National Popular Vote

[ed murrow]

There is a new approach to an old idea being rolled out by a group called National Popular Vote. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/

The issue is reforming the Electoral College...something our democracy is in desperate need of, the approach is through state agreements which would avoid the need for a constitutional amendment.

Hertzberg wrote about this in the New Yorker thsi week.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060306ta_talk_hertzberg

This is an excellent idea... a way to reinvigorate our democracy. The voter apathy generated by the Electoral college system is a huge threat to our democracy. Whether big or small state if you are not a swing state your vote is ignored in the Presidential elections...this has to change! and this is a way to do it without a constitutional amendment.

They are introuducing the first piece of legislation here in Illinois

[magellan]

1. I read that article too

Sounded good, but it worried me that an R proposed it....Well, what's to trust?

[ed murrow]

2. Big Issue this week

Besides the New Yorker article...

There was a very active conversation on Kos yesterday about this issue in a diary posted by Birch bayh

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/2/132928/7960

It was the top diary all day yesterday

[sui generis]

3. They believe that the rural vote is overwhelmingly conservative

and republican and overwhelming.

[ed murrow]

4. This is really not a partisan issue

At least in 2000 it would have prevented the worst President in our history form taking office but this really is not a partisan issue...sometimes it will benefit Republicans

but more importantly I think it will engage more Americans and the more educated people are about the issues the better it will be for the Democrats in the long run

As for people who think the rural states would miss out that is simply not true

The smaller states would matter much more under a direct vote system. The way it is now the 12 out of the 13 smallest states are clearly blue or red and receive absolutely no attention...of the smallest 13 only New Hampshire gets Presidential attention. Yes people would campaign in Cali, NY, and Texas but all those other votes would matter as well.

You know how many Democrats there are in Texas?...about 5 million and they are completely ignored. You could say the same thing for Repubs in Cali or NY but I think its just shows why is not a one party issue...when 2/3 of America's population is completely ignored then something is definitely wrong with the system...and I suspect that is why you see such polarization because you have candidates hand selected by what states they will be able to carry instead of whether he or she appeals to the American people as a whole.

Can you imagine how much Get Out The Vote operations would matter all across the country if every vote mattered in the Presidential election...closing the margins in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and every other red state would ultimately help the Democratic candidate...can you imagine how empowering that would be?

[sui generis]

7. I am actually for it - not disagreeing at all

just saying why I think a partisan legislator would think it was crafting some sort of home field advantage.

[Yavin4]

5. Electoral College = Over-Representation of Rural States

Ever wonder why we have intense government trade protection for agriculture, yet IT jobs are free to flow all over the globe? See the Electoral College.

[Skink]

6. Still imagine the lawsuits.

If thirteen states pledged their electors to the popular vote getter and the loser only needed to prevent one of them from doing this it wouldn't be difficult.

[Yavin4]

8. This Would OpenUp ELections To 3rd Party Candidates

The electoral college is the mainr reason why we only have two dominant political parties at a time. A candidate that wins by a plurality of the vote gets all of the electors. Thus, it behooves parties to coalesce around a single candidate.