If there is to be a popular election of the President, then shouldn’t there be the same standards as when we elect a hides inspector?

How is one not disenfranchised if they are not able to choose among the same candidates that their fellow citizens may?

How is one not disenfranchised if voters in another State outside the jurisdiction of its courts are permitted to illegally vote by lax administration of elections, ow where voter qualifications are different?

#25 – I’ll stand by my assertion that the NPV compact effectively addresses the most glaring weakness and injustice of our current EC system. All of the other problems you cite exist now under the current system. Under the EC system they would still exist, but millions of currently disenfranchised voters (do I really need to recite the current list of solid red and solid blue states?) would then be participants in every subsequent election. That done, we can then move on to solving other problems. I don’t see why they have to be addressed all at once, and I oppose doing so if there is even a scintilla of a chance that by doing so we lessen the chance of getting a national popular vote in place.

#26 – See 25 above. Again, I agree with you that the nomination system we have now is awful. But do you really think Iowa would give two seconds of thought to signing on to the NPV compact if they were also agreeing to a national primary system? Seriously?

#27 – You must have been out of the country in late 2000.

#28 – Uh…how’d they do? But just for fun, see 25 above, again.

#29 – If you think the EC method qualifies as election by a majority, goodonya. But try selling that to the American public. They ain’t buyin.

You and I clearly disagree about third parties. I have lots of reasons to believe we need credible third party influence in this country. If stronger “minor” parties had the effect of weakening the Executive branch of government, I’d have yet another reason to hope for stronger third minor parties. But that’s a topic for another discussion.

I have no problem with election of the president by a plurality of popular votes.

#30 1) – And that can’t happen after the NPV is agreed upon as it is presently constituted?

2) – Why, on any flimsy grounds that pack of Republicans could grab hold of. C’mon, man. You did read their opinion in 2000, didn’t you? Do you think they need a sound, legal basis for taking the opportunity to influence national elections to their liking? And as for getting an amendment approved in “no time,” well, I don’t see that.

We seem to agree upon much more than we disagree. You seem to support the basic concept of election of the President by popular vote. My suggestion to you is that you consider devoting your energies and considerable knowledge and persuasiveness to support of the NPV. When it’s approved you and I can then join hands again to argue for the other needed electoral reforms.

Kirk out.

“1) Any individual state legislature might agree with the goal of electing a president by popular vote but disagree with one of the additional provisions you propose.”

The States would agree on general principles and join a compact, and would then appoint commissioners who would hash out the details. The decisions of the commissioners could be made binding on the member States.

“2) Any foray into those other areas could conceivably have exposed the NPV to overturn by the USSC.”
On what grounds? And if the USSC overturned an agreement among the States, you would have a constitutional amendment approved in no time.

The Presidency has always required majority election. Having the House of Representatives decide is the runoff procedure.

When Congress set the uniform (election) date for appointing electors, they purposefully made a provision for handling cases of presidential elector candidates not receiving the majority of the vote.

If 3rd parties attract more support, then it will make the elected president less credible. You can see that in Texas where the current governor received slightly less than 40% in a 4-way race. Had there been a runoff, nobody would comment.

“2) “Uniform set of candidates” – I’m quite confident that both major parties and any credible third/fourth/fifth party will manage to find a way to see that their “slates” are registered to appear on the ballots of participating states in whatever manner needs to be in order for them to qualify to be counted. Having participated in two efforts to place a candidate on primary ballots in my own state, I believe the campaign people for any credible candidate will manage to do so.”

Look back at 2004 when you had an organized effort by one of the parties to keep another candidate off the ballot in as many States as possible.

I think what you are really saying is “I hope it works out OK, if not, we’ll just muddle through.”

“1) “Recount provisions” – We have no national standard for recount provisions now. That’s been made abundantly clear by recent events.”
We don’t need them, because the election in each State is separate.

“3) “Nomination of party candidate by primary election” – Nice idea. But we don’t do that now, do we? If an attempt had been made to insert that into the language of the NPV compact it would have NEVER gotten approved. Never.”

We don’t elect our president by popular vote now, do we?

If it is important that the President be the candidate that receives the most national popular votes in the general election; why is not important that the presidential nominees receive the most national popular votes in the primaries?

Presumably, you want to avoid a situation like 1960 where Nixon received more national popular votes than Kennedy; but Kennedy was elected. So why would you not want to avoid a situation like 2008, where Clinton received more national popular votes than Obama?

You are advocating for a poorly thought out contract that does not cover many important contingencies if you wanted a truly national election. So you are just like the real estate salesman arguing for a buyer to sign on the dotted line so you get your commission.

If you really wanted a useful national election you would have the members of the interstate compact actually form a commission that would normalize the State election laws with regard to the presidency, so that would be a framework for negotiation.

The NPV compact is a hack. We can do better.

“The State of Maryland hereby enters the agreement among the states to elect the President by national popular vote as set forth in this section.”

“Enactment of agreement”

“Ratification and approval of compact. The State of Illinois ratifies and approves the following compact:”

“The State of New Jersey hereby enacts into law and enters into the “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote” as set forth in this section, and substantially as follows:”

You would agree that these are not identical. So the prefatory text in Washington would simply be more verbose.

I don’t think that there was anything in it that would indicate that legislature in Washington didn’t understand EXACTLY what they were approving. In fact, it gives greater confidence that they did understand. You can’t really be sure about New Jersey, Hawaii, and Illinois.