National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Up To 165 EV

[Sheilbh]

Couldn't you easily say - most people aren't crazies...so running towards the crazies won't get you most of the popular vote?

So you try and depress their turnout in your states - suddenly a few thousand Democrats voting in Alabama is more of an issue - and you scorched earth election to encourage swing voters in their apathy.

[garbon]

Couldn't you easily say - most people aren't crazies...so running towards the crazies won't get you most of the popular vote?

So you try and depress their turnout in your states - suddenly a few thousand Democrats voting in Alabama is more of an issue - and you scorched earth election to encourage swing voters in their apathy.

[Sheilbh]

Couldn't you easily say - most people aren't crazies...so running towards the crazies won't get you most of the popular vote?

So you try and depress their turnout in your states - suddenly a few thousand Democrats voting in Alabama is more of an issue - and you scorched earth election to encourage swing voters in their apathy.

In addition to running towards crazies

[jimmy olsen]

The thing about the EC/battleground status quo is that it forces politicians to appeal to the center. If we go full-on popular vote they will all bolt for the fringes and we'll get even more polarized than we already are.

Exactly. You could, naively, believe that this would lead to a great battle for every vote and Republicans campaigning in New York. But I think it would exacerbate existing trends in American politics and lead to even more polarisation.

Surely there are millions of Republicans in states like New York and California who don't bother to vote because it's pointless as well as millions of Democrats in states like Texas and Georgia who do the same. Why wouldn't the candidates chase after those votes?

[Admiral Yi]

As it is this looks like a solution in search of a problem.

The problem is how to attract more election spending.

[alfred russel]

As a Georgia resident who had the experience of living in Florida during elections, I'm in favor of whatever system keeps me from being in a contested area.

[garbon]

The thing about the EC/battleground status quo is that it forces politicians to appeal to the center. If we go full-on popular vote they will all bolt for the fringes and we'll get even more polarized than we already are.

Exactly. You could, naively, believe that this would lead to a great battle for every vote and Republicans campaigning in New York. But I think it would exacerbate existing trends in American politics and lead to even more polarisation.

Surely there are millions of Republicans in states like New York and California who don't bother to vote because it's pointless as well as millions of Democrats in states like Texas and Georgia who do the same. Why wouldn't the candidates chase after those votes?

I'm quite fine as a Republican in New York who is ignored by campaigning politicians (well apart from Staten Islander candidates).

[grumbler]

[How is that logical?  In any case we do it by popular vote to elect our heads of governments for our state governments and so do any other countries that have national elections for heads of government.  But maybe only the Presidency is a elected in the modern democratic way.

The argument that we should elect the head of government by popular vote because some countries do so is not compelling.  Especially because most do not.

Yeah and he is the guy ignorant of modern politics.  California and Texas are just going to hand over a ton of votes to the opposing party and just trust everybody else to follow suite?  Please.  Everybody does it or nobody significant will.

That argument works precisely as well against his proposal.  The difference is that his proposal requires an enormous change and mine a small change.

[DGuller]

That argument works precisely as well against his proposal.  The difference is that his proposal requires an enormous change and mine a small change.

It doesn't work nearly as well at all.  The difference is that the compact system eliminates free-riding, whereas your system doesn't.  The compact ensures that enough other states give up something as well, so that in return they all get more than they gave away.

[grumbler]

It doesn't work nearly as well at all.  The difference is that the compact system eliminates free-riding, whereas your system doesn't.  The compact ensures that enough other states give up something as well, so that in return they all get more than they gave away.

The compact system requires that the states that are dominated by a single party give up electoral votes for their party, which is against their own interests.  If the argument is that these states won't won't sign up for a proportional distribution of electoral votes, that same argument applies against the compact; why give up something you don't have to?

If those states won't join the reform, then either the reform works without those states, or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, then neither the compact nor proportional distribution will work.  If it does, then either will work.  If both will work, the least cumbersome and faster-acting one is preferred, which has to be the state-by-state model.

If the single-party states do join the reform, then they can do so on their own terms. If California lawmakers want to make sure Texas distributes proportionally when California does, they write the law that way.  If Texas declines, then everyone knows why CA declines as well.  But their decisions don't affect Maryland.

The important thing is that the battleground effect is diminished because fighting it out all summer along these lines in Virginia only gains one or two electoral votes, rather than 13.  The solid states aren't going to be much affected anyway.

[DGuller]

I wish I had time to get into this debate deeper, and maybe I will in a day or two.  It's an interesting analytical exercise.  That said, grumbler, I think you are failing to appreciate the game theory implications of the compact (which is the genius of it, and why it may very well work absent Supreme Court meddling), and are thus failing to see the crucial difference between the compact and your proposal.

[Josquius]

So assuming they get a bunch of states..enough for a majority... What's to stop a state suddenly turning around at electoral vote time and going "no, we want the other guys"

[grumbler]

So assuming they get a bunch of states..enough for a majority... What's to stop a state suddenly turning around at electoral vote time and going "no, we want the other guys"

Nothing whatever.  Which is a problem I pointed out in my first response.

[celedhring]

IIRC some states have enacted laws voiding votes that go against the state pledge. Dunno how effective that would be, but I suppose members of the compact could enact those.

[grumbler]

IIRC some states have enacted laws voiding votes that go against the state pledge. Dunno how effective that would be, but I suppose members of the compact could enact those.

I don't know quite what this means, but no state can have laws that bind an elector once elected.  The issue of faithless electors is, I believe, pretty well established.

The fact of the matter, though, is that states whose legislators see the election going against them with this system can just pull out without consequence.  Under my system, states that pulled out would trigger other state pull-outs from the opposite camp, so there wouldn't be the gain and thus the incentive to withdraw.