Today, Governor Christine Gregoire signed into law a bill passed by the state legislature which gives away the state's right to vote in the election for President, instead automatically delegating those votes to the "winner" of the national "popular vote." The law only goes into effect if many other states also give up their right to vote.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at April 29, 2009 07:02 PM | Email ThisThe east coast and California elect the president. We are just a place they have to spend a few bucks to look good.
Posted by: Vince on April 29, 2009 07:27 PMIf enough states sign on it has a better chance of getting the candidates to actually come here than the electoral vote system.
Posted by: Mark Reynolds on April 29, 2009 07:44 PMThe way things stand, if you're a conservative in Washington state, your vote for president really doesn't count for much because the Democratic candidate can pretty much count on carrying the state. Under the new law (assuming enough other states join in), your vote would count for exactly the same as everyone else's vote in the country. What's wrong with that?
Posted by: scottd on April 29, 2009 07:45 PMThose of you who think a popular vote for President is an improvement must be products of our broken public school system. There are *reasons* why the electoral college exists. Just as there were *reasons* why senators originally weren't popularly elected. Instead of trying to "reason" this out, I suggest you go and read some history books. Read the minutes from the constitutional convention in Philadelphia. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Do all of that FIRST, then open your mouth.
As I said before, senators were originally appointed by state governments. Making senators popularly elected (the 17th amendment) sure fucked things up. Before the change, the states themselves where the largest, most powerful, special interests in the federal government. Now we've got senators from Exxon, senators from the AFL-CIO, senators from the NEA, senators from Walmart. We lost a huge piece of populism when we switched the senator selection system. It suddenly became extremely easy to buy major influence in Washington. Prior to the 17th amendment, the best any company could do was to buy some state officials from one or more of 50 states and they could also buy a couple of congressman. Basically, it was much harder and much more expensive to buy major influence in Washington.
The electoral college is the last tiny vestige of federalism. Without it, the state government will be completely subsumed by the federal government. So much for the fucking Constitution.
Popular elections result in the tyranny of the 50% + 1. I personally don't give a shit if candidates actually visit our state. Their campaign still has a presence and there is always active organizing going on. We are never ignored.
Go review your history, then form an opinion. Please.
Posted by: blindman on April 29, 2009 07:59 PM"...It's a clean government state," Koza said of Washington
My sides hurt I'm laughing so hard.
Posted by: blindman on April 29, 2009 08:02 PMFor starters, because voting rights and eligibilities differ from state to state. Someone that isn't eligible to cast a vote in Montana might be eligibile to do so in Connecticut, etc. See the ensuing legal quagmire?
This is a stupid idea on its face, which is why I'm not surprised Ms. Gregoire and the legislature signed off on it.
Wouldn't it be better if people voted for president?
Last time I checked, they still did. With the states delegating their votes accordingly, every state citizen has met the legal criteria for voting legally (of course with the exception of King County, where they don't care if it's legal or not, as long as it goes to the Democrat party).
Posted by: Rick D. on April 29, 2009 08:05 PMRight now, your vote really doesn't count for much (I'm assuming you live in Washington). Candidates pretty much write you off and concentrate on states where the outcome is more uncertain. Under a popular vote system, they have the same incentive to win your vote as they do for anyone else in any other state.
Posted by: scottd on April 29, 2009 08:23 PMLast time I checked, they still did.
By the way, that's not true. Under the current system, people vote for electors and electors vote for president. I'm sure Pudge will be happy to explain it.
Those "minor" variations are the difference between someone being able to cast a ballot in Montana, or not being able to cast one 600 miles away in Washington state for the same election. Are they any less of a "person" in one state and not the other? This would be an "equal protection" clause mess sure to muddy the waters with respect to the "one person/one vote" argument.
...nor have you explained the "legal quagmire" that could erupt.
You don't see a "legal quagmire" forming when someone who's not eligible in Montana to vote but that same person would be eligibile if he were to be in Washington state, Scott? I think it's pretty self-evident how much of a quagmire this proposed plan would be.
I agree with you though, that my vote doesn't count for much in this state as it is Deep blue bordering on Purple.
That said, I see this as more stemming from Al Gore's electoral college loss in 2000 and the inability of the left to move on from its defeat despite him winning in the popular vote. This idea isn't based on rationality, but some base emotion to set "things right". Turn the page already.
I guess in the end, I trust the founders of this country over some short-sighted,knee jerk reaction by a relative few that feel slighted because an election didn't go their way almost 10 years ago.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 29, 2009 08:51 PMRegarding the founding fathers -- they didn't think you should be able to vote for your senators either. Personally, I prefer to way we do that now.
Posted by: scottd on April 29, 2009 08:59 PMArgument of semantics. You still "vote" for the president (remember those hanging chads in Florida in 2000?), it's just done indirectly rather than directly.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 29, 2009 09:04 PMIf people were voting for president, we'd just add up their votes and award the office to the person who got the most votes. That's not what we do right now.
Posted by: scottd on April 29, 2009 09:10 PMThis does not disagree with what I actually wrote.
scottd: Why is this a bad thing?
Because the electoral college is a much better system. As much as I love the topic, however, I don't have time right now to debate it.
The way things stand, if you're a conservative in Washington state, your vote for president really doesn't count for much because the Democratic candidate can pretty much count on carrying the state
The same goes for EVERYONE in Washington state, by the same logic.
I'm sure Pudge will be happy to explain it.
I would, but I'll just note that I agree with you on that point. :-)
deadwood: This will voided the first time a Republican wins the popular vote.
What I find sadly humorous is that many people seem to support this because Gore would have won. There's two problems with this.
First, it's very possibly not true: the vote was so close that if we actually HAD a popular vote in 2000, the fact of having it could have changed the outcome (as scottd noted, in some states your vote "counts" more than in others, and so people are more or less likely to vote depending on where they live etc., and a national popular vote can change voting patterns enough to make a difference in a close election).
Second, by the same logic, if a relative handul of votes in Ohio had switched in 2004, then Kerry would have won the electoral college, but Bush still would have won the popular vote, and states like CA and WA (under this plan) would have ended up handing the presidency to Bush despite voting strongly against him.
Some people don't care, and really do believe we should have a national popular vote. If they really believe that, regardless of blind partisanship, fine. I still think it's wrongheaded though.
swell.
Why? Because you say so!
I suppose everyone's entitled to his opinion -- but I suspect plenty of people will disagree with you. Personally, I think if more of us prefer one candidate over another, then that candidate should be elected. It's a principle that works fine for every other office -- why not the most important one?
Candidates pretty much write you off and concentrate on states where the outcome is more uncertain. Under a popular vote system, they have the same incentive to win your vote as they do for anyone else in any other state.
Not at all... In fact, we'd be even more marginalized. Why spend your time trying to get a few million votes in WA or OR or ID? Spend your time in LA, NYC, Chicago, Philly, Houston, Dallas, and the other top-20 cities. They contain enough votes to win.
Right now, they HAVE to pay attention to the smaller states simply because of the allocation of electors because of the Senator allocation. If it went to popular vote you could stay in CA, NY, TX, and Florida and cover more than enough votes needed to win (100 million people live in those states).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 29, 2009 09:45 PMI hope he succeeds (for all our sakes).
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on April 29, 2009 09:50 PMLOL! The electoral is a much better system.
Why is that funny?
Why? Because you say so!
What part of "As much as I love the topic, however, I don't have time right now to debate it" do you not get? Do you really think I have no reasons why? It's an involved topic, and I don't have time to do it justice. Here's just a few of my thoughts on the topic from a couple of years ago.
I suppose everyone's entitled to his opinion -- but I suspect plenty of people will disagree with you.
Shrug. Many people think many things. So what?
Personally, I think if more of us prefer one candidate over another, then that candidate should be elected. It's a principle that works fine for every other office -- why not the most important one?
Yes, that is the question you should be asking. Why do you think we have the Electoral College in the first place? If your answer to that question does not answer the question you asked above, then you need to do some more reading. Our Founders thought of and discussed that very topic.
Such a law is a direct assault on our founding principles, our republic, and states rights. Any "lunatic" who voted for such a change should be run out of the state, let alone office.
Posted by: Reality on April 29, 2009 10:02 PMMy point is that the founding fathers weren't infallible. They had many good ideas, and some ideas that were good at the time but became outdated, and other ideas that were simply bad. But one of their best ideas was creating a system that can change.
Part of that change process includes actions now being taken in response to a growing disenchantment with the Electoral College. For me, that disenchantment can be best summarized by noting that I don't think a person who happens to live in Wyoming should have more influence in selecting our president than I do. You appear to think that's OK.
I'm happy to see that our elected state legislators happen to agree with me, maybe even because they think my opinion is in the majority. Your recourse is to try electing representatives who agree with you. I wish you luck -- but not too much.
Posted by: scottd on April 29, 2009 10:36 PMAnd you prefer the tyrrany of, say, 49%? The way to prevent tyranny is to have constitutional checks against abuse of power (as well as citizens and institutions who defend the system), not to give more voting power to some citizens than others.
Rick@7 writes, "voting rights and eligibilities differ from state to state. Someone that isn't eligible to cast a vote in Montana might be eligibile to do so in Connecticut, etc. See the ensuing legal quagmire?"
