Direct popular vote via the electoral college

[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.

See reply #6.  I thought the proposal would do away with individual electors;  apparently it does not.

Ah. Sorry.

[grumbler]

In general, I already don't like rules that force electors to vote a certain way.  If it were up to me, I'd make them a more public part of the electoral process at the state level, instead of the invisible unknowns that they currently are.

Laws can't force an elector to vote a certain way.  They can only establish a procedure in which electors are chosen in such a way that they will almost certainly vote in a certain way.

But I also know that my views on the topic are a bit archaic.  I also think the amendment that made for the direct election of Senators was a bad idea (I think, ideally, that it would make people think more about, and make much more relevant, their own state-level politics)...though I recognize there were some very good reasons for it. 

I actually happen to agree.  Senators were supposed to represent the interests of the states, not the interests of the hoi-polloi.  Given the transient nature of state residency, however, that is a ship that has sailed.

And while we think the EC is a subversion of the principles of democracy, we let pass the fact that term limits are also a pretty terrible subversion of democratic principles.

As is the fact that children and felons cannot vote, etc.  It is possible to be too devoted to the mythology of "democratic principles."

[Tonitrus]

As is the fact that children and felons cannot vote, etc.  It is possible to be too devoted to the mythology of "democratic principles."

Of all the folks on Languish, I would not have expected you to roll out something similar to a slippery slope fallacy. 

I think an age threshold is reasonable.  Felons?  I am fine with the restriction while they're incarcerated...afterwords, very likely no.  If someone serves their time, that should be it.

But term limits specifically is a complete non-sequitur for problems it is argued it should fix.

[Legbiter]

The problem with this compact is that it's a ramshackle overnerdified solution that will run into big trouble as soon as for instance the Californian electors vote for the other candidate than the majority of the state voters did in a presidential election.  Has any reliably red state formally signed up to this compact?

Another issue is that the strength of the United States is precisely that it is a collection of states instead of them being just administrative units in a heavily centralized, top-down state. This decentralization is probably a major reason for why the US has managed to stick together as a cohesive continent-spanning empire given the big internal political diversity of the place.

[grumbler]

As is the fact that children and felons cannot vote, etc.  It is possible to be too devoted to the mythology of "democratic principles."

Of all the folks on Languish, I would not have expected you to roll out something similar to a slippery slope fallacy. 

I think an age threshold is reasonable.  Felons?  I am fine with the restriction while they're incarcerated...afterwords, very likely no.  If someone serves their time, that should be it.

But term limits specifically is a complete non-sequitur for problems it is argued it should fix.

My comment wasn't a "slippery slope" fallacy at all; in fact, it wasn't even an argument.  I was just pointing out that "because democratic principles" is not an argument, either.

[grumbler]

The problem with this compact is that it's a ramshackle overnerdified solution that will run into big trouble as soon as for instance the Californian electors vote for the other candidate than the majority of the state voters did in a presidential election.  Has any reliably red state formally signed up to this compact?

Just because you don't like the implications for the GOP doesn't convert this simple plan into some thing "ramshackle" or "overnerdified" at all.  Californians who see their electors voting for the popular vote winner won't be nonplussed, any more than the Republicans in the state were when all of the California electors voted for the candidate they didn't vote for; people will know that that's just how the system works.  The reliably red states will be scrambling to sign up when their candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote, but some will likely sign after the thing goes into effect.

Another issue is that the strength of the United States is precisely that it is a collection of states instead of them being just administrative units in a heavily centralized, top-down state. This decentralization is probably a major reason for why the US has managed to stick together as a cohesive continent-spanning empire given the big internal political diversity of the place.

The Interstate Compact changes none of the relationships between the states and the federal government, so this argument is a complete non sequitur.  Even tiny empires like Switzerland have internal political diversity.

[Admiral Yi]

Another issue is that the strength of the United States is precisely that it is a collection of states instead of them being just administrative units in a heavily centralized, top-down state. This decentralization is probably a major reason for why the US has managed to stick together as a cohesive continent-spanning empire given the big internal political diversity of the place.

Decentralization would not at all be impacted by this idea.  The powers and responsibilities of each state would remain the same.

One thing that would definitely change is battleground states would lose all their importance.

[Berkut]

I also think if this passed, then there would be a lot less resistance to an actual amendment to reform the process.

[Valmy]

The problem with this compact is that it's a ramshackle overnerdified solution that will run into big trouble as soon as for instance the Californian electors vote for the other candidate than the majority of the state voters did in a presidential election.  Has any reliably red state formally signed up to this compact?

Another issue is that the strength of the United States is precisely that it is a collection of states instead of them being just administrative units in a heavily centralized, top-down state. This decentralization is probably a major reason for why the US has managed to stick together as a cohesive continent-spanning empire given the big internal political diversity of the place.

I mean I guess if California decided the guy who got fewer votes should win an election, sure. We'll see.

And it is not a nerdication...I mean the current system is already a nerdification basically trying, less than perfectly, to achieve the same result: supporting the people's selection. It is exactly the strength of the collectivity of the States making a decision on who gets to be President. If a big enough number of states decide to do this and actually follow through on it well on what grounds would the other states have to tell them they are wrong? It is entirely an individual state's prerogative on how they select their electors.

So your second paragraph strikes me as not an issue but an explanation as to why the states can make this decision if they so choose. There is nothing the Feds or another State could do about it. Besides complain.

As for which states have signed on well: currently Colorado, Connecticut, Deleware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, California, New York, and DC. So yeah currently not much Red in there. But, as you see in Berkut's post, a few redder states are coming close.

So we shall see.

[Valmy]

One thing that would definitely change is battleground states would lose all their importance.

Yes and Thank God. That was definitely an unintended consequence.

[alfred russel]

I don't see how it could possibly be unconstitutional...

However, it seems as though you would need a national election process to make it "fair" (whatever that means). Right now you have 50 states setting voter qualifications and voting procedures. A state with comparably lax voting qualifications (such as felon voting and possibly even 17 year olds voting), fewer voter verification procedures, easier registration, more polling places, longer poll hours (or days), more polling places, more mail in votes, etc. will be disproportionately represented in the popular vote.

[Tonitrus]

I don't see how it could possibly be unconstitutional...

However, it seems as though you would need a national election process to make it "fair" (whatever that means). Right now you have 50 states setting voter qualifications and voting procedures. A state with comparably lax voting qualifications (such as felon voting and possibly even 17 year olds voting), fewer voter verification procedures, easier registration, more polling places, longer poll hours (or days), more polling places, more mail in votes, etc. will be disproportionately represented in the popular vote.

I'm sure someone who doesn't like an election outcome would float out something...likely the "equal protection" clause (arguing that a state having electors vote against the popular will of the state violates equal protection under the law), as that tends to be the favorite catch-all...to try and strike down the "compact". 

[Valmy]

But electors have been voting against the popular will of the state for hundreds of years. I mean they did in a few cases in the last election.

[Tonitrus]

But electors have been voting against the popular will of the state for hundreds of years. I mean they did in a few cases in the last election.

I don't believe there are any cases where they did so as an entire block.

[dps]

I don't see how it could possibly be unconstitutional...

However, it seems as though you would need a national election process to make it "fair" (whatever that means). Right now you have 50 states setting voter qualifications and voting procedures. A state with comparably lax voting qualifications (such as felon voting and possibly even 17 year olds voting), fewer voter verification procedures, easier registration, more polling places, longer poll hours (or days), more polling places, more mail in votes, etc. will be disproportionately represented in the popular vote.

Does any state currently allow 17 year olds to vote?