral votes provide the decisive margin that pushes the compact over 270.

Now in the general election, California votes 60% Democratic, but a Republican wins the popular vote while losing the traditional counting method of the electoral college.

Do you really believe that California would go through with the compact and send their electors to the Republicans? Or dissolve the compact and pocket a Democratic victory for president?

I think it's pretty obvious how it would play out. The compact is doomed to failure, if you want to get rid of the electoral college, you need an amendment. This doesn't even discuss the prospect that such an interstate compact not blessed by Congress may be illegal in itself.

[PoliticAverse]

4. Yes it does seem there would be great incentive for a state to abandon the compact...

the first time it would really make a difference.

[Abouttime]

5. So what??

The compact is a failsafe, it would work for us because in either event an EC win and PV loss or a PV win and EC loss we would have flexibility not in the current system..
To put it in real terms.. we could have avoided bush2 and tRump with this system.
What's not to like about this?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. So you basically want a system

that gives electoral votes to Democrats, no matter what.

[Abouttime]

7. Why not?

We've lost 3/5 of the last presidential elections by theft and fraud, why not put ourselves in the advantage?
Most elections the EC winner will also be the PV winner. Why NOT give ourselves an advantage when the results go the other way? We've managed to lose 3 out of the last 5 under these rules, after all, we are the majority, we ought to start acting like it!