No. It is unfair to have different voting rules, but that problem is just as great with the electoral college as with a popular vote. Why is it worse to equate popular votes, cast under slightly different rules, than to equate electoral votes, which are based on popular votes that were cast under slightly different rules? Anyway, there is absolutely no legal "quagmire" in either case, and you certainly haven't shown one.
Marmstro@21 writes, "It means instead of policing your states election for a fair and honest count from legal voters, you will rely on other states to do that work for you."
In presidential elections, states already are affected by other states' election behavior, but we have no control over it. I don't see how that will change under the popular vote system.
Michele@10 blithers, We are a collection of states, Ms. Gregoire. Remember that. 50 separate elections and all that??
And we are a collection of counties that administer separate elections, but what does that have to do with the best way to choose a president? State boundaries are arbitrary, so why should they matter so much in choosing the president? Sure, the constitution tells us to, but (a) that doesn't mean it's wise and (b) rules like the ones WA just adopted comply with the constitution, albeit in a way that the founders never foresaw.
And you say we're a collection of states. Well, we're also a collection of religions. Why not choose president by giving each religion 1 vote? Christians get 1, Jews get 1, Muslims get 1, etc. How does that sound?
Marge@12 writes, "Wyoming might as well disappear. Just as King county has more power over less densely populated eastern Washington."
Au contraire, Wyoming, as a solid red state, is irrelevant to presidential campaigns today; it would be one of the states to benefit under a popular vote system. Still, Wyoming will have less weight than Washington, as Spokane has less weight than Seattle, because fewer people live there. Why should someone in Wyoming get more voting power than someone in Washington? Why should someone in Spokane get more voting power than someone in Seattle?
Pudge@19 writes, "Why is this a bad thing? Because the electoral college is a much better system. As much as I love the topic, however, I don't have time right now to debate it."
That's your right, but not exactly a compelling argument, and a bit odd after you started the debate in the first place. But I'm sure we'll learn your reasoning eventually.
Pudge@19 goes on to say, "The same (their vote not counting) goes for EVERYONE in Washington state, by the same logic."
Absolutely. Presidential candidates care about WA only for the money we can donate.
Doug@23 writes, "Time for another initiative to fix this."
Perhaps. I suspect that most Americans would prefer a popular vote to a system that most of them don't even understand. But electoral college supporters can certainly confuse people about the mathematics of voting power, a subject that is far more complex than it appears on the surface. So the national debate will be interesting.
Dan@25 writes, "we'd be even more marginalized. Why spend your time trying to get a few million votes in WA or OR or ID? Spend your time in LA, NYC, Chicago, Philly, Houston, Dallas, and the other top-20 cities. They contain enough votes to win."
Actually, the 20 biggest cities contain 11% of the US population, but who's counting? Anyway, if you get more than half the people in the country to vote for you, why shouldn't you be president? We choose our governors and other elected officials by popular vote; why not president?
You didn't read the rest of my comment; you only need four states - which contain those big cities - to carry half the votes.
Why should WA have any vote, then? I mean, CA, NY, FL, and TX have enough population (100 million) to pretty much elect a President. Why should the other 46 (or 53, if you're the Obamassiah) states even have votes?
And why should we choose the President the same way as the Governor or other elected officials?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 29, 2009 10:49 PMThen you don't need me to explain why we don't have direct election of the President.
I don't find arguments in favor of the Electoral College persuasive
Fine, but your dismissive tone ("LOL" and "Why? Because you say so!") make it seem like you think those arguments do not exist.
Regardless of their reasons, they were also smart enough to create a system that could evolve over time and be more or less responsive to changes demanded by the people.
And they also required a long, deliberate, and supermajority process to make such changes. While this is not an unconstitutional plan, it is certainly an anti-constitutional and undemocratic plan.
It's a good thing they did -- otherwise we'd still have ... US Senators selected by our state legislators other than by direct election.
I wish we did still have that.
My point is that the founding fathers weren't infallible.
But neither should their reasoning be derisively laughed at.
They had many good ideas, and some ideas that were good at the time but became outdated, and other ideas that were simply bad.
If you want to convince anyone here, you're going to need to address the reasons WHY they gave us an electoral college, and why you think they were wrong.
For me, that disenchantment can be best summarized by noting that I don't think a person who happens to live in Wyoming should have more influence in selecting our president than I do. You appear to think that's OK.
False. I think that WYOMING should have three votes, and that WASHINGTON should have 11 votes.
a bit odd after you started the debate in the first place
No, I did not. Please stop misrepresenting me. All I did was state unassailably true facts (such as the fact that Gregoire signed a law surrendering Washington State's right to vote for President). The debate (perhaps inevitably) started following this, and not by me.
There's nothing anti-constitutional about efforts to elect the president via popular vote. The efforts underway fall within the framework of federal and state constitutional law. How can that be anti-constitutional?
As for it being antidemocratic -- that's just silly. By definition, there's nothing more democratic than having the people directly electing their political leaders.
If you want to convince anyone here, you're going to need to address the reasons WHY they gave us an electoral college, and why you think they were wrong.
Actually, I don't need to convince anyone here. My guess is, I already have enough people who agree with me. We'll see :-)
And would you agree that people in states that are about evenly divided politically have more influence in presidential elections than people in states that are solidly Democratic or Republican?
If either or both of those statements is true, do you think that's a good thing?
That those statements are clearly true is, to me, a powerful argument against the electoral college.
You want us to address the reasons why we have an electoral college. Sure. Originally, as you know, the USA functioned more as a collection of states than a cohesive nation. Also, most citizens were not trusted by the framers to vote. I'm not sure whether they were wrong then, but I am sure that those arguments are wrong now. I know you wish we could return to that model and this is such a matter of faith with you that it's hard to imagine your mind being changed. But as a matter of practical reality, we function more as a single nation than as a collection of states today, and most Americans believe that everyone should have equal say in who is president. For the past century or so, the electoral college has functioned mainly to add a large element of inequality and randomness into the election process without, on balance, favoring either party. It's disgraceful that we would allow our choice of president to be affected with such inequality and randomness.
Posted by: Bruce on April 30, 2009 12:00 AMHope doesn't solve problems. Principled application of the correct principles, in the hands of those who know who to apply them solves problems.
Good luck, because it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better now that the mob has had their say.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 30, 2009 12:12 AMI said anti-constitutional, not unconstitutional. Unconstitutional means that it violates the letter of the law. Anti-constitutional means it violates the spirit of the law.
As you noted, the Constitution allows for itself to be changed. The method it uses for this is amendments. Amendments require a two-thirds majority of states or of both houses of the legislature. The founders obviously wanted a clear and decisive supermajority in favor of any changes.
However, you want to substantively change how the country elects its President with less than a majority of states.
I can't see how anyone could think this is NOT anti-constitutional.
As for it being antidemocratic -- that's just silly. By definition, there's nothing more democratic than having the people directly electing their political leaders.
I said undemocratic. And it's not the "popular vote" that I am saying is undemocratic, it is the method being used to achieve it, as described above.
The irony is thick. You are relying on a republican system -- a majority of the electoral college, which you say does not represent the democratic will of the people -- to achieve election by popular vote. If you believed so strongly in popular vote, wouldn't you want this to be supported by an actual majority of people rather than an electoral-college majority of legislatures?
Your main argument is that the electoral college system is not fair because some people have more say than others, because minorities can have their will done, etc., so therefore neither is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact itself fair. Every single criticism of the voting method used in the electoral college system also applies to the interstate compact itself.
I called it ironic; some might call it downright hypocritical. That is to say, you're using whatever system you can to get what you want -- a national democratic vote for President -- even if you believe that system itself is undemocratic.
Actually, I don't need to convince anyone here.
I never said you did. I said if you WANT to do so, you need to actually address the REASONS WHY we have the system, instead of simply saying you prefer a popular vote.
Our constitution provides for an Electoral College but leaves it up to the states to determine some of the rules that direct how their electors should vote. It makes sense for a state to craft these rules in a manner that is advantageous to the residents of the state. Right now, the state of Washington directs its electors to cast their votes in accordance with the popular vote of the state residents. This system puts our state at a disadvantage because the collective will of our electorate has a disproportionately lower influence on the selection of the president in comparison to smaller states -- that is, disproportionate when considering the relative numbers of voters in each state.
Our elected representatives have now wisely decided to attempt to remedy this state of affairs by working with other like-minded states to form a pact that will use their electors to create a system whereby our residents would have a higher proportionate influence on presidential elections than we now have. Good for them. They are acting in the best interests of me and other Washington state residents.
Contrary to pudge's headline, the state is not surrendering the right to vote for president. The state is retaining that right -- indeed, it cannot abdicate this right without an amendment to the US Constitution. The state is just replacing one set of rules for how it allocates its electoral votes for another. In my opinion, this new set of rules improves our state's influence. Pudge may disagree, but he and other like-minded individuals will have to convince a lot of other people to agree with him if he wants to stop this from happening. My guess is he is going to be disappointed.
Pudge, would you agree that people in smaller states have more influence in presidential elections, on average, than people in larger states?
No.
