National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[knapplc]

Just found out about this with the news that Connecticut is joining the compact.  It's a very interesting idea, but one that I have some concerns with.  If the states can make these decisions without voter input, doesn't that also take the vote out of the hands of citizens? 

 

I mean, in general I think the Electoral College is a bad idea, and in general I think the popular vote should elect the president - as it does for every other elected official.  Have to wait and see if they get enough states on board to make this take effect.

 

Quote

 

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

 

Washington (CNN)Connecticut is joining a national drive to effectively elect the president by popular vote.

The state's legislature passed a bill, pledged to be signed into law by Gov. Dan Malloy, that would bring the state into an arrangement in which states would deliver their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the state's results.

 

Once enough states join the agreement -- it takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency -- it could have the effect of controlling the Electoral College.

 

"The vote of every American citizen should count equally, yet under the current system, voters from sparsely populated states are awarded significantly more power than those from states like Connecticut," Malloy, a Democrat, said in a statement. "This is fundamentally unfair."

 

As currently outlined by the Constitution and generally practiced on a state-by-state basis, each state assigns its votes to the Electoral College to the candidate who wins the most votes in a given state.

 

 

From wikipedia

 

Quote

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.^[2][3] As of March 2018, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 165 electoral votes, which is 30.7% of the total Electoral College and 61.1% of the electoral votes needed to give the compact legal force.

 

 

[RedDenver]

36 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Just found out about this with the news that Connecticut is joining the compact.  It's a very interesting idea, but one that I have some concerns with.  If the states can make these decisions without voter input, doesn't that also take the vote out of the hands of citizens? 

 

I mean, in general I think the Electoral College is a bad idea, and in general I think the popular vote should elect the president - as it does for every other elected official.  Have to wait and see if they get enough states on board to make this take effect.

 

 

From wikipedia

 

 

 

What? The NPVIC is literally the states using the popular vote, as in, the only input is the vote of the citizens.

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, RedDenver said:

What? The NPVIC is literally the states using the popular vote, as in, the only input is the vote of the citizens.

It is drastically decreasing the value of the voters in those states.  Yes, a voter in Connecticut votes.  But, his/her vote really is tied to how the rest of the country votes.

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It is drastically decreasing the value of the voters in those states.  Yes, a voter in Connecticut votes.  But, his/her vote really is tied to how the rest of the country votes.

Doesn't using the popular vote mean that every voter gets the same value in their vote? IOW, if some voters are having the value of their vote decreased, then doesn't that mean other voters are having the value of their vote increased?

 

And don't we want our votes to be tied together when voting for the President?

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, RedDenver said:

Doesn't using the popular vote mean that ever voter gets the same value in their vote? IOW, if some voters are having the value of their vote decreased, then doesn't that mean other voters are having the value of their vote increased?

 

And don't we want our votes to be tied together when voting for the President?

 

If every state were going to this, it would mean every voter's vote has the same value.  If just a few states do this, it doesn't.

[knapplc]

44 minutes ago, knapplc said:

If the states can make these decisions without voter input, doesn't that also take the vote out of the hands of citizens? 

 

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

What? The NPVIC is literally the states using the popular vote, as in, the only input is the vote of the citizens.

 

By that line I mean that the decision to cast the Electoral College votes for the nation's popular vote is being made by state legislatures & governors.  I think this is something the citizens should vote on, as in, a ballot measure to gauge the interest of the citizens whose votes will be used this way.

 

Bear in mind that I think the popular vote should be the determining factor in elections, so I'm actually kinda in favor of this.  But it's something the citizens should decide, not lawmakers.

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

If every state were going to this, it would mean every voter's vote has the same value.  If just a few states do this, it doesn't.

I think you're misunderstanding the way this is setup. The NPVIC states would cast all their electors to the candidate that won the popular vote for all 50 states and DC. And the compact doesn't go into effect until enough states are onboard such that it would be decisive. So the compact essentially makes the popular vote determine the President, which makes every vote equal because the compact considers every vote.

 

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

 

By that line I mean that the decision to cast the Electoral College votes for the nation's popular vote is being made by state legislatures & governors.  I think this is something the citizens should vote on, as in, a ballot measure to gauge the interest of the citizens whose votes will be used this way.

