National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Hachface

California is the latest --and most significant -- state to pass into law legislation that will enter the state into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

What is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, you might ask? Wikipedia puts it this way:

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among U.S. states designed to replace current state rules governing the electoral college system of presidential elections with rules guaranteeing election of the national popular vote winner. As of August 2011, this interstate compact has been joined by eight states (see map) and the District of Columbia; their 132 combined electoral votes amount to 49% of the 270 needed for the compact to take effect.

Basically, the compact achieves through interstate agreement what would be impossible through the amendment process: a complete revision of the way we elect the president of the United States. Technically, the compact exists within the existing electoral college framework, but is designed to entirely circumvent it.

This is how it works: A bunch of states pass laws decreeing that they will pledge their electoral votes in a presidential election to the winner of the national popular vote. Crucially, the compact becomes active only when a number of states that can command a total of 270 electoral votes agrees to join up. This will guarantee that the winner of the electoral college will also be the winner of the national popular vote.

It is an ingenious idea, and something that we desperately need. The national popular vote is fair: one citizen, one vote, and everyone's vote counts equally. The notion that the United States federal government consists of 50 sovereign states and that smaller population states deserve special considerations is antiquated and inaccurate (and based on less than pure motives, but I'm sure we'll get to to that); the federal government is the government of 300+ million Americans. Each American should have an equal say in who gets to be president.

Dynagrip

It'd be pretty awesome if my casting a vote in a presidential election actually counted for something.

VeritasVR

Million, sir. Million.

Also, http://www.flickr.com/photos/10166156@N07/2195648838/

Captain Carrot

To be fair, the College is biased not in favor of states with fewer people, but states that are evenly split. Nobody cares about Delaware or Texas, but Florida and New Hampshire are hot.

Hachface

VeritasVR wrote:

Million, sir. Million.

I have no idea what you're referring to.

>.>

<.<

VoodooV

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.

Why does everyone feel the need to entirely gut systems that only need a few tweaks and fixes.

Hachface

Captain Carrot wrote:

To be fair, the College is biased not in favor of states with fewer people, but states that are evenly split. Nobody cares about Delaware or Texas, but Florida and New Hampshire are hot.

Even politically uniform small states get a big boost. Wyoming's not a battleground state, but it still contributes a number of votes to the college disproportionate to its population.

Thanatos

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.

Why does everyone feel the need to entirely gut systems that only need a few tweaks and fixes.

Because it's a stupid system that isn't necessary in this day and age? Because it makes some people's votes count more than other people's votes? Because this doesn't even remotely resemble pure democracy?

Captain Carrot

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center.

Whereas now they ignore everyone who isn't in a swing state, which is a far larger proportion of the population.

There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.

No, one person, one vote.

Dynagrip

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.

Why does everyone feel the need to entirely gut systems that only need a few tweaks and fixes.

I'm kind of sick of the more rural areas fucking things up for everyone else.

Hachface

I think the dangers of politicians neglecting rural areas are overstated (what, are we all going to collectively forget where our food comes from?) while the dangers of overrepresenting these areas are manifest. For instance: farm subsidies that are destroying our health.

Kagera

Yeah, the rural areas are where teabaggers live.

VoodooV

Dynagrip wrote:

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.

Why does everyone feel the need to entirely gut systems that only need a few tweaks and fixes.

I'm kind of sick of the more rural areas fucking things up for everyone else.

As long as you're admitting that you're effectively cutting them out of any say in the political process. Sure everyone has a vote, but the rural vote becomes meaningless compared to the urban centers.

All you're doing is shifting who's vote is meaningless. In the current system, A democrat has no voice in a red state and vice versa. In a pure democracy, if you're in a small town or even one of the smaller cities...fuck you.

Getting rid of Winner Take All is the only thing that needs to happen.

Captain Carrot

But again, the set of people whose concerns don't matter is significantly larger under the Electoral College than with NPV.

Kagera

Also I'm not seeing the downside here at ALL.

fortis

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.

Why does everyone feel the need to entirely gut systems that only need a few tweaks and fixes.

One district, one vote would lead to even more gerrymandering than we have right now. I can only imagine the shit that would go on if districts were involved in the Presidential election.

Thanatos

VoodooV wrote:

Dynagrip wrote:

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.

Why does everyone feel the need to entirely gut systems that only need a few tweaks and fixes.

I'm kind of sick of the more rural areas fucking things up for everyone else.

As long as you're admitting that you're effectively cutting them out of any say in the political process. Sure everyone has a vote, but the rural vote becomes meaningless compared to the urban centers.

All you're doing is shifting who's vote is meaningless. In the current system, A democrat has no voice in a red state and vice versa. In a pure democracy, if you're in a small town or even one of the smaller cities...fuck you.

Getting rid of Winner Take All is the only thing that needs to happen.

80% of the country is urban. The fact that they have 40% of the say in how the country is run is fucking ridiculous, and this is a very, very small step in the direction of equalization.

And this still isn't pure democracy.

Chanus

It's not written in stone that winner takes all in the current system anyway. A lot of states (all?) can split their votes to match their popular vote totals, if they choose to. They just don't.