And would you agree that people in states that are about evenly divided politically have more influence in presidential elections than people in states that are solidly Democratic or Republican?
No.
You want us to address the reasons why we have an electoral college. Sure. Originally, as you know, the USA functioned more as a collection of states than a cohesive nation.
Yes, that is what the Constitution says. And?
Also, most citizens were not trusted by the framers to vote.
And?
I'm not sure whether they were wrong then, but I am sure that those arguments are wrong now.
No. The former is absolutely correct now, as it always has been. It's a fact. You don't like the fact that it's a fact, but that doesn't change that it's a fact.
And the latter about people not being "trusted," this has not changed either; we still recognize that most people are ignorant and cannot be trusted. What HAS changed is that we no longer operate under the illusion that some OTHER people CAN be trusted.
However, you miss many of the other points fhr Founders made. Since you are so certain they are wrong, surely you know what they are and I won't insult you by enumerating them for you.
as a matter of practical reality, we function more as a single nation than as a collection of states today
Only to the extent that the Constitution is being violated to that end. Which is obviously a bad thing. But no, despite the fact that you see more national than local news on your television, in fact, in Washington and most other states we function much more as one of many states than we do as part of a nation. The state legislature has much more involvement with our daily lives than the federal one does. The governor, much moreso than the President.
and most Americans believe that everyone should have equal say in who is president
Please do not make things up. It is not conducive to debate.
For the past century or so, the electoral college has functioned mainly to add a large element of inequality and randomness into the election process
Nonsense.
It's disgraceful that we would allow our choice of president to be affected with such inequality and randomness.
It's disgraceful that you would throw out such a completely unsubstantiated claim as the basis for your argument.
It makes sense for a state to craft these rules in a manner that is advantageous to the residents of the state.
And obviously, this law does not do so. It literally takes away the ability of the citizens of Washington to determine who gets their state's votes.
This system puts our state at a disadvantage because the collective will of our electorate has a disproportionately lower influence on the selection of the president in comparison to smaller states
False.
that is, disproportionate when considering the relative numbers of voters in each state.
Which is not, and should not be, the primary consideration.
Contrary to pudge's headline, the state is not surrendering the right to vote for president.
Yes, in fact, it is. It is handing the right of our state to vote over to another group.
it cannot abdicate this right without an amendment to the US Constitution
Obviously, that is not the sense I meant it. It is delegating that right to the complete control of another group. It can reclaim that right, but under this law, if it goes into effect, our state will not determine where its own votes go. Some other group will do so for us.
Pudge may disagree, but he and other like-minded individuals will have to convince a lot of other people to agree with him if he wants to stop this from happening.
Right, and you are just backing up my case that this is anti-constitutional. It should be YOU who have to convince a lot of other people to agree with you: two-thirds of the state legislatures or two-thirds of both federal houses. That is how we make changes to the Constitution. And while you're not changing the letter of the Constitution, you absolutely are trying to change its substantive meaning and purpose.
But then, I am talking to people who don't like the Tenth Amendment, so they just ignore it. Your side literally disregards the LETTER of the law, so why should they care about its spirit?
I've given you reasons why the electoral college is bad, and I've addressed some of the reasons why we have it, as well as all of the arguments that have been cited by you and others in this thread. I've enjoyed this, because I like being forced to think through my positions rigorously. But I'll give up now, because I know I will never change your mind.
You believe that the fundamental role of the federal government today is both bad and unconstitutional. I am confident that few Americans agree with you, you won't be able to convince many Americans to agree with you, and you hurt your party by trying. But you are a principled fellow, and you will continue with your crusade. Good night for now.
Posted by: Bruce on April 30, 2009 12:53 AMAs you noted, the Constitution allows for itself to be changed.
Actually, I didn't limit myself to noting that only the Constitution can be changed. I was noting that our legal system, including the Constitution, contains provision for change. In this case, the Constitution doesn't require change.
Your main argument is that the electoral college system is not fair because some people have more say than others, because minorities can have their will done, etc., so therefore neither is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact itself fair.
I'm not following your argument. It's true that the electoral college system allows cases where the elected president is not the candidate prefered by the majority of voters. That's not true for the popular vote compact. So, it doesn't follow that the NPVIC is unfair if one considers the electoral college to be unfair.
I said undemocratic. And it's not the "popular vote" that I am saying is undemocratic, it is the method being used to achieve it, as described above.
My mistake -- you said undemocratic, not anti-democratic. But that doesn't change my argument. If a popular vote is not undemocratic, then the method used to achieve it cannot be undemocratic either. Any method that selects a political leader in conformance with the expressed preference of the majority of voters is, by definition, democratic. You may not like it, but it's not undemocratic.
Posted by: scottd on April 30, 2009 12:54 AMImagine a southern firebrand getting 70% of the votes in that region, and firmly winning 10 states, but 51% of the vote. But a lukewarm 45% from the rest of the country giving our loser 40 states, but only 49% of the popular vote.
I would be uncomfortable with one region tipping the scales to such a large degree.
Hairy
btw, don't try to make the numbers work with specific state, I was just off-the-topping. Look at the principle.
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on April 30, 2009 01:00 AMWell, it's a primary consideration for me and many others. Whether or not it should be is a matter of opinion.
Anyway, I agree with Bruce. I think you are a principled fellow -- if somewhat misguided :-)
Try not to assume too much about how I may feel about the 10th Amendment or anything else I haven't commented on.
Posted by: scottd on April 30, 2009 01:13 AMWell, technically, yes. But you act like that "other group" is some random, mysterious force. In fact, the "other group" is other states -- who will have agreed to let us help determine where their votes go, in exchange for our letting them help determine where our votes go, so that, in the end, the person most Americans vote for will become president.
You may oppose this for other reasons, but your argument that we are surrendering our franchise is flat-out wrong, not to mention ironic given our state's practical irrelevance in recent presidential elections.
Posted by: Bruce on April 30, 2009 01:24 AMIf a "firebrand" were truly bad for the country, I would expect them to get a lot less than 45% outside their base.
Posted by: Bruce on April 30, 2009 01:36 AMWhy should someone in Ohio or Florida have more of a say in who becomes president than someone in California or New York. I have met so many urbanite, passive Republicans, who simply can't be bothered to vote because their vote "doesn't matter." Of course, I can make a convoluted argument to them about how their vote does matter, but that argument is just that: convoluted.
Posted by: AD on April 30, 2009 03:35 AMExplain to us then how a national runoff would work under a NPV system if we used it here, Bruce.
How many articles did they have informing the public of this attack on the US Constitution by state Democrats?
None? Are you serious? One letter to the editor, but not a single story on this giveaway of Washington's presidential vote to states like California and New York?
Oh, but the Times thought it newsworthy enough to report on Gregoire's signing of the bill yesterday - too late for anyone to develop the outrage necessary to fight this insanity.
Nice job Times. I think we'd all be better off if you were out of business too.
And for anyone who doesn't think about media bias in omission of news, here is a fantastic example how the media can demonstrate its bias by simply failing to report on a critical public issue until it is too late.
Posted by: Reality on April 30, 2009 06:43 AMI'd encourage people that think a popular vote is the way to elect the president to visit your local library and read, "The Case Against the Direct Election of the President" by Judith Best.
If you think "mob rule" is the appropriate way to govern, why didn't the citizens of Washington get to vote on what Gov. Gregoire just signed into law?
Posted by: Smoley on April 30, 2009 07:42 AMAlmost as unlikely as the 3 times in our history that the electoral college winner wasn't also the popular vote winner.
To make a long mathematical analysis short and simple: the electoral college combined with winner takes all rules in the states plays a key role in the consistency of the peaceful transfer power.
What we found was that if you take all of possible outcomes of the electoral college, there are very, very few outcomes where the margin of victory is close (say After reading all of these responses, I'm surprised to see how dismissive of the electoral college people really are. When I was at the UW, I took a statistics course where we analyzed the statistical "nature" of the electoral college...the results really opened my eyes to how fiendishly clever it is.
To make a long mathematical analysis short and simple: the electoral college combined with winner takes all rules in the states plays a key role in the consistency of the peaceful transfer power.
What we found was that if you take all of possible outcomes of the electoral college, there are very, very few outcomes where the margin of victory is close (say After reading all of these responses, I'm surprised to see how dismissive of the electoral college people really are. When I was at the UW, I took a statistics course where we analyzed the statistical "nature" of the electoral college...the results really opened my eyes to how fiendishly clever it is.
To make a long mathematical analysis short and simple: the electoral college combined with winner takes all rules in the states plays a key role in the consistency of the peaceful transfer power.
What we found was that if you take all of possible outcomes of the electoral college, there are very, very few outcomes where the margin of victory is close (say After reading all of these responses, I'm surprised to see how dismissive of the electoral college people really are. When I was at the UW, I took a statistics course where we analyzed the statistical "nature" of the electoral college...the results really opened my eyes to how fiendishly clever it is.
To make a long mathematical analysis short and simple: the electoral college combined with winner takes all rules in the states plays a key role in the consistency of the peaceful transfer power.
