1. this is great news toward making every vote count equally, however, it would be nice if they just passed an amendment with majority requirement.

2. How long will Democratic states like New Jersey, Illinois, etc be content with giving all their electoral votes to Republicans. The so called NPV has always perplexed me. Besides 2000, we have to go back over a century to see a similar problems. It seems to me energy should be put towards solving tomorrows electoral problems not yesterdays.

3. With recent attempts in several states to provide that each U.S. House district elect its own elector, and with the possibility having existed since 1961 that there could be a tie in the electoral college (even with just two candidates getting any electoral votes), and with presidential electors not voting for the candidate they were pledged to in 2004 (Minnesota) and 2000 (the District of Columbia), the electoral college is a mess that needs to be changed as soon as possible.

4. Proletariat:
   I’m not sure what you mean when you say that Democratic states will give their electoral votes to Republicans. Assuming they join the NPV and enough states join it for it to come into effect, they will give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner (who may not be Republican). “Republican” states would do the same.
   Also, whether or not there is a difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote (as occurred in 2000), the electoral college causes other problems, including a decrease in turnout in “safe” states, and campaigns that are only aimed at a very narrow sector of the population (swing voters in swing states).

5. Eddy,

   My point was that it is highly Democratic states that are considering it. For how long will those Democratic states be willing give their votes to Republicans.

   I agree the electoral college has its problems – I just don’t believe NPV helps those problems. The irony is NPV is rationalized as making election more competitive which is the same reason the founders went with EC over NPV.

   The EC is not going anywhere, changing it outright is a constitutional impossibility. My first preference is states allocating their EC votes through proportional representation. That is the method most democratic and inclusive of multiple political parties. It also is the most competitive because small vote gains could result in electoral gains.

6. Eddy-

   You make an interesting point; for the most part, the states to move forward on NPV have been democratic ones. And, Once a democrat wins the electoral college, then GOP states will have more interest, and Dem states will have less interest. But, on the whole, most states are losers in the presidential election, with no ad spending, no candidate visits and no incentive to turn out, Frankly, the only reason the EC still exists is because it helps institutionalize the two party stranglehold on presidential politics, and b) because its only once in a generation when the NPV and the ECV are different, and people don’t think about just how little their votes are worth.

   That said, every election since 1960 COULD have played out just like 2000 with only a small shift in votes in a key state or set of states.

   You make a couple other points here.

   1) “NPV is rationalized as making election more competitive which is the same reason the founders went with EC over NPV.” Really? Is that why the founders chose the EC? Are you sure it wasn’t to mediate (mitigate) the direct election of the chief executive? I seem to recall that the founders were suspicious of the masses, and very little concerned with the competitiveness of national elections for joe yeoman. But, even if you’re right, what does that have to do with the fact that NPV would make elections in the present day more competitive?

   2) You also say that changing the EC is a constitutional impossibility. Setting aside the fact that the amendment process is clearly laid out and not impossible, what does the constitutional element have to do with the NOV compact, which circumvents the amendment process entirely?

   3) You mention that you “agree the electoral college has its problems – I just don’t believe NPV helps those problems.” What problems do you think the EC has that NPV would not help?

   4) Your last point, about using proportional representation to elect the president, is an interesting one. But why break it up by state and not do it nationally? And why not use IRV, as it’s a single seat race? Do you mean some type of party list PR system where the winner gets the presidency and congressional seats are allocated by a statewide proportional representation system?

7. Don’t blame Eddy for the comments it was me.

   1. I guess its what the meaning of competitive is? One of the critiques of EC is that many states are not even campaigned in. I don’t see NPV altering that, although the individual states might differ. The mediated role of EC was really to make sure victories were national in scope; not a west coast, southern etc candidate. That is also the reason why Prez, and V Prez can’t be from the same state.

   2. The competitive problem certainly. A NPV despite its name would not be national in scope. Very large states and their interests would dominate our politics. If one has very strong support in the large states the rest of the country would be forgotten.

   3. Simply you can’t, its unconstitutional. States not the federal government determine how electoral votes are determined. Over time it may move into such a system but not initially. If states like ILL, New York, California, Texas etc went to PR, it would catch on. The advantage of PR is twofold, it is not winner take all, and small voting changes can alter EC votes thereby making most of the country competitive.

8. Ah, sorry proletariat-

   To respond to your comments-

   I take your point that, under NPV there would be some areas that were more competitive and some that were less competative. But, if the meaning of competative is a real competition in which each vote counts equally toward electing a winner (a fair definition, I’d say) then NPV creates a truly national election.

   How?

   a) I come from a small non-swing state, and our interests are NOT served by the EC system. In fact, most of the small states are non-competitors under the EC system.

   b) Under an NPV system, the winner would be determined by the largest vote total. The incentive would be for candidates to find votes even in states they would have lost, as well as maximize turnout in strongholds. Since every vote would count equally, huge turnout in a small state, or a strong second place in a region outside of a candidate’s home turf, would impact the outcome. Sounds as national as you can get: wherever you are, your vote counts equally.

   c)The NPV compact as passed by New Jersey isn’t unconstitutional. You yourself say that states, not the federal government determine how to award EVs. States can thus enter into a compact to award their EVs in a manner which ensures that the national popular vote determines the winner.

   d)I’m not exactly sure how you would make the Presidential elections not be winner take all, as they are for one position. And, while I like the idea of PR in most circumstances, I am having trouble understanding how the President would be elected that way. Even if states used PR to elect their Electors, wouldn’t that privilege larger state much more than NPV?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.