Direct popular vote via the electoral college

[Maximus]

I have zero problem with states being rewarded for expanding the franchise.

[Habbaku]

I have zero problem with states being rewarded for expanding the franchise.

What's the reasonable limit for you?

[Maximus]

What's the reasonable limit for you?

In general, some combination of the capability for informed decision making and a vested interest. In practice, citizen+18 is acceptable. Resident+16 would be as well.

[Valmy]

Does any state currently allow 17 year olds to vote?

I guess he is just saying that some states may cheat by not closely watching who is voting. I don't really get how this would advantage anybody though. Some dead people in Chicago voting might help you win a close Illinois contest but surely it means much less in a nationwide deal.

[Sheilbh]

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

I'm not so sure - they're still where there's lots of swing voters. So I think your strategy would either be try to win them or run up an enormous tally with your base. The latter might work for Democrats (given their record since 92). I'm not sure the GOP base is big enough to win a a majority without reaching out to some swing voters.

[Barrister]

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

I'm not so sure - they're still where there's lots of swing voters. So I think your strategy would either be try to win them or run up an enormous tally with your base. The latter might work for Democrats (given their record since 92). I'm not sure the GOP base is big enough to win a a majority without reaching out to some swing voters.

Do you know what places have a lot of swing voters?  Places with a lot of voters.  Places like California, Texas, New York.

[Valmy]

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

I'm not so sure - they're still where there's lots of swing voters. So I think your strategy would either be try to win them or run up an enormous tally with your base. The latter might work for Democrats (given their record since 92). I'm not sure the GOP base is big enough to win a a majority without reaching out to some swing voters.

That is not how battleground states work. Neither party is really regional, except maybe in an urban/suburban/rural divide so concentrating in Texas is not really going to "run up the score" for Republicans. There are shit loads of Democratic and swing voters here, it was just that in the current system it is worthless to bother with them. In this system suddenly appealing to Texas swing voters means something. That concept of base versus swing voters doesn't really make any sense in a state-by-state strategy. There are swing voters everywhere.

So it is not true that battleground states necessarily have significantly more swing voters than anywhere else. They were battleground states because they had roughly equal numbers of Democratic and Republican voters, not because being an independent swing voter was particularly prevalent in those states compared to other states.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah, I don't see how you get that battleground states have disproportionately more swing voters.

#pileon

[Sheilbh]

That is not how battleground states work. Neither party is really regional, except maybe in an urban/suburban/rural divide so concentrating in Texas is not really going to "run up the score" for Republicans. There are shit loads of Democratic and swing voters here, it was just that in the current system it is worthless to bother with them. In this system suddenly appealing to Texas swing voters means something. That concept of base versus swing voters doesn't really make any sense in a state-by-state strategy. There are swing voters everywhere.

Yes they are everywhere and that could help on a national level. But you will still want to put your resources where you'll get most bang for your buck. You might increase your turnout in "enemy" territory because there's a reason for, say urban Republicans in NYC or rural Democrats in Wyoming to vote.

But ultimately you're still going to want to maximise your return - it's not going to suddenly become a floating national campaign. And the reason those battleground states are like that in the mid-west, maybe Florida etc is surely to do with their demographics? So in terms of campaign return you'd focus on them while trying to maximise your base (which would be the real difference from now). Those states would shift - especially as people are geographically polarising.

So it is not true that battleground states necessarily have significantly more swing voters than anywhere else. They were battleground states because they had roughly equal numbers of Democratic and Republican voters, not because being an independent swing voter was particularly prevalent in those states compared to other states.

Okay. If that's the case wouldn't the best strategy to energise the base? Make sure your 40-45% turnout rather than focusing on the 10-15% in the middle?

[Tonitrus]

I wonder if one of the unintended consequences might be a massive hike in the "entry cost" for running for POTUS.

If the focus changes from states to appealing nationwide as a whole, that makes the nation-wide media gatekeepers even more important, and they'll be able to jack up their rates astronomically.  And the big-population cities will get all of the focus as well. And that could make campaign finance game even more insidious. 

[Admiral Yi]

And the reason those battleground states are like that in the mid-west, maybe Florida etc is surely to do with their demographics?

Well yeah.  It's because they have a rough balance of red and blue voters.

[grumbler]

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".

That happened in 2016 in Maine, Hawaii, Texas, and Washington.  Can you link us to the lawsuit(s)?

[Tonitrus]

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".

That happened in 2016 in Maine, Hawaii, Texas, and Washington.  Can you link us to the lawsuit(s)?

Nope.  I wasn't talking about individual faithless electors, but speculating about how someone who doesn't like a result caused by the compact might try to combat in court the compact's entire premise (that being a state compelling all of their electors to vote for the nation-wide popular vote winner). 

[grumbler]

Nope.  I wasn't talking about individual faithless electors, but speculating about how someone who doesn't like a result caused by the compact might try to combat in court the compact's entire premise (that being a state compelling all of their electors to vote for the nation-wide popular vote winner). 

Sure.  Frivolous lawsuits are filed all the time.  No court is going to rule the Constitution unconstitutional, however, and the prospect of frivolous lawsuits should not determine policy.

[grumbler]

Oh, and the Maine elector who voted for Trump even though Clinton won the statewide vote was not a faithless elector.  He was voting as in accordance with Maine law and the U.S. constitution.