What we found was that if you take all of possible outcomes of the electoral college, there are very, very few outcomes where the margin of victory is close (say After reading all of these responses, I'm surprised to see how dismissive of the electoral college people really are. When I was at the UW, I took a statistics course where we analyzed the statistical "nature" of the electoral college...the results really opened my eyes to how fiendishly clever it is.
To make a long mathematical analysis short and simple: the electoral college combined with winner takes all rules in the states plays a key role in the consistency of the peaceful transfer power.
What we found was that if you take all of possible outcomes of the electoral college, there are very, very few outcomes where the margin of victory is close (say After reading all of these responses, I'm surprised to see how dismissive of the electoral college people really are. When I was at the UW, I took a statistics course where we analyzed the statistical "nature" of the electoral college...the results really opened my eyes to how fiendishly clever it is.
To make a long mathematical analysis short and simple: the electoral college combined with winner takes all rules in the states plays a key role in the consistency of the peaceful transfer power.
What we found was that if you take all of possible outcomes of the electoral college, there are very, very few outcomes where the margin of victory is close (say After reading all of these responses, I'm surprised to see how dismissive of the electoral college people really are. When I was at the UW, I took a statistics course where we analyzed the statistical "nature" of the electoral college...the results really opened my eyes to how fiendishly clever it is.
To make a long mathematical analysis short and simple: the electoral college combined with winner takes all rules in the states plays a key role in the consistency of the peaceful transfer power.
What we found was that if you take all of possible outcomes of the electoral college, there are very, very few outcomes where the margin of victory is close (say After reading all of these responses, I'm surprised to see how dismissive of the electoral college people really are. When I was at the UW, I took a statistics course where we analyzed the statistical "nature" of the electoral college...the results really opened my eyes to how fiendishly clever it is.
To make a long mathematical analysis short and simple: the electoral college combined with winner takes all rules in the states plays a key role in the consistency of the peaceful transfer power.
What we found was that if you take all of possible outcomes of the electoral college, there are very, very few outcomes where the margin of victory is close (say
As much as some of you think that is "randomness" it isn't. In physics this is call a low band pass filter. The small, high frequency noise is filtered out, leaving only large swings in amplitude.
I know that some of you don't understand why this is important and I'm sorry for you. But the results from history support the statistics. We have had 46 peaceful transfers of power. Only 4 times in American history has there been a disparity between the electoral college and the popular vote, and even then, two of those instances were under dubious circumstances.
From a practical matter, creating large margins of victory creates a clear winner. I would argue that that is essential to making the process peaceful. Case in point: President Obama. The difference in the popular vote was ~7% but at the electoral college level it was ~35%. With a 35% margin of victory, people are forced to move on.
If we switch to a popular vote system, the way our country is polarized will results in many more elections being won by razor thin margins. We'll have countless more "2000 style" elections. That will be great for the union.
Posted by: blindman on April 30, 2009 08:00 AMTo make a long mathematical analysis short and simple: the electoral college combined with winner takes all rules in the states plays a key role in the consistency of the peaceful transfer power.
What we found was that if you take all of possible outcomes of the electoral college, there are very, very few outcomes where the margin of victory is close (say After reading all of these responses, I'm surprised to see how dismissive of the electoral college people really are. When I was at the UW, I took a statistics course where we analyzed the statistical "nature" of the electoral college...the results really opened my eyes to how fiendishly clever it is.
To make a long mathematical analysis short and simple: the electoral college combined with winner takes all rules in the states plays a key role in the consistency of the peaceful transfer power.
What we found was that if you take all of possible outcomes of the electoral college, there are very, very few outcomes where the margin of victory is close (say
As much as some of you think that is "randomness" it isn't. In physics this is call a low band pass filter. The small, high frequency noise is filtered out, leaving only large swings in amplitude.
I know that some of you don't understand why this is important and I'm sorry for you. But the results from history support the statistics. We have had 46 peaceful transfers of power. Only 4 times in American history has there been a disparity between the electoral college and the popular vote, and even then, two of those instances were under dubious circumstances.
From a practical matter, creating large margins of victory creates a clear winner. I would argue that that is essential to making the process peaceful. Case in point: President Obama. The difference in the popular vote was ~7% but at the electoral college level it was ~35%. With a 35% margin of victory, people are forced to move on.
If we switch to a popular vote system, the way our country is polarized will results in many more elections being won by razor thin margins. We'll have countless more "2000 style" elections. That will be great for the union.
Posted by: blindman on April 30, 2009 08:02 AMDone..done... Done...
This kind of madness of throwing away wisdom dooms us to death.
All rationality has been replaced by a self centeredness that violent opposes liberty, life and the rule of law. The Kings and Queens and the royal courts just game the systems while the street thugs go around and threaten us all with conformity to it.
BTW to the US Military you are to sit this one out..please vote but ignore unlawful orders to shoot and kill us. The Constitution is not a license to kill citizens that are not violently overthrowing anything...the current American will still exist! Just smaller. If you really think about it they are actively engaged in a violent overthrow...just don't shoot them. We'll settle this with the precious vote they so want to protect.
Funny thing about this vote the left can't throw the outcome! Some of us are leaving!
Oh and the real America; ya that is the one that will have the good military.
Folks this is much cheaper way out of the lack of training the left has grown up with. Otherwise in about a generation or two the vacuum they are creating will be filled with much deeper darkness one even they could not imagine.
At least we'll have a chance to defend our borders.
Have faith.
My conclusion then and still is- keep the system as is.
Gore v. Bush- if the game or contest was who wins the popular vote, there would have been more cash spent in New York and California by Bush and more money by Gore in Texas. They both played by the rules of the game.
I think you get more play if you go with the electoral system. FYI, Obama used this strategery to great effect when he went after the primary votes in podunk states whereas Hillary Clinton concentrated on the big guys. Before she got the picture, Obama had it sewed up. I think the system is great for the republic and most fair to all concerned.
However, I do somewhat agree with the general philosophy of the winner of the popular vote getting the nod.
Posted by: swatter on April 30, 2009 08:13 AMAfter reading all of these responses, I'm surprised to see how dismissive of the electoral college people really are. Constitutional reasons aside, there are practical reasons in favor of the electoral college too. When I was at the UW, I took a statistics course where we analyzed the statistical "nature" of the electoral college...the results really opened my eyes to how fiendishly clever it is.
To make a long mathematical analysis short and simple: the electoral college combined with winner takes all rules in the states plays a key role in the consistency of the peaceful transfer power.
What we found was that if you take all of possible outcomes of the electoral college, there are very, very few outcomes where the margin of victory is close (say
As much as some of you think that is "randomness" it isn't. In physics this is call a low band pass filter. The small, high frequency noise is filtered out, leaving only large swings in amplitude.
I know that some of you don't understand why this is important and I'm sorry for you. But the results from history support the statistics. We have had 46 peaceful transfers of power. Only 4 times in American history has there been a disparity between the electoral college and the popular vote, and even then, two of those instances were under dubious circumstances.
From a practical matter, creating large margins of victory creates a clear winner. I would argue that that is essential to making the process peaceful. Case in point: President Obama. The difference in the popular vote was ~7% but at the electoral college level it was ~35%. With a 35% margin of victory, people are forced to move on.
If we switch to a popular vote system, the way our country is polarized will results in many more elections being won by razor thin margins. We'll have countless more "2000 style" elections. That will be great for the union.
Posted by: blindman on April 30, 2009 08:22 AMI don't know what would happen in the disaster scenario -- a certain amount of chaos most likely -- but I'm sure our legal system would provide some means to deal with it and we'd muddle through somehow.
If you want to worry about these things, be my guest. Both systems -- popular vote and electoral college -- have extremely unlikely scenarios that lead to currently undefined results.
Since you brought up the notion of a legal quagmire, I was wondering if you could describe at least one scenario for such a quagmire that has a better than a one-in-a-billion chance of happening in the next one hundred years -- that is, a scenario that would exist under the popular vote compact that doesn't have a similar likelihood of happening under the electoral college.
Posted by: scottd on April 30, 2009 08:29 AMCare to address some of the issues regarding the the stability of the NVP in the election process in my post @ 57?
Posted by: Rick D. on April 30, 2009 08:41 AMHere's what would happen in a "statistical tie": The winner would be the person who got the most votes. That's how it is now and that's how it would be. See how simple it is?
If the vote was really close (something that becomes more unlikely as the total number of votes increases), there'd probably be some legal wrangling as candidates attempted to show that they actually received the largest number of legal votes -- but that's no different from the way it is now.
Still waiting for that legal quagmire scenario...
Posted by: scottd on April 30, 2009 09:12 AMit can be proven mathematically that the two statements I asked you about -- which you said were false -- are true.
False. You used terms which have only subjective meaning; in particular, "more influence." You also engaged in question-begging, as your questions basically assumed that people vote for President (as this appears to be what you meant by "influence"), when they don't.
And polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans support scrapping the electoral college.
No, they don't.
I've given you reasons why the electoral college is bad
Not really, no. You've given reasons why you don't like it; you've not given any reasons why it is bad.
and I've addressed some of the reasons why we have it
Not the most important ones.
as well as all of the arguments that have been cited by you and others in this thread
But not by the Founders. And since you are so certain the electoral college is bad, you obviously already know the reasons why we have it, so I don't need to cite them for you. Please understand that you are undermining yourself by essentially conceding that you don't know all the reasons why we have the electoral college.