 

Bear in mind that I think the popular vote should be the determining factor in elections, so I'm actually kinda in favor of this.  But it's something the citizens should decide, not lawmakers.

I know Colorado has citizen ballot measures, but does every state even have that? I don't have a problem with making this a matter for the citizenry to decide, if that's what people want.

[knapplc]

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I know Colorado has citizen ballot measures, but does every state even have that? I don't have a problem with making this a matter for the citizenry to decide, if that's what people want.

 

I think the effect, if this were to happen, does put the power into the hands of the citizens. And maybe I'm just old-fashioned and want the people to have a greater hand in government. I suppose this is why we have elected officials.

[RedDenver]

16 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I think the effect, if this were to happen, does put the power into the hands of the citizens. And maybe I'm just old-fashioned and want the people to have a greater hand in government. I suppose this is why we have elected officials.

I think your motives are in the right place, but I'm not sure they match up with how our government currently works. However, I doubt this will pass in Colorado without it being a ballot measure (as was legalizing marijuana), so maybe partial victory?

[BigRedBuster]

26 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I think you're misunderstanding the way this is setup. The NPVIC states would cast all their electors to the candidate that won the popular vote for all 50 states and DC. And the compact doesn't go into effect until enough states are onboard such that it would be decisive. So the compact essentially makes the popular vote determine the President, which makes every vote equal because the compact considers every vote.

 

The bolded is the only part of your post I didn't know and that would make a difference.

 

How do they consider when "enough states" have come on board?

[RedDenver]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

The bolded is the only part of your post I didn't know and that would make a difference.

 

How do they consider when "enough states" have come on board?

When they have >270 electoral votes

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

 

By that line I mean that the decision to cast the Electoral College votes for the nation's popular vote is being made by state legislatures & governors.  I think this is something the citizens should vote on, as in, a ballot measure to gauge the interest of the citizens whose votes will be used this way.

 

Bear in mind that I think the popular vote should be the determining factor in elections, so I'm actually kinda in favor of this.  But it's something the citizens should decide, not lawmakers.

 

 

 

I want to agree with this...

 

however I think the average citizen wouldn't understand the benefit of doing this and they would be easily swayed by people with ulterior motives.

[RedDenver]

6 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

I want to agree with this...

 

however I think the average citizen wouldn't understand the benefit of doing this and they would be easily swayed by people with ulterior motives.

How do you square this opinion of the electorate with democracy?

[Moiraine]

23 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

How do you square this opinion of the electorate with democracy?

 

 

Democracy is not the ideal form of government when the electorate is so horribly misinformed and monied individuals are allowed to have such a strong influence, and both are going to get a lot worse.

 

Unfortunately there are huge flaws in other forms of government too.

 

The problem with Democracy is the politicians, even if they know what's best for the people, can't do what's best for the people if it's unpopular and they want to get re-elected. E.g. I believe in both California and Australia they have at times been far too slow at enacting water conservation laws because they didn't want to upset people.

 

Even with all of the above, I think a popular vote on the president is the best option. But we need every state to make this change.

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Democracy is not the ideal form of government when the electorate is so horribly misinformed and monied individuals are allowed to have such a strong influence, and it's going to get a lot worse.

 

Unfortunately there are huge flaws in other forms of government too.

 

The problem with Democracy is the politicians, even if they know what's best for the people, can't do what's best for the people if it's unpopular and they want to get re-elected. E.g. I believe in both California and Australia they have at times been far too slow at enacting water conservation laws because they didn't want to upset people.

 

Even with all of the above, I think a popular vote on the president is the best option. But we need every state to make this change.

 

I think a lot of people around the world intrinsically understand this, which is why monarchies & strong-man dictatorships abound to this day.  You'd think if humanity understood that they could control their own destiny, they'd take that chance. But they don't, and instead gravitate toward forms of government that absolves them of making the kinds of decisions that Americans feel are a right. 

 

There are problems with every form of government, and a benevolent monarchy maybe isn't the worst thing in the world.  The problem comes from the fact that today's good king can become tomorrow's despot when a new king inherits.