The Electoral College system is broken beyond repair.

Chanus

Is it only Maine and Nebraska that can split votes? i thought it was more.

Captain Carrot

Any state can award its electoral votes however it pleases. In the early nineteenth century, there were several major methods in use, but winner-take-all gave the states adopting it more power, and eventually everyone was on it.

VoodooV

Chanus wrote:

Is it only Maine and Nebraska that can split votes? i thought it was more.

Nebraska gave up one of it's electoral votes to Obama. Something that I thought would get a little bit more press..but apparently not.

shryke

VoodooV wrote:

Dynagrip wrote:

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.

Why does everyone feel the need to entirely gut systems that only need a few tweaks and fixes.

I'm kind of sick of the more rural areas fucking things up for everyone else.

As long as you're admitting that you're effectively cutting them out of any say in the political process.

No, it makes them equal in the political process.

Why should one person's vote be worth more then anothers?

Hachface

I fail to see how electing the president by popular vote would lead to massive neglect of rural states. They still get two senators, don't they? And it's the legislature where there interests as states matter, not nearly so much the executive.

Tox

When you say, "they'll only appeal to urban centers" that means they'll be marketing in large markets, which include large urban centers....as well as the fuckton of small towns within anywhere from 25 to 100 miles of said urban center.

a5ehren

Hachface wrote:

I fail to see how electing the president by popular vote would lead to massive neglect of rural states. They still get two senators, don't they? And it's the legislature where there interests as states matter, not nearly so much the executive.

This. I think the executive branch should represent the overall will of the nation (since the whole nation votes on it), while the legislators are responsible for their regional concerns.

VoodooV

shryke wrote:

VoodooV wrote:

Dynagrip wrote:

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.

Why does everyone feel the need to entirely gut systems that only need a few tweaks and fixes.

I'm kind of sick of the more rural areas fucking things up for everyone else.

As long as you're admitting that you're effectively cutting them out of any say in the political process.

No, it makes them equal in the political process.

Why should one person's vote be worth more then anothers?

Because that not what happens and you know it. Things don't happen/not happen because of an individual vote so no one person's vote is more important than anothers. Making an entire state's voice conform to popular vote is stupid....but doing the exact opposite of that is equally stupid as it makes entire states...entire swaths of the country second class citizens.

eliminating winner take all and mandating that each district gets their own vote is the perfect compromise. If you live in a democratic city, but that city is in a red state, and vice versa, your city has a better chance to have its voice heard but on the other hand, it does make it MORE democratic. Major population centers will still dominate the vote...just not completely so than it would in a National Popular vote.

win win

Chanus

a5ehren wrote:

Hachface wrote:

I fail to see how electing the president by popular vote would lead to massive neglect of rural states. They still get two senators, don't they? And it's the legislature where there interests as states matter, not nearly so much the executive.

This. I think the executive branch should represent the overall will of the nation (since the whole nation votes on it), while the legislators are responsible for their regional concerns.

It's almost like that makes sense and was intended to be.

Quid

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center.

I don't really believe this, but let's run with it. So?

Hachface

Chanus wrote:

a5ehren wrote:

Hachface wrote:

I fail to see how electing the president by popular vote would lead to massive neglect of rural states. They still get two senators, don't they? And it's the legislature where there interests as states matter, not nearly so much the executive.

This. I think the executive branch should represent the overall will of the nation (since the whole nation votes on it), while the legislators are responsible for their regional concerns.

It's almost like that makes sense and was intended to be.

Well, not really. But that doesn't matter. The founders' intentions are largely irrelevant. We have this idea that the constitution was artfully crafted toward a grand design when in reality it is the product of ugly -- and often silly -- compromises, pretty much the same as we see today. Ideas like the electoral college and two senators per state weren't instituted because of high-minded political theory but because the slave states were making a ruckus.

Captain Carrot

VoodooV wrote:

eliminating winner take all and mandating that each district gets their own vote is the perfect compromise. If you live in a democratic city, but that city is in a red state, and vice versa, your city has a better chance to have its voice heard but on the other hand, it does make it MORE democratic. Major population centers will still dominate the vote...just not completely so than it would in a National Popular vote.

win win

So you didn't read

fortis wrote:

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.

Why does everyone feel the need to entirely gut systems that only need a few tweaks and fixes.

One district, one vote would lead to even more gerrymandering than we have right now. I can only imagine the shit that would go on if districts were involved in the Presidential election.

, or you just didn't care?

ElJeffe

VoodooV wrote:

Dynagrip wrote:

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.

Why does everyone feel the need to entirely gut systems that only need a few tweaks and fixes.

I'm kind of sick of the more rural areas fucking things up for everyone else.

As long as you're admitting that you're effectively cutting them out of any say in the political process. Sure everyone has a vote, but the rural vote becomes meaningless compared to the urban centers.

All you're doing is shifting who's vote is meaningless. In the current system, A democrat has no voice in a red state and vice versa. In a pure democracy, if you're in a small town or even one of the smaller cities...fuck you.

Getting rid of Winner Take All is the only thing that needs to happen.

I keep forgetting that this compact also gets rid of the Senate and the House, completely depriving fly-over country of any say in anything.