Well, technically, yes.
Right.
But you act like that "other group" is some random, mysterious force.
No, I act like it is not us our our representatives. Which it isn't.
You may oppose this for other reasons, but your argument that we are surrendering our franchise is flat-out wrong
Nope. It's obviously and unassailably true.
Imagine a wacko getting 51% of the vote in just over half the states, but virtually none of the vote in the rest of the country. Under the electoral college system, that candidate could win with just over 25% of the population behind them.
Do you think this is a reason why this method does not well-represent the people, and should not be used for our governance?
Posted by: pudge on April 30, 2009 09:19 AMHowso?
Why should someone in Ohio or Florida have more of a say in who becomes president than someone in California or New York.
They don't.
cliff: I'm 99% sure this would not survive a Constitutional challenge. It's almost assuredly pre-empted by federal law.
I've never heard of any such law possible. Indeed, the Constitution gives the state legislatures the power to determine allocation of their Electoral College votes, and a federal law limiting that power would likely be unconstitutional.
I do believe strongly in electing the president via popular vote -- so strongly that I would advocate the most effective lawful and constitutional means of achieving this.
Yes. Again, that is what many would call hypocrisy.
Amending the US Constitution is one way to do this, but it is more difficult to achieve
That's the point, yes.
and it provides an undue influence from a minority of people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo
No, it does not do any such thing.
Instead, I advocate that our state pursue a lawful strategy of allocating its electoral votes in a way that causes the president to be elected that is consistent with the will of the majority of US voters
And you advocate doing so using the exact method of representation that you REJECT as reflecting the will of the voters. Therefore, hypocrisy.
There's nothing hypocritical about chosing a lawful strategy that is more likely to work than another.
Yes, there is, when that "strategy" is exactly what you are railing against.
I'm not following your argument. It's true that the electoral college system allows cases where the elected president is not the candidate prefered by the majority of voters. That's not true for the popular vote compact.
The interstate compact would not result in a President chosen by a minority of voters, but the compact ITSELF can be chosen, and forced upon the nation, by a (very small) minority of voters. Which YOU assert is WRONG. Yet you're doing it anyway.
So, it doesn't follow that the NPVIC is unfair if one considers the electoral college to be unfair.
Yes, it absolutely does. Look, I'll spell it out for you: 270 electoral college votes are needed to win the Presidency. This represents half the total EC votes, plus one. In order to implement the interstate compact, you only need a simple majority of enough state legislatures to get to 270. So let's say you get 270 EC votes exactly, and 60 percent on average of each of those states supporting it. That still leaves all the other states, which may oppose it at a rate of 70 percent.
If that happens, obviously, you have the interstate compact being forced on the nation by a MINORITY of voters. Which YOU say is BAD. But which YOU say is GOOD for YOUR purposes. Which means YOU are being HYPOCRITICAL.
If a popular vote is not undemocratic, then the method used to achieve it cannot be undemocratic either.
Obviously false. If the Supreme Court were to tomorrow throw out the electoral college, that would be absolutely anti-constitutional and undemocratic. Thankfully, I don't believe our court is that activist.
And this interstate compact is similar.
Further, many people WILL NOT KNOW that there IS a de facto "popular vote," and won't vote that way. More reason why what you're doing is undemocratic.
Try not to assume too much about how I may feel about the 10th Amendment or anything else I haven't commented on.
I did not assume anything about how YOU feel about the Tenth Amendment. Please note how I worded what I said. I was using collective nouns, and said "your side," not "you."
Rick: Presidential elections don't have runoffs -- not now and not under the proposed popular vote compact. See, no quagmire.
As unlikely as a tie is (and you're right, it is much more unlikely than a lack of EC majority or an EC majority "contradicting" the "popular vote"), there MUST be a provision for it, else it is irresponsible (not that it isn't irresponsible in many ways anyway).
And in fact, in the event of a tie, the states do revert to the old method, which is insanity. Now you have people voting for TWO DIFFERENT THINGS with ONE single vote. Campaigns running a campaign looking for one method of selecting a President, when it could end up being another. Utter nonsense.
I never even got into the technical problems of this interstate compact, but they are legion. Our Constitution, for example, requires that in a given election, everyone's vote is treated equally. On a national level, we have no possible way to make this happen. It's hard enough at a state level.
You're exactly correct. Given there are about 180 million eligible voters in the US, and about 60% of them turn out to vote, that means we have 110 million votes cast.
You win a majority of CA, NY, TX, FL, and IL and you win the nation. Suddenly the election is only about 5 states rather than 50. Why go to WY, ID, MT, or WA? Not enough votes to worry about it.
I guess those arguing for a popular election are willing to turn their votes over to those 5 states and trust them to make the right decisions.
That takes a lot of HOPE about CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 30, 2009 09:24 AMI consider a contested election a non-peaceful transfer of power, even though nobody gets hurt. Here's why: it would be a period of political weakness and instability that would have far reaching effects in the monetary and economic systems around the globe. One of the main reasons the United States is an economic powerhouse is because our political stability. There is a reason that many nations keep their bullion reserves in American bank vaults. Their reasoning is that if their bullion reserves are ever at risk, that means the United States is falling apart and if the United States is falling apart, the rest of the world is probably in worse shape.
The electoral college creates political stability. Our prosperity hinges on maintaining political stability. I don't want to risk that by entertaining your fetish for "fairness".
Why is it that there are so many people who fight for minority protections when we're talking about skin color, or economic class, but then turn around and insist that 50% + 1 must always be the rule when we're talking about political power? That is one of the major internal inconsistencies inside the liberal left.
(BTW, don't think I'm a Republican either. The GOP right now thinks that we should all have individual liberty so long as we don't want to exercise that liberty to partner in life with a person of the same sex. They're basically saying: "you're free...to do as we tell you!" Fuck that too.)
Posted by: blindman on April 30, 2009 09:31 AMI figured since information regarding an unlikely tie is available through a quick search of the "details of the compact law", you'd see that
In the extremely unlikely event of an exact tie in the national popular vote totals, each member state would award its electoral votes to the statewide winner, as is currently done in 48 states (Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes based on results at the congressional district level).
You then state:
Still waiting for that legal quagmire scenario...
after you've already provided in your previous paragraph.
If the vote was really close, there'd probably be some legal wrangling as candidates attempted to show that they actually received the largest number of legal votes
I noticed you've completely dodged the issues raised about the stability of the NPV interstate compact @ 57 and what blindman pointed out @ 65, but the morning is young and I'm sure you'll explain how we'd iron out those logistical scenarios.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 30, 2009 09:31 AMNow, let's say that if the election falls back to the electoral college system, your favorite candidate would get the majority of electoral votes. But the legal challenges continue and eventually the judges rule that there is no consideration for "statistical tie" in the law and therefore the contested votes putting the other candidate ahead means they win the election. What then? Will you sing a different tune?
Basically, what this whole compact law thing says is that we'll go with NPV unless that system fails, then we'll fall back to the system that has worked for 200+ years. That is wonderful fucking logic. Why not just stay with the system that has worked for 200+ years?
Don't be an idiot. You're embarrassing yourself and I don't have the stomach to watch it any longer.
Posted by: blindman on April 30, 2009 09:48 AMWhat the heck are they teaching in schools now?
The stupidity of it all... people so willingly ready to give up their rights.
Posted by: Gary on April 30, 2009 09:49 AMPudge, I've got to hand it to you - you've got an answer for EVERYthing.
No. There are many things I don't have an answer to. I usually don't comment on them. If you are talking about my certainty that my view is correct, well, I am no less certain than Bruce and scottd (or you) are, so who cares?
Should have been a politician...Oh wait you ARE, aren't you. [smile]
No, I'm not. Not by any commonly used definition of the word in this context. In the more broad sense, such as Billy Joel sang of in the Piano Man ("the waitress is practicing politics"), then yes, almost everyone is a politician. Some people use the term to mean anyone who is actively involved in politics, but by that definition, almost everyone HERE is a politician.
I have nothing against a republican form of government -- that is, a representative democracy where we elect representatives to create our laws and run our government. I'm sure you'd agree that a direct democracy would not be a practical way to legislate. I would only hope that the method of selecting our representatives is proportional to the number of people they represent. That may not be an exact proportionality, but the closer we can get to that, the better.
I also prefer that our representatives and executives be selected according to the majority of votes cast. There's no hypocrisy in prefering this method while still accepting the republican form of government. Would you say that it's hypocritical to prefer this method for selecting legislators and governors? You may not think this is a good method for selecting the president -- but those who prefer that method aren't hypocrites. They just disagree with you, usually for equally principled reasons.
blindman: It's hard to see how a close vote in any given state is more likely to lead to court challenges under NPV. For one thing, the majority outcome in a state wouldn't determine how their electors vote in the NPV system -- that depends on the nationwide majority.
However, under our current system, a close vote in a single state is more likely to lead to challenges because moving a few votes from one column to another could capture enough electors to win in the electoral college. That already happened in Florida (2000) and probably would have happened in 2004 if Kerry had won Ohio by a slim margin.
