National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[Moiraine]

6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

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. 

 

 

It's funny you mention monarchy 'cause I've said that's best as long as the monarch isn't stupid or evil. Unfortunately that's too likely to occur.

[knapplc]

7 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It's funny you mention monarchy 'cause I've said that's best as long as the monarch isn't stupid or evil. Unfortunately that's too likely to occur.

 

There are some definite similarities between current America and the last days of the Roman Republic.  It would take an amazingly charismatic person like a Julius Caesar to make the populace accept the overthrow of our system of government, though.  And, like Rome, there would be abuses and reprisals.  The transition would be pretty bad.

[RedDenver]

3 hours 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 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.

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" -Churchill

 

And technically, we only need enough states to reach 271+ electors to make this change.

 

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

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. 

 

3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It's funny you mention monarchy 'cause I've said that's best as long as the monarch isn't stupid or evil. Unfortunately that's too likely to occur.

I have far, far more faith in a large group of people doing what is in their best interests than in any "elite" group, no matter how it's composed.

[HuskermanMike]

The Electoral College should stay in place. It gives the voice of the people and America as a whole. The popular vote, while not a bad idea, takes away from the campaigning in certain parts of the country. It will focus on the big cities and their surrounding areas and gone will be the days of politicians sniffing smaller states. People don't vote because the benefits outweigh the costs. A smart individual does not vote at all according to Downs. With this, I think that a popular vote would still not get people out of their homes to vote. 

 

If we are concerned about voting we should make it easier for people to vote. Maybe change it to a weekend or allow some flexibility for more people to vote. The popular vote to me is just not right for America because of the founders knew a system like the EC would work. Does it have its flaws? Yes but so does the popular vote and I don't believe right now we need it to change. Guess what, sometimes your candidate wins and sometimes they do not that is how the system has worked since the first peaceful transfer of power. 

 

The will of the people chose the President in 2016.

 

For example. 

[BigRedBuster]

Honestly, I see no reason for me to vote for president sitting here in Nebraska. 

 

It’s already decided who the nominee is before our primary and our state is so red that everyone knows who the votes are going to be for. 

[JJ Husker]

41 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Honestly, I see no reason for me to vote for president sitting here in Nebraska. 

 

It’s already decided who the nominee is before our primary and our state is so red that everyone knows who the votes are going to be for. 

 

That's a legitimate gripe but if it goes to a straight popular vote none of the votes from Nebraska will mean anything either as President will in effect be decided in the large cities and primarily on the east coast. At least with the electoral college the middle of the country gets some say. Sure it doesn't always yield desirable results but without it much of the country becomes fly over land that has no representation and no voice.

[KUfaninNebraska]

9 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

 

That's a legitimate gripe but if it goes to a straight popular vote none of the votes from Nebraska will mean anything either as President will in effect be decided in the large cities and primarily on the east coast. At least with the electoral college the middle of the country gets some say. Sure it doesn't always yield desirable results but without it much of the country becomes fly over land that has no representation and no voice.

Only the swing states get a say. Trump is president because he got 75K+ more votes in the right states. GWB won in 2000 by I think 500+ votes in Florida. 

 

[funhusker]

I think we can all agree we want a system where our votes count. Bonus points for the system that creates the leader we voted for.

[Big Red 40]

1 hour ago, HuskermanMike said:

The Electoral College should stay in place. It gives the voice of the people and America as a whole. The popular vote, while not a bad idea, takes away from the campaigning in certain parts of the country. It will focus on the big cities and their surrounding areas and gone will be the days of politicians sniffing smaller states. People don't vote because the benefits outweigh the costs. A smart individual does not vote at all according to Downs. With this, I think that a popular vote would still not get people out of their homes to vote. 

 

If we are concerned about voting we should make it easier for people to vote. Maybe change it to a weekend or allow some flexibility for more people to vote. The popular vote to me is just not right for America because of the founders knew a system like the EC would work. Does it have its flaws? Yes but so does the popular vote and I don't believe right now we need it to change. Guess what, sometimes your candidate wins and sometimes they do not that is how the system has worked since the first peaceful transfer of power. 

 

The will of the people chose the President in 2016.

 

For example. 

The will of all the people really didn't decide it though. The electoral college did. No reason for it to matter what state, county, town etc that they came from, all votes should count. 

1. According to vote tallies from The Associated Press, Clinton amassed 65,844,610 votes across all 50 states and Washington D.C., 48.2 percent of all votes cast. Trump received 62,979,636 votes, 46.1 percent of all votes cast. Clinton had 2,864,974 votes more than Trump

2. Also, 348,266 Nebraskans didn't want Trump to be elected but their votes were thrown away and the 5 EVs were given to the Republican candidate, as they usually are. I believe voter turnout would be much higher with a popular vote system, as many voters are disenfranchised by the EC . I've felt for years that my Democratic vote was a waste because of where i live.  