Oh, wait.

It doesn't do that at all.

Quid

As I've said before, unless they're actually being oppressed by the majority, I don't see why rural voters are deserving of special treatment.

ElJeffe

Quid wrote:

As I've said before, unless they're actually being oppressed by the majority, I don't see why rural voters are deserving of special treatment.

Why do you hate Real Americans (tm)?

Tox

Quid wrote:

As I've said before, unless they're actually being oppressed by the majority, I don't see why rural voters are deserving of special treatment.

According to Sarah Palin, rural voters (aka Real Americans™) are the majority. So how can they be oppressed?

Marty81

Quid wrote:

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center.

I don't really believe this, but let's run with it. So?

I don't think I believe it either, but I believe the idea is that it would turn into a tyranny of the majority situation, with the president actively not caring about and/or screwing over rural voters whenever possible to gain urban vote.

"But politicians already have plenty of incentives to screw over large swaths of the population for political gain!," you might say. And I don't really have a response to that.

edit: in response to

As I've said before, unless they're actually being oppressed by the majority, I don't see why rural voters are deserving of special treatment.

I guess one of the worries of implementing something like this and adopting a wait-and-see approach would be that it might take too long and too much suffering before it's noticed that the system might need to change back, and the system might lack adequate means for doing so once it's established.

Quid

ElJeffe wrote:

Quid wrote:

As I've said before, unless they're actually being oppressed by the majority, I don't see why rural voters are deserving of special treatment.

Why do you hate Real Americans (tm)?

I'm jealous of their delicious, delicious corn syrup.

Chanus

Well, apparently only a Republican president actually has any power anymore, and since this idea would (presumably) favor Democrats, the potential president not caring about rural voters wouldn't matter, right?

Taramoor

VoodooV wrote:

shryke wrote:

VoodooV wrote:

Dynagrip wrote:

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.

Why does everyone feel the need to entirely gut systems that only need a few tweaks and fixes.

I'm kind of sick of the more rural areas fucking things up for everyone else.

As long as you're admitting that you're effectively cutting them out of any say in the political process.

No, it makes them equal in the political process.

Why should one person's vote be worth more then anothers?

Because that not what happens and you know it. Things don't happen/not happen because of an individual vote so no one person's vote is more important than anothers. Making an entire state's voice conform to popular vote is stupid....but doing the exact opposite of that is equally stupid as it makes entire states...entire swaths of the country second class citizens.

eliminating winner take all and mandating that each district gets their own vote is the perfect compromise. If you live in a democratic city, but that city is in a red state, and vice versa, your city has a better chance to have its voice heard but on the other hand, it does make it MORE democratic. Major population centers will still dominate the vote...just not completely so than it would in a National Popular vote.

win win

As of 2009, Nevada's 3rd district had a population of one million.
As of 2009, Lousiana's 2nd district had a population of five hundred thousand.

Why should each vote in Louisana-2 be worth twice as much as each vote in Nevada-3?

VoodooV

Captain Carrot wrote:

VoodooV wrote:

eliminating winner take all and mandating that each district gets their own vote is the perfect compromise. If you live in a democratic city, but that city is in a red state, and vice versa, your city has a better chance to have its voice heard but on the other hand, it does make it MORE democratic. Major population centers will still dominate the vote...just not completely so than it would in a National Popular vote.

win win

So you didn't read

fortis wrote:

VoodooV wrote:

There is a reason we don't have pure democracy. Candidates would ignore everyone who wasn't in a major population center. There is nothing wrong with the electoral college, they just need to get rid of Winner Take All like Maine and Nebraska have. One district, one vote.

Why does everyone feel the need to entirely gut systems that only need a few tweaks and fixes.

One district, one vote would lead to even more gerrymandering than we have right now. I can only imagine the shit that would go on if districts were involved in the Presidential election.

, or you just didn't care?

I disregarded it because the burden of proof lies on you to prove that that would happen. Just because you say so isn't enough.

and no Quid, don't strawman, no one said anything about special treatment, just equal treatment. If everyone was spread out equally throughout our nation I would be all for direct popular vote, but since we don't have transporters and traveling is expensive and time consuming, minorities would get steamrolled. No thanks.

Quid

Marty81 wrote:

I don't think I believe it either, but I believe the idea is that it would turn into a tyranny of the majority situation, with the president actively not caring about and/or screwing over rural voters whenever possible to gain urban vote.

"But politicians already have plenty of incentives to screw over large swaths of the population for political gain!," you might say. And I don't really have a response to that.

edit: in response to

As I've said before, unless they're actually being oppressed by the majority, I don't see why rural voters are deserving of special treatment.

I guess one of the worries of implementing something like this and adopting a wait-and-see approach would be that it might take too long and too much suffering before it's noticed that the system might need to change back, and the system might lack adequate means for doing so once it's established.

The current system involves definitely screwing over the majority.

You're worried that the other system may or may not screw over a minority. I'm not convinced. I don't even see how they'd be screwed in any way that would violate their rights.

Kagera

Minorities would get steamrolled?

WTF?

You mean small town bumpkins would get steamrolled, but they are no way deserving of the term minority.