And would the spending be dispersed or simply increased?

Wouldn’t it be more productive under a NPV compact to expend more effort in States where you have a large majority, and perhaps could increase turnout for your guy by 400,000 even if it encouraged 200,000 opponents to come out; than spending it in a battleground State where you might get 310,000 of your supporters but 290,000 opponents. Wouldn’t this increase polarization?

Cases 1+2) A wins the popular vote, A wins the electoral vote (under current system). Under the current system or a NPV compact, A wins.

Case 1) B carries State Q. It does not matter whether or not there is a NPV compact, or whether State Q is a member. B loses. State Q is disappointed.

Case 2) A carries State Q. It does not matter whether or not there is a NPV compact, or whether State Q is a member. A wins. State Q is happy.

Cases 3+4) A wins the popular vote, B wins the electoral vote (under current system). Under the current system, B wins. Under a NPV compact, A wins.

Case 3) B carries State Q. Under the current system, State Q is happy. But under the NPV compact, someone who was not favored by State Q would be elected. If State Q were actually a member of the NPV compact they would have to appoint electors contrary to the wishes of the voters of Q, even if candidate A only had 20% of Q voters and had campaigned on an Anti-Q platform.

Case 4) A carries State Q. Under the current system, State Q is disappointed. But under the NPV compact, A would win. But this would be the result regardless of whether Q was a member of the compact or not, because Q’s electors would vote for A in either case. The only reason for Q to join the compact is would be to induce other States to also join, but most particularly States that are likely to vote the opposite of Q, but whose votes Q could outweigh.

So 90+% of the time it doesn’t matter. And in every case it would make a difference, at least one State would have to appoint electors whose vote was contrary to that of the majority of its voters.

Sorry – choosing a Prez is not some sort of trivial matter for some scheme among some States.

The NPV scheme also BLATANTLY violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amdt, Sec. 1.

Also – current Electoral College stuff is an INTERNAL State activity — Art. II, Sec. 1 and the 12th Amdt — NOT to be determined by stuff OUTSIDE of each State.

What if all 50 State legislatures said the Prez results in such 50 States would be determined by the Prez votes in only D.C. ??? New Age INSANE and unconstitutional.

Proper Remedy – ABOLISH the E.C. — just like slavery was abolished by the 13th Amdt.

Uniform definition of Elector.
A.V. for ALL elected executive officers and all judges.

Too difficult for the armies of MORONS who have some brain dead Stone Age fixation with the ANTI-Democracy math of the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill would make every vote politically relevant in a presidential election. It would make every vote equal.

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers in large and small states (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in the large and small states of Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

It only takes one state going entirely free to serve as an example that ignites freedom in dozens of others.

@#14 Perhaps the USA should not be in the business of protectorates, which is another word for taxation with representation.

Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and friends should either be states or separate nations.

@#17 Define disproportionate. In these US of A, each state has a level of equality in that they each must have at least 2 senators and 1 representative and on this is based the electoral college.

This goes back to the concept that the US is a federation of states and NOT a nation with a strong central government (or, should not be). Remember states’ rights?

Remember Ross Perot? The “crazy masses” got behind him but at 19% abolishing the electoral college would not have helped him.

Mr Winger: Can we get the subscribe to comments wordpress plugin here? It will enable people to know when the conversation has been updated.

-it gives smaller states a voice disproportionate to their population. Necessary at the formation of our union, but undemocratic.

-it is a “safety valve” against those crazy masses and who they might vote for. Not usually used, but undemocratic as well.

it’s an antiquated institution with no place in the modern world, in or democracy.

ALL 50 States — ANTI-Democracy gerrymander systems for each house of each State legislature.

Half the votes in half the gerrymander areas is about 25 percent MINORITY RULE in each gerrymander system. Worse for the U.S.A. Senate.

Democracy NOW — regardless of the more and more wonk MORONS.

Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and A.V.

“You forget that the USA is the United STATES of America.

This is a close-knit federation of independent states.”

Well, then what is the proper place for non states, like Guam, Virgin Islands, Samoa, etc…

Many object to the use of gerry-mandered House seats
to divide the Electoral College. It is unavoidable
if one wants to follow the Founders intent on this
issue. There are some areas particularly in the large
states where one of the 2 main parties dominates and
so it is impossible to eliminate ‘rotten boroughs’.
The best we can do is to fight for rough parity in
the re-drawing of the borders every 10 years. Totally
ignore demographics and try to keep entire incorporated
cities intact as far as possible. Electing a President
will still be messy, but then again isn’t that the
purpose of elections? There is no reason for National
elections to be so cut-and-dried.