Since you've taken a course in statistics, here's some homework for you. Which has a greater probability -- a statistical tie in a nationwide election? Or, a statistical tie in at least one state?
Rick: I've tried to answer your question -- sorry if I wasn't clear to you, but it's the best I have. How about answering my question? Then we can talk some more.
Posted by: scottd on April 30, 2009 10:12 AM
They're teaching collectivism. The elimination of the individual in favor of those who control the majority.
It's been happening for decades. I got this shit from my teachers back in the 80's and 90's. Sadly, we're now seeing the fruits of their indoctrination through the collectivist politics that makes young people drunk with power (see: moveon.org).
Here's a sad tale from my personal experience if you care to listen:
I once had to take a "multicultural studies" (a.k.a. hate whitey) class as a graduation requirement in high school. It was being taught by Ron Sims' niece oddly enough. She was, and probably still is, "the moon landings were faked" believer. When she asked us to write our term papers about a struggle and achievement by a famous person or group that most inspired us, I wrote my paper about NASA in the 1960's and their struggle and achievement of land astronauts on the moon. It was a damn good paper, one of my best if I may say so, but she tried to fail me (and therefore prevent me from graduating) because I was "mocking" her. She kept going around and around about how "offensive" and "insensitive" I was being. Ultimately, after reading my paper and grading it herself, the Principal overruled her grade, giving me an A. It was my last semester in high school and that ***** almost ruined college for me just because I challenged her world view. I also think it was because I was male, white, successful (close to the top of my class, letterman in sports, eagle scout, etc), had been accepted to an elite university, and was probably the embodiment of everything she hates about this world--principally, that it still rigged to reward people who take risks and work their asses off.
Posted by: blindman on April 30, 2009 10:14 AMGotta run...
Posted by: scottd on April 30, 2009 10:23 AMI would only hope that the method of selecting our representatives is proportional to the number of people they represent. That may not be an exact proportionality, but the closer we can get to that, the better.
Sure. And YOUR method of achieving this -- of enacting the interstate compact -- represents precisely the level "nonproportionality" you are railing against. To enact the compact you favor, you are willing to accept not only nonproportionality, but minorities enforcing this over majorities who don't want it.
If you really believed in the principles you say the Electoral College does not represent, then shouldn't you at least demand more than 270 electoral votes to be represented in the compact before it goes into effect, so we can be much more certain that it is favored by most people?
I love the fact that the "queen" didn't think that the founding father's didn't already concider using the popular vote system to assign delegates, and ultimately dismissed it, as it would unfairly favor those in more populated urban areas, leaving rural areas without a voice in government. What has been done today is usher in mob rule.
I have a better idea. How about we weigh votes based on the individual voter's tax load. Then we would truly have fair government.
Posted by: Balkstar on April 30, 2009 10:26 AM
Hizzoner Mayor McJowls just took enterprise Parks money to satisfy his mis-management of city funds.
We need to rethink us all being politicians!
You mean other than the one you answered for yourself in the 3rd paragraph @ 70?
Good luck getting the remaining 77% needed to enact this inane proposal,scottd. The more Americans are exposed to just how many logistical holes this method has in it, the more unlikely they are to actually support its implementation. I also noticed that New Jersey is already in the process of possibly rescinding its membership into this NPV compact, so you might be down yet another 15 EV from the current 61 on board. One step forward, two steps back.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 30, 2009 10:32 AMSecond, this "compact" has not been approved by Congress and thus it will not stand in court.
The reason no one has done this yet is because there hasn't been a presidential election where it was attempted. When it is, it will be challenged and defeated.
Of course those wanting this can use Article V if they want get the same thing. But there is such a thing as procedure.
Posted by: Bill Walker on April 30, 2009 10:40 AMYou do realize if this were in place in 2004, you just voted for Bush.
Posted by: jimg on April 30, 2009 10:43 AMOne of the funny things about statistics is that sometimes the answer seems completely bass ackwards at first, but if you really understand the statistics you can see why the answer must be true. Case in point: the Monty Hall Problem.
So here's the bass ackwards, yet correct answer to your question restated above: there is no more statistical probability of one happening over the other. Another way to put it is that a statistical tie at the national level is equally as likely as a statistical tie in at least one state in our current two party system.
The reason is, if we continue to only have two major candidates, we can ignore the minor candidates and say that there are only two possible outcomes of each person's vote. If you were to poll every person, no matter the sample size (be it state sized or nation sized), you will find that the outcomes form a normal distribution (a.k.a a bell curve) with the middle, and most common outcomes being even splits. It is unimodal. You can confirm this by flipping a coin 10 times and tallying the heads and tails. Then if you repeat that process, say, 50 times (500 flips total), you will see that the histogram of which comes up more often, heads or tails, forms a normal, unimodal distribution. The most common outcomes are "statistical" ties. (see the law of large numbers) In a two choice poll, the mean is 50% and the law of large numbers ensures the stability of the mean.
On the other hand, the outcomes of the fiendish clever electoral college form a bimodal distribution where the most likely outcomes are wide margins of victory for one or the other candidate.
When you push for the NPV, you're fucking with a system that has worked for 200+ years without understanding the underlying mathematics for WHY it works.
Large margins of victory are GOOD. It makes for a clean, peaceful and orderly transfer of power. A national popular vote ENSURES that we will not enjoy any of that.
You see sottd, the founding fathers were correct about not trusting ignorant people with the power of a vote.
QED
Posted by: blindman on April 30, 2009 10:45 AMI took more than a course...I was an applied math major.
Posted by: blindman on April 30, 2009 10:56 AMSecond, this "compact" has not been approved by Congress and thus it will not stand in court.
Wrong, and wrong. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:
"The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."
According to a strict reading of the Constitution, the states can do what they like in terms of choosing Electors. Statewide popular elections of Electors is one possibility, but any other strategy is possible; note Maine and Nebraska have a slightly different system.
I don't like it myself, but this is because a close election would call for a *nationwide* recount, and more often than not a close election would be the reason why the Electoral College results would differ from the popular vote.
Posted by: demo kid on April 30, 2009 11:17 AMA survey of 800 Washington state voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 77% among independents, 85% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.
By age, support was 80% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 84% among women and 69% among men.
By race, support was 78% among whites (representing 87% of respondents), 57% among African-Americans (representing 4% of respondents), 60% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 78% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).
see www.NationalPopularVote.com
Posted by: mvymvy on April 30, 2009 11:19 AMAnother shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
Point? I'd guess that has more to do with a lack of understanding of the downsides than actual support of the principle.
Posted by: demo kid on April 30, 2009 11:21 AMEvery vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,659 state legislators — 763 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 896 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 27 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.
In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
If a "republican" form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a "democratic" method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.
Posted by: mvymvy on April 30, 2009 11:28 AMSo, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be "mob rule" in presidential elections, but whether the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. In 2004, candidates spent over two thirds of their visits and two-thirds of their money in just 6 states and 99% of their money in just 16 states, while ignoring the rest of the country.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
I'm missing your logical leap to mob rule when the votes are weighed proportionally, rather than disproportionally.
Posted by: BA on April 30, 2009 11:31 AMSmall states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York's use of winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming--both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically "radioactive" in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
It was never a popularity contest. It was a system for which the states would choose the executive for the union of states.
"This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections."
This is so unimpressive when one points out that it has only happened 4 times in over 200 years. It is not as statistically common as you want to make it seem.
My whole argument is that the upsides of the electoral college far outweigh the statistically uncommon case where there is a discrepancy between the popular vote and electoral college.
It is far more important to maintain quick and clean transfers of power than to invite chaos from endless legal challenges over popular vote outcomes and all of the mess that comes from statistical ties. There are always errors when sampling a population. If the margin of victory falls within the sampling error, you really can't be certain who won. The 2004 governor's election in our state is one example.
I agree with pudge (or maybe it was somebody else) that this is an emotional reaction to Gore losing in 2000 and nothing more. Emotions make for bad politics. Try to understand the mathematics and understand why the electoral college is an essential piece of our political stability.
Posted by: blindman on April 30, 2009 11:32 AMBecause so few of the 22 small and medium-small states are closely divided battleground states in presidential elections, the current system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states. The New York Times reported early in 2008 (May 11, 2008) that both major political parties were already in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008 (involving only 166 of the 538 electoral votes). In other words, three-quarters of the states were ignored under the current system in the 2008 election. Michigan (17 electoral votes), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and Florida (27) contain over half of the electoral votes that mattered in 2008 (85 of the 166 electoral votes). There were only three battleground states among the 22 small and medium-small states (i.e., New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada). These three states contain only 14 of the 166 electoral votes. Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red" states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.
Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate could win 100% of the votes in the nation's top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.
It has been argued by some that it is not permissible, under the Equal Protection clause, for some states to close their polls at 6 PM while others close at 9 PM ; for some states to conduct their election entirely by mail while other states conduct their (non-absentee) voting at the polls; and for some states to permit violent felons to vote while others prohibit it (absent a pardon). However, the U.S. Constitution does not require that the election laws of all 50 states are identical in virtually every respect. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only restricts a given state in the manner it treats persons "within its jurisdiction." The Equal Protection Clause imposes no obligation on a given state concerning a "person" in another state who is not "within its [the first state's] jurisdiction." State election laws are not identical now nor is there anything in the National Popular Vote compact that would force them to become identical. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution permits states to conduct elections in varied ways.
