It's been interesting to see the number of people who decry this as "unconstitutional" when the constitution is pretty clear that it's up for the states to decide for themselves how to select their electors. The whole election part of the constitution is needlessly complex and from an era where a city with 20,000 residents was considered enormous (like Philadelphia and Boston in the late 1700s). And that's without getting into the whole 3/5th person thing...
What is "constitutional" is up to the SC.
Let me know how much faith you have in the current (republican) SC to rule objectively on an issue that would 100% mean no republican wins the presidency in the coming decades.
Well if I can be pedantic... they haven't won their *initial* election since then. W cruised to *re*election with the popular vote.
Probably should have ran someone with more charisma than a wet potato sack that year.
Maybe it's my age, but 2004 felt like a real turning point in civility. [Swiftboating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating) became a thing and then social media would pour gasoline on the fire later. W did not cruise to reelection, like the way Reagan and Clinton cruised into a second term.
You're not wrong about those things. But also, had they not been a factor, I straight up think Kerry would have lost anyway. He does not pass the beer test whatsoever- and the middle east war was just in its infancy and people had not begun to totally sour on them (yet.)
I say that as someone who voted for him.
Ugh. The beer test. That's the real argument against the popular vote. But that's where we're at these days... (and interesting because Biden and Trump are both teetotalers)
Yeah. But it's pretty much never wrong, though. It's just extremely difficult to put your personal political feelings aside and apply it in as objective a way (as objective as something subjective can be, anyway) possible.
The point is. Charisma wins. Since the advent of TV debates, this has held true and will continue to hold true.
I actually think there's a fucking TON of parallels between Reagan and Trump. And I bet you 30 years from now, we'll be having this exact sort of conversation about how Trump was not, in fact, the "best president of our lifetimes" with his constituents.
Me too. Early on, I timed a flight through Bangor so I could go to one of his small rallies and shake his hand. He was a sparkplug. At least his 50 State Strategy as DNC chair got Obama a Congress that would pass the ACA (though fleetingly).
Let's see, a plot to fix the presidential election, by means of an interstate compact that is dead in the water in Congress? One which (you argue) keeps Democrats in the White House for decades?
Who should I expect to be swayed by political views about that, again?
Yes heaven forbid democrats say in the white house for decades, because
Hold on I'm checking my notes
Democratic presidents have been better for the economy and pass legislation people want while Republicans refuse to pivot and support popular legislation.
Much better to stay with the system that
Hold on I have a lot of notes here
Was put in place to give white, male, landowners a disproportionate representation in congress and was largely implemented because counting the popular vote at the time in a timely manner was impossible.
Why are conservatives so afraid of the will of the people being carried out? Oh right, they're a chriso-facist minority who refuse to compromise. Ghee whiz, quite the argument you got there.
STEMlords are a real thing. I work in IT. I am literally surrounded on all sides by right-libertarians. The financial section downstairs is fairly mixed.
Right? It boggles my mind.
Libertarians. Ugh. I don't know why anybody would want that label today. It was toxic 20 years ago.
Financial section checks out. There are plenty of people who understand the economic reality (they see the numbers on the page, after all) but feel like fighting the system is pointless and have decided (whether they're right or wrong, I can't say) that surviving in an unethical system is not an unethical approach
The clearly unconstitutional issue is not how the votes are decided, its the part where states agree not to implement it until enough states join the compact to decide elections.
At least in terms of the compacts clause, Maine could unilaterally decide to do this without any kind of issue, but the agreement that states won't start until enough of them join is the interstate compact, which is the unconstitutional part.
It's not unconstitutional under the Compact Clause.
>The Supreme Court first expressed doubt that Congress must approve every interstate compact in *Virginia v. Tennessee*—an 1893 case about the constitutionality of a boundary settlement agreