Direct popular vote via the electoral college

[Berkut]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY&fbclid=IwAR3UNoWlPCCj0t2ytpq4aW6Pjg8sjEbg5DBRhf78q5QlKNF3hGUlqOM2RjQhttps://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation


So the basic idea is this:


There is a set of legislation out there that goes like this:


If your state signs up to the compact, they are agreeing that for any national election, that state will cast ALL their electoral votes for whatever candidate wins the national popular election, regardless of how the members of that state have voted.


This compact is null and void up until such time that enough states have passed the compact that would result in those states controlling 270 electoral votes.


So this would, effectively, use the electoral college itself to give us a straight up national election for POTUS and VP.


It is kind of brilliant, really. Not sure it would survive the current SC unfortunately. But I love the idea of using the EC to destroy the EC.


So far, enough states have signed this into law to get to 196 electoral votes (16 states). They need another 74. It has also passed at least one legislative chamber in 8 states possessing 75 electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK).  It has been unanimously approved at the committee level in 2 states possessing 27 more electoral votes (GA, MO).

[dps]

If you want to change the Constitution, amend it, don't try to subvert it.

[DGuller]

If you want to change the Constitution, amend it, don't try to subvert it.

I'm sure you understand full well that amending the Constitution to get rid of EC is impossible, so this is not an intellectually honest thing to say.  I also don't see how this scheme is subverting the Constitution.

[Eddie Teach]

It is impractical, not impossible and perhaps he's right that it shouldn't be changed without overwhelming support. It's certainly not a dishonest position to take.

[Josquius]

The problem is, don't electors ultimately have free choice to do whatever they want?
All it takes is one bad faith actor and the system could crash.

[grumbler]

I've mentioned this compact in every EC debate we have had here the last year or so.  It solves the EC problem without a constitutional amendment.  The argument that it subverts the constitution is absurd; the constitution specifically allows the state legislators to decide how to select electors.

Faithless electors are no bigger a problem in the compact than they are now.

[dps]

OK, I may have misunderstood part of this proposal.  If it wouldn't actually get rid of electors, but merely require a state to appoint electors who would vote for whoever won the nationwide popular vote, then it wouldn't subvert the Constitution.  Grumbler is correct--the Constitution allows the states to choose electors however they wish.

[Tonitrus]

By the letter of the rules, it is ok...but I would oppose it on a local level as I think it is a bad idea.

But...there is also nothing that holds the compact in force, so as political winds shift at the local level states can withdraw from it.  So it could create conditions where if affects one presidential election, but then not the next one...depending on which party holds sway in which states, and are then unhappy with how the presidential election turned out. I think it just makes the overall system far more wonky.

It would be better in the long run to amend/reform the EC in such a way that makes it more effective (and opinions are different on this, of course, as I am personally skeptical of a simple direct nation-wide popular election of the executive)...but as said that would be extremely politically difficult.

[DGuller]

My biggest concern is the possibility of states reneging on the compact.  If we have a situation where one state switching back to the old EC method would flip the election, then what's to stop it from coming up with some bullshit reason to vote the old way despite being part of the compact?  Normally this kind of chicanery would be kept in check by the fact that the president selected on this way would lack the legitimacy, but I think we've seen in the last couple of years that a certain political party would always opt to grab some power when presented with an opportunity, and just hope that everything else would work itself out.

[grumbler]

My biggest concern is the possibility of states reneging on the compact.  If we have a situation where one state switching back to the old EC method would flip the election, then what's to stop it from coming up with some bullshit reason to vote the old way despite being part of the compact?  Normally this kind of chicanery would be kept in check by the fact that the president selected on this way would lack the legitimacy, but I think we've seen in the last couple of years that a certain political party would always opt to grab some power when presented with an opportunity, and just hope that everything else would work itself out.

This would only be an issue if (1) every state not part of the compact was won by the candidate who lost the popular vote, and (2) the flipping of one state could change the outcome.  The odds of both of those being true seems quite low, since a lot of states would likely join the compact in order to avoid looking petty.  Plus, it would require passing a new state law between the time the election and the time the electoral college electors vote in mid-December.  That's a pretty short timeline, and it is likely the minority party in that state could procedurally hold up passage for long enough.

[grumbler]

By the letter of the rules, it is ok...but I would oppose it on a local level as I think it is a bad idea.

Why is it a bad idea?

But...there is also nothing that holds the compact in force, so as political winds shift at the local level states can withdraw from it.  So it could create conditions where if affects one presidential election, but then not the next one...depending on which party holds sway in which states, and are then unhappy with how the presidential election turned out. I think it just makes the overall system far more wonky.

It would be better in the long run to amend/reform the EC in such a way that makes it more effective (and opinions are different on this, of course, as I am personally skeptical of a simple direct nation-wide popular election of the executive)...but as said that would be extremely politically difficult.

If enough states withdraw, then we are back to the current system, so nothing is lost.  Nothing wonky about that.

Amending the EC would require a constitutional amendment, which you could do even if the compact were in force, so nothing is lost by implementing the compact and then amending the constitution.  Better is the enemy of good enough, in this case.

Opposition to the direct election of the chief executive is another matter, but that's not really related to this topic.  The current system allows Devin Nunes to bleat about "the Democrats trying to sabotage the democratic election of the president" when he knows goddamn well that this president was not democratically elected.  One of the direct benefits of the compact is at least making such bleating non-hypocritical.

[Legbiter]

Wasn't the EC set up because the other 12 colonies feared Virginia would otherwise have too much power in the fledgling United States? It was kinda the California of it's day.

[grumbler]

Wasn't the EC set up because the other 12 colonies feared Virginia would otherwise have too much power in the fledgling United States? It was kinda the California of it's day.

There were several reasons for the EC.  First, because the Founding Fathers wanted the president to be elected by the eminent men of their states, thus keeping the Trumps of the day out of power.  Second, because the smaller states fear domination by the larger states (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina together had more than half the total population of the US in the 1790 census).  Third, because it allowed the slave states to count 3/5 of their slave population in the apportionment of the electoral votes.

[Legbiter]

Makes sense. Here in Iceland the rural and smaller places outside of Reykjavík have a huge say in national politics as the price for participating in the system.  Their political impact is considerable compared to the capital.

[Valmy]

If you want to change the Constitution, amend it, don't try to subvert it.

How does this subvert the Constitution? That is 100% Constitutional. The Constitution leaves it up to the state.