The National Popular Vote bill does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
Under the current system, there are 51 separate vote pools in every presidential election. Thus, our nation's 55 presidential elections have really been 2,084 separate elections. This is the reason why there have been five seriously disputed counts in the nation's 55 presidential elections. The 51 separate pools regularly create artificial crises in elections in which the vote is not at all close on a nationwide basis, but close in particular states.
A recount is not an unimaginable horror or logistical impossibility. A recount is a recognized contingency that is occasionally required (about once in 332 elections). All states routinely make arrangements for a recount in advance of every election. The personnel and resources necessary to conduct a recount are indigenous to each state. A state's ability to conduct a recount inside its own borders is unrelated to whether or not a recount may be occurring in another state.
If anyone is genuinely concerned about the possibility of recounts, then a single national pool of votes is the way to drastically reduce the likelihood of recounts and eliminate the artificial crises produced by the current system.
The U.S. Constitution, existing federal statutes, and independent state statutes guarantee "finality" in presidential elections long before the inauguration day in January. These constitutional provisions, statutes, and precedents apply equally to a presidential election conducted under the National Popular Vote legislation and an election conducted under the current system.
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) provides:
"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."[Spelling as per original]
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets (the so-called "safe harbor" date established by section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code).
In addition, in almost all states, state statutes already impose independent (typically earlier) deadlines for finalizing the count for the presidential election. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that state election officials and the state judiciary must conduct counts and recounts in presidential elections within the confines of existing state election laws.
It may be argued that the schedule established by the U.S. Constitution may sometimes rush the count (and possibly even create injustice). However, there can be no argument that this schedule exists in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes; that this schedule guarantees "finality" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December. This existing constitutional schedule would govern the National Popular Vote compact in exactly the same way that it governs elections under the current system.
“Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”
That is, no withdrawal from the National Popular Vote compact can become effective between July 20 of a presidential election year and the inauguration on January 20 of the following year. This six-month “blackout” period was chosen because it encompasses six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the national nominating conventions, the fall general election campaign period, election day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, the meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, the counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and the inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.
Although it is true that a state legislature may not, by an ordinary statute, bind the hands of a future legislature, an interstate compact enacted by a state legislature does bind a future legislature. In fact, interstate compacts are among the few ways by which the actions of a future state legislature may be restricted. The National Popular Vote compact is an interstate compact, and an interstate compact is a contract. Withdrawal from any contract may only be made in accordance with the contract’s own terms. It is settled law that, once passed, an interstate compact takes precedence over all existing or future state laws. A compact takes precedence over all existing or future state laws until/unless a state withdraws from the compact under the terms provided in the compact.
The reason that the state legislature is bound to the terms of an interstate compact is the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, section 10, clause 1):
“No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”
The Council of State Governments summarizes the nature of interstate compacts as follows:
“Compacts are agreements between two or more states that bind them to the compacts’ provisions, just as a contract binds two or more parties in a business deal. As such, compacts are subject to the substantive principles of contract law and are protected by the constitutional prohibition against laws that impair the obligations of contracts (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10).
“That means that compacting states are bound to observe the terms of their agreements, even if those terms are inconsistent with other state laws. In short, compacts between states are somewhat like treaties between nations. Compacts have the force and effect of statutory law (whether enacted by statute or not) and they take precedence over conflicting state laws, regardless of when those laws are enacted.
“However, unlike treaties, compacts are not dependent solely upon the good will of the parties. Once enacted, compacts may not be unilaterally renounced by a member state, except as provided by the compacts themselves.
Moreover, Congress and the courts can compel compliance with the terms of interstate compacts.”
There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.
You're wrong that the small states don't matter. In 2000, W won by 5 electoral votes. Any of the small states could have shifted the outcome.
The definition of a battleground state is not that it contains a lot of electoral votes but that it is politically divided. A smaller number of electoral votes doesn't "disadvantage" a state. Being politically unipolar does. Why would a Republican candidate campaign in Washington when they know it won't make much of a difference? And vice versa with a Democrat in Texas?
Your logic is all messed up. Somehow you feel slighted by not being popular with the candidates. Move to a state where there are an equal number of people who agree and disagree with you politically and then you'll be popular again.
Why can't anybody see that a 200+ year record of success is good enough to preserve the system? I tried to explain it with mathematics but I'm afraid most of it went over your public-school-educated heads. We want political stability!!! A national popular vote will generate so much political instability that most presidential elections will drag on in courts for months and months and we'll still not be able to determine who won with any mathematical certainty.
I'm absolutely certain who won the 2000 election. George W. Bush won by 5, unambiguous electoral votes. You may argue about the shit in Florida but when it comes down to the Constitutional and legal selection of the president, the outcome was unambiguous: 271 to 266. There was no sampling error.
Posted by: blindman on April 30, 2009 11:48 AMActually, those 5 states contain 36% of the population, so if you win just a majority of those states, you win 18% of the popular vote. That's hardly "winning the nation". Where do you get your numbers?
If anything, you're supporting my point: with the electoral college, if you win 51% of the 11 largest states, you win the election, even though you have just over a quarter of the people in the country voting for you.
Posted by: Bruce on April 30, 2009 11:51 AMIf anyone is genuinely concerned about the possibility of recounts, then a single national pool of votes is the way to drastically reduce the likelihood of recounts and eliminate the artificial crises produced by the current system.
Disproved by blindman, above. Likewise, dealing with one recount in Florida was bad enough. But if the national popular vote was within, say, 0.1%, where exactly WOULD you recount? Florida? New York? Every vote counts, meaning that every vote would have to be recounted. It would be a hot mess.
@116: If anything, you're supporting my point: with the electoral college, if you win 51% of the 11 largest states, you win the election, even though you have just over a quarter of the people in the country voting for you.
That's a great idea in theory, except what real-life scenario would exist where 51% of the people 11 largest states would vote for you, and none of the people in the smaller states would? What candidate would snatch Texas, California, New York, Florida and Georgia, but be completely absent in Oklahoma, Oregon, Delaware and Alabama? With the current two-party system, and the divisions the way they are now, I'm not really seeing that happening.
If we did evolve to a multi-party system where some scenario like that MIGHT occur through random luck... well... election of a strong president probably wouldn't be a good idea, in either way.
As d-kid said, the time when there would be a difference between the results of the EC and the popular vote is the VERY TIME, that you would not want to have to deal with the popular vote--i.e. a VERY CLOSE ELECTION. You thought Florida in 2000 was a mess? What about 51 (including DC) Floridas? If the election was a very close one, lawsuits could be filed in all 50 states and in DC, hoping to pick up enough votes to switch the election. So what if DC went 95% to the Democrat, maybe the Republican could pick up a few hundred extra votes by filing suit there. So what if Utah went 75% Republican, maybe a Democrat could pick up a few hundred extra votes by filing suit there.
You thought 2000 was a mess? You are offering to make a future year 51 times worse!
Posted by: Bill on April 30, 2009 01:58 PMNow, the final outcome of an election will be dependant upon voters in other states.
For example, if NPV had been in place in 2004, then the presidential electors from the State of Washington would have been required to vote for Bush in the Electoral College, voiding the majority of votes by the voters of the state. Despite the vote by our state's citizens, the outcome would have been determined by how voters outside the state voted.
Stupid bill, stupid law.
77% OF WASHINGTON VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL
I ignore polls. They are meaningless.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide
This is not a shortcoming. Indeed, it's actually irrelevant. The "popular vote" has absolutely no meaning. You appear to think someone with more of the "popular vote" has more public support, but that's not true, since there IS no popular vote and it is fallacious to treat a mere adding up of the statewide votes as some meaningful "popular vote."
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government.
But the result is more power to the federal government. When an official is elected by popular vote, he becomes more beholden to them and their interests, and most of their interests are of a local nature, but by virtue of being popularly elected by them, those interests become his.
This is, of course, what has been happening for more than a century. But an actual popular vote would contribute even more to this slide.
While it is true that the legal "powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on [how] presidential electors are selected," we've seen this illegal shift regardless.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."
There's not a hard line between the two. And NPV obviously leans us more toward democracy and more away from republic.
The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President.
No, they are the most advantaged. They get more of a proportional say than any other states.
When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Right. That will change under the NPV.
When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win.
You sound like you've never participated in a campaign before. All other things being equal, voters who are in a more highly concentrated area will get more attention, as the campaign has to spend less time and money to contact many more voters.
The National Popular Vote bill does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In spirit, it does. You are literally taking everyone's votes and combining them into a single count to determine the presidency, even though those votes are by definition unequal. Since there technically would be no actual legal NPV under the NPV compact, the 14th is not being violated, but in effect, it absolutely is.
A recount is not an unimaginable horror or logistical impossibility.
A reasonable nationwide recount is, yes, because you cannot make sure that every recounted vote is going to be treated equally. Worse, under the NPV compact, there would be no nationwide recount, which is even worse for equal protection: some votes will be recounted while most won't. Inherently unfair.
cf. blindman and demo kid.
