Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

President by Popular Vote?

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-20 16:30

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?

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-20 18:27

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.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List