President by Popular Vote?

Been doing a bit of research due to an article i read recently, about something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). It's an agreement that would effectively eliminate the Electoral College from choosing the President without an amendment to the Constitution, effectively electing them by the national popular vote.

How it works is that the agreement ONLY comes into effect when the collective electoral vote tally of all the states that have passed it into law, total over 270 (majority needed to control election). Once in effect, the agreement says that all member states will give ALL of their state's electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote, regardless of their state's individual outcome.

The guys pushing this state that this is legal because of two clauses in the Constitution. one says that individual states are allowed to enter a compact with each other without federal approval, and the other says that each state has the right to choose how it designates the electoral votes given to it.

At the time i post this, 8 states totalling 77 votes (29%, already adjusted according to census data) have passed the law, and Colorado (9 votes) just had both houses of its legislature pass it. California (55 votes) is also expected to bring it into law this year with their more liberal Governor. That would bring the total up to over 50%.

If over 270 EVs are collectively gathered by july of next year, the 2012 election will be the first to not rely on the electoral college at all. Your thoughts?

The electoral college was intended to represent the vote of the states as opposed to the vote of the people (like how, once upon a time, the Senate was supposed to be the States' assembly and Congress the people's assembly, not both elected by the people).  Moreover, it should have been a suitable balancing act whereas the vote of the people came down to wire-thin contestable results there would be an alternate count that would be no less valid and perhaps less conflicted.  Unfortunately, somewhere down the line both counts started to look like each other, making one seem a third wheel, and that intent got muddled and somewhat broke down.

If you can get the states themselves to want to give this up, fine by me, but remember that the system was created to support balance between states of the country and people of the country.  It would be a disservice to dash those prospects to pieces rather than improve them, if their current incarnation is not beneficial.

>>2
Ah, excuse me, I do that all the time and have to correct myself; maybe one day it will stick.  From the parenthesis of the first sentence:

... the Senate was supposed to be the States' assembly and the HOUSE the people's assembly ...

The electoral college would work fine if all votes were made public information allowing for completely accurate fact checking as anyone could contest the status of their own vote.  Voter fraud becomes much harder.

>>4
I guess your beef is not that they release it at all but that it's released in a timely fashion.  They do release the names of electors and their votes.

For example, here's from November 2008:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-ascertainment.html

If you mean the public vote, however, I would have to decline support for that idea.  We already jump on people for the choices they make way too much; individually, I also value the fact that I am under no formal or informal obligation to divulge about whom I am voting, even if it seems obvious to people around me.

There are a couple different multi-threaded issues up for debate here, so ill start with only a couple.

First off, the notion that a system of rule should be upheld simply because it is traditional is foolish and outdated, let alone un-American. If the system as designed fails to perform to its potential, and moreso to its EXPECTATIONS, then it should be either modified or replaced with one that fits.

That said, I have much respect for the founding fathers' genius in creating the foundation for the modern american government, considering the time period. However, history has shown us that certain qualities of their design have become corrupted or maligned, and the Electoral College is one of the first of these examples. The Constitutional Convention based its principles on the ideal of a representative democracy, a style of governing where the collective citizens can elect an educated and well-informed representative to speak on the behalf of all of their constituents.

The Electoral College was the result of one in a series of many compromises in forming the Constitution, that pandered to the universally agreed-upon doctrine of representative democracy. Instead of trusting the State legislatures or the Congress to make an informed yet unbiased choice for President, the citizens would elect a temporary body from within their ranks - not professionals, but citizens who could speak for each constituency's values and uphold their position. The Electoral College would then gather and debate over who should be elected as President, with the initial popular election to choose those Electors as minor in comparison.

Unfortunately, the completion of the Constitution thrust its validity to the forefront of national politics in many ways, both destructive and beneficial. One result is that two factions, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, chose not to wait until the Electoral College would debate over their choice for President to wage their political war. Instead, in a move many founding fathers saw as exploitational, they campaigned directly to the citizens who would choose the Electors, finding them collectively more subject to persuasion.

The result is that many potential Electors, fearing their place in the future of this new regime was at risk during the political turmoil, started to proclaim exactly WHICH party's candidate they would vote for, regardless of debate. This improved their chances of being reliably chosen by the voters. What this means is that the Electoral College as practiced was in direct contrast of its design, serving as a simple rubber-stamp for the agenda of political parties, instead of representing their communities' interests intrinsically.

In summary... I am not impressed with the general intelligence that modern american voters hold today. Yes, that is largely in part because the two-party system has robbed the people of its rightful place as the most influential designer of policy, but the fact remains that by-and-large our voters are not making intelligent choices, being easily swayed. I don't believe that a national popular vote system is better in design than the current one.

However, design and application are separate qualities (in some cases extremely so). The Electoral College is a bankrupt system in political morality, and serves only to further destroy the integrity of modern society. History has proved that it takes more than mild dissatisfaction for the people to rise up and force change, and that is where i think that implementing a national popular vote would be extremely beneficial.

If implemented, the status quo of hegenomistic control by political parties in this country would be severely slashed, both immediately and in the long-term, both precedented and unpredictable in scaled and peculiarity. When power is challenged by those it disfranchises, the ruling elite have no choice but to either reform itself or cede control. By forcing this issue to the very forefront of national politics, we can effectively force a partial reboot to the DESIGN of our political process, instead of living under the illusion of change by modicum, as what little reform there is, is still within expected guidelines of control of the master manipulators lurking in the shadows of the party dichotomy.

================================
For those who can't be bother to read all of that, here's a short synopsis: the electoral college was a nice idea, but it didnt work out the way it was supposed to. its not going to fix itself as it is because it provides too many benefits to the two-party system, who doesnt want to give up their power. in order to properly re-evaluate this process and force politicians to implement a plan that works better, we need to show how important we place that agenda by shaking things up.

as far as implementing a popular vote goes... the NPVIC is the most promising. it faces the least hurdles in the shortest amount of time to become law, and it can do so while remaining in the FAR background of national politics as seen by the majority, sneaking up on those who would oppose it until it is too late to stop it. Imperfect, yet intriguing.

>>6

Best post on newpol I've ever seen

>>4
>>5
at a conceptual level, im not immediately opposed to the idea of having records that identify each citizen's choices IF kept in a secure way that can not even be allowed to referred to except in situations where its the only option to solve a large dilemma.

the truth, though, is that creating such a secure record and trusting that those who maintain the records will not misuse them, is a realistic improbability. I would vote against the creation of such a system every time, unless somebody showed me overwhelmingly undeniable evidence why their proposal would work. The risk-reward factor is drastically high; on one hand we could gain a decent edge in accuracy of elections, but on the other we risk such a deeply hurtful expansion of corruption in the election process. it's not worth the risk, and almost nothing is.

>>7
Oh, come on.
It's a good post, but the best ever?

>>9

Most posts on this forum go like this: Obama a Nigger socialist Jew and wants to abort your baby.  White people are superior, commits are retarded and I want less taxes

>>11
Okay, true, but I have seen some very good posts all about different forms of anarchy, capitalism, collectives vs co-ops, serious discussions of economics, and etc. You should check out more of the threads.
Or as they say: Lurk more.

>>10
Those things are only said because they know and rightly predict you will throw a hissy fit over them. The biggest problem with humanity is it's use of hysteria and outrage as the basis of morality, you should be thanking people for pointing out the contradictions in society no matter how offended you feel.

>>12
I don't throw a got when someone posts like that on his forum, I just perceive their post as being opinionated conjecture and/or delusion and thus ignore it.

>>13
The sheer volume of whackos means it is both justified to ignore them out of necessity and important to come to understand them, anonymous message boards are a novel way of communicating so I guess it's important here too.

this post has nothing to do with this thread

this post has everything to do with this thread

Is this the united states of America or the federal government of America? If you want more people power then increase state rights, make the president just a ceremonial figurehead who mediates between states instead of a commander in chief. This is what the US would be like if the south had won.

>>17

If we gave states more rights then we'd be more like the European Union, is that the kind of situation you're looking for?

>>17
>>18
hey, someone knows their history. the issue of states rights versus federal control WAS in fact decided once and for all a long time ago with the Civil War. but since the north won, its a non-issue anymore. federal power trumps state power every time, thats the reality we live under.

if we operated a coalition of independent states in the modern world... we'd be screwed, as would most of the countries that depend on our support. and, yknow, montana might get annexed by canada or something...