There are 100 million people who live in those states; you win a plurality of those top 5 states, and you end up with 45-50 million votes. There were just over 100 million votes for President in 2000, meaning that if you win a plurality of the votes in those States, you can win the Presidency.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 30, 2009 06:32 PMWhat makes a voter in Ohio smarter than a voter in Idaho, New York City or Houston? What makes him or her more important? Oh, the electoral college.
If we believe, simply, that only eligible registered voters should decide who our President is, then let's do it. If you want to cede your power to decide who the president is to an "elector" (a person you don't know, will never meet, and will probably never understand how they got to be what they are) to decide who your president is, then let's keep the electoral college.
And, pudge, defending cultural/political anachronisms doesn't make you seem nuanced or intellectual. It makes you into what you're defending: an anachronism.
Posted by: AD on April 30, 2009 09:42 PMPudge, the electoral college is not befitting a modern democracy
False. It absolutely is.
because it arbitrarily gives people in certain states more power than others
False. It does no such thing.
If we believe, simply, that only eligible registered voters should decide who our President is, then let's do it.
If you want that, then do it the RIGHT WAY: amend the Constitution.
an "elector" (a person you don't know, will never meet, and will probably never understand how they got to be what they are)
False on all counts.
And, pudge, defending cultural/political anachronisms doesn't make you seem nuanced or intellectual. It makes you into what you're defending: an anachronism.
Yawn. Calling it an anachronism, while being demonstrably incapable of showing that it is such, makes you seem like something.
I'll let you do the math, but wyoming's three electors represent how many voters? california's 50 some represent how many voters? [this is where you look up populations of said states, do some simple division - calculator may be required - arrive at two numbers, compare two numbers, and realize that two numbers are not equal].
Further, this system creates a scenario where certain states "matter" and are "in play" and others are not in play and do not matter. How many people care about the direction of our country but choose not to vote because they do not live in a swing state and do not feel their vote matters? The answer pudge, is far too many people. I care about the level of participation in our democracy. And I oppose institutional mechanisms that discourage people from participating in our democracy. The electoral college is one of those mechanisms.
You strike me as one of the types of people that simply does not care about the level of voter participation, because you don't view most people as qualified to vote. Aside from the arrogance of that viewpoint, I will simply say that the act of participating in democracy is, in itself, something that educates voters. Because when people walk into a polling place, few of them do so with the intent to just scribble on a ballot and get an "I voted" sticker. They often ask for a pamphlet and spend 30 minutes in the booth reading statements and making hard choices. Because they want to do the right thing. I know we can't all be as super smart as you, pudge. But getting more people to vote is a step in the right direction.
Posted by: AD on May 1, 2009 08:54 AMNo. In FACT, the electoral college system does not give ANY power to ANY voters. It gives power to STATES.
How many people care about the direction of our country but choose not to vote because they do not live in a swing state and do not feel their vote matters?
Question-begging fallacy. You're assuming your argument, that the election of the President should be about individual voters, rather than about states. I disagree with that, and you've not demonstrated it.
You strike me as one of the types of people that simply does not care about the level of voter participation, because you don't view most people as qualified to vote.
Completely false.
Aside from the arrogance of that viewpoint ...
... which I do not have ...
... getting more people to vote is a step in the right direction.
So you're saying we should have a national popular vote so people will be more educated about voting? Are you serious? That makes no sense. More people are educated about the presidential contest every four years than any other race we have at any other time, ever. By far.
A NPV would not change this, especially considering that the people who don't vote for President because their state is not "in play" are people who are obviously already fairly well educated ...
the electoral college is not befitting a modern democracy (and please do not give me a stupid lecture about how we're not a democracy) because it arbitrarily gives people in certain states more power than others. How many times did McCain/Obama visit Ohio and speak with Ohioans? How many times did they visit Idaho?
The voting population of the top 5 states - CA, TX, NY, FL, IL - have enough so that if you gain a plurality of those states, you can win the election (pulling down around 45-50 million votes).
How would NPV change things for the better? You talk about ID not getting visited - it's because they have very few electoral votes, and they pretty much always go for the GOP.
How is that going to improve with NPV? Why even campaign outside the top 5 or 6 states in population? Why visit the other 44/45 states? You can win with just those 5...
If you actually look at the numbers, NPV would REDUCE the number of states being visited and campaigned in; it would render states like CO, NB, AZ, SD/ND, UT, NV, MT - pretty much everything West of the Mississippi other than CA - as irrelevant.
How is that a better system?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 1, 2009 03:23 PMOkay. gotcha
Posted by: AD on May 1, 2009 08:00 PMIn two ways. First, for MY state, I oppose it because I do not believe "empowering individuals" matters in selection of the President, and is actually counterproductive.
Second, they are using this power to FORCE OTHER STATES into a different system of election.
Worse -- once again -- you believe the electoral college is a bad way to determine national issues, yet you are using that system to get what YOU want, which is downright hypocritical. Ends justify the means, eh?
In an effort to win the close, important democratic primary in Nevada, both democrat candidates came out against storage of nuclear waste in Yucca mountain (this project represents a promise that our federal government made to the nuclear power industry 20 years ago, and taxpayers will continue to pay the price for failure to deliver). Obama won the primary. McCain refused to pander, instead opting for what was best for the entire nation. Obama narrowly won Nevada in the general. Yucca is no longer on the table.
Who won that battle? Obama and parochial NIMBYists in Nevada. Who loses? Everyone in America who uses electricity.
I don't support a system that ENCOURAGES pandering to narrow, local interests, to the detriment of what is good for the entire country.
Posted by: AD on May 2, 2009 06:07 AMIf we switch to the NPV, presidential elections will be like the senate election in Minnesota, more often than not. I hope you can understand statistics, because that's the only way to analyze this argument and clearly see that the electoral college is vastly superior to the NPV.
It is far more important for our country to quickly, and unambiguously choose a president. Having a challenged transfer of power could create months, if not years of political instability that would result in massive disruptions in business, economics, diplomacy, and wars. If I was some petty dictator in some country and I wanted to invade my neighbor, I'd just wait until the next presidential election and then do it. Heck, France invaded Mexico while the U.S. was tied up in our Civil War.
Imagine if we were still waiting on the outcome of court challenges in many different states to figure out who will be the 46th president. Image what has happened in the last 100 days and what could have happened if there was nobody at the wheel. Like Obama or not, like what he did or not, but the truth is that having a president in the whitehouse to do SOMETHING was infinitely better than a power vacuum and nothing getting done.
We want to keep the electoral college. It has successfully created 46 quick, clean, painless, and bloodless revolutions. It has a 200+ year success record. The fact that in 2000 the SCOTUS took up Bush v. Gore immediately to ensure that the issue was settled QUICKLY shows that the electoral college is NOT an anachronism. We need quick and clean transfers of power. It is essential to our Republic. All of that trumps your concerns that some votes are "worth more" than others or that candidates spend more time in one state or another.
Posted by: blindman on May 2, 2009 08:15 AMpudge, I am much more comfortable with politicians pandering to 51% of the national populace than I am with politicians pandering to 51% of the population of an amalgam of states that collectively hold enough electors to reach 271. Neither system is perfect. But mine can be defended by common sense and makes sense to average people. You have to spend hours of time on the internet articulating extremely convoluted arguments just to make your system seem vaguely logical.
I enjoy arguing with you because I'm stuck in the middle east and extremely bored. You, though, should have a life! :)
Posted by: AD on May 2, 2009 10:39 AMUm. That's what THE PROPONENTS of the system call it. http://nationalpopularvote.com/
What you guys call "NPV" is just a roundabout way of arriving at what most people call "a normal election" where "one person gets one vote" and "the person with the most votes wins the election."
Then tell THEM to come up with a different name for THEIR proposal. You're literally attacking us for using a name THEY use. That's pretty stupid.
pudge, I am much more comfortable with politicians pandering to 51% of the national populace than I am with politicians pandering to 51% of the population of an amalgam of states that collectively hold enough electors to reach 271.
You're implying here that each issue the candidate panders on, in a popular vote, will appeal to 50+ percent of the population. That is not how it works, at all, as your own argument concedes: if that were the case, then pandering over Yucca Mountain would fail, since it would alienate all the other states. NPV won't change anything about what you're saying: minority positions will be pandered to. It's only WHICH minority positions will be pandered to that will change.
Neither system is perfect. But mine can be defended by common sense
That is, of course, the question-begging fallacy ... which, by the way, is itself the opposite of common sense.
You have to spend hours of time on the internet articulating extremely convoluted arguments just to make your system seem vaguely logical.
Only because you and many other people were not educated as to why it's important. If you were never educated as to why democracy was important, we'd have to explain that to you, too.
It is utterly irrational to say that your position makes more sense to people who don't understand it, and therefore it's better. By that logic, creationism is superior to evolution.
I enjoy arguing with you because I'm stuck in the middle east and extremely bored.
Maybe you should spend your apparently useless time actually trying to learn what you're talking about, then.
I did not like the way that election was decided, but exercising this bill would only make for more Democracy (mob rule) and less of a Democratic Republic like the founding fathers had intended.
I would like to see elections decided via the electoral college modified to award votes by congressional district, instead of awarding votes as winner take all by states.