 President

CANDIDATE		PARTY	VOTES	PCT.	E.V.
	Donald J. Trump	Republican	495,961	58.7%	5
	Hillary Clinton	Democrat	284,494	33.7	—
	Gary Johnson	Libertarian	38,946	4.6	—
	Others	Independent	16,051	1.9	—
	Jill Stein	Petitioning Candidate	8,775	1.0	—

100% reporting (1,418 of 1,418 precincts)

[Big Red 40]

10 hours 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'm not a big fan of  any compact, panel, electors or anything else that gets in the way of every vote counting. This seems like a step towards a popular vote system though, so i'm in.

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, funhusker said:

I think we can all agree we want a system where our votes count. Bonus points for the system that creates the leader we voted for.

Pretty much this. But what would help a whole lot more than the system used would be some worthy candidates. Just think if we had even just two decent people to chose from instead of none...

[funhusker]

3 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

Pretty much this. But what would help a whole lot more than the system used would be some worthy candidates. Just think if we had even just two decent people to chose from instead of none...

Amen.  We spent most of 2016 complaining about how it was the worst ticket in history for both parties, which it may have been.  And here we are, approaching 2020 with one party not only willing, but excited, to throw the horrible candidate up for another election.  As a registered Republican**, I don't get it.  

 

**I am a registered Republican because I understand a democrat isn't likely to win a statewide election in NE.  I feel my primary vote is better served to advance a candidate that isn't bats#!t crazy to face a "hopefully" moderate Democrat.

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, HuskermanMike said:

The will of the people chose the President in 2016.

No, it didn't. Twice out of the last 5 Presidential elections, the electoral college has gone against the will of the people. It's why the popular vote is gaining in popularity.

[Moiraine]

3 hours ago, HuskermanMike said:

The popular vote, while not a bad idea, takes away from the campaigning in certain parts of the country. It will focus on the big cities and their surrounding areas and gone will be the days of politicians sniffing smaller states.

 

Not singling you out, I hear this argument all the time, but this is a B.S. argument and always has been, imo.

As things are right now:

The electoral college is biased towards people in states with low population - the number of electoral votes is biased in favor of these states because they get more electoral votes than their population calls for.

The House of Representatives is biased towards people in states with low population - apportionment is biased in favor of states like Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, etc. As with the electoral votes, they are getting more representatives than their populations call for. Also, gerrymandering is much more easily used to disenfranchise voters in cities than it is voters in rural areas.

The Senate is biased towards people in states with low population - Nebraska gets 2 senators. California gets 2 senators. This is actually the goal they had in mind with the Senate, so it's fine.


The other reason it's a bad argument is the president, once elected, is likely not going to give a crap about someone in a small town cares about regardless of whether we use the electoral college or the popular vote. They go to a place like Iowa at the beginning because it makes national news. Just because they go back there later for the 10 ec votes doesn't mean they're going to base any of their decisions on the Iowa voter. The flyover argument is just bad. Currently the candidates are only campaigning in something like 10 states. The popular vote would increase that, not decrease it. With a popular vote they would be much more likely to go to places like Portland, Seattle, Dallas, Kansas City, Omaha, etc. They would honestly probably reach more rural voters this way, not less, because a larger number of rural voters would have a city closer to them that they could travel to.

[knapplc]

3 hours ago, HuskermanMike said:

The Electoral College should stay in place. It gives the voice of the people and America as a whole. The popular vote, while not a bad idea, takes away from the campaigning in certain parts of the country. It will focus on the big cities and their surrounding areas and gone will be the days of politicians sniffing smaller states. People don't vote because the benefits outweigh the costs. A smart individual does not vote at all according to Downs. With this, I think that a popular vote would still not get people out of their homes to vote. 

 

If we are concerned about voting we should make it easier for people to vote. Maybe change it to a weekend or allow some flexibility for more people to vote. The popular vote to me is just not right for America because of the founders knew a system like the EC would work. Does it have its flaws? Yes but so does the popular vote and I don't believe right now we need it to change. Guess what, sometimes your candidate wins and sometimes they do not that is how the system has worked since the first peaceful transfer of power. 

 

The will of the people chose the President in 2016.

 

For example. 

 

Nobody lives in the counties in red. That's dirt. Empty land.  Here's a better map. Ignore the white bits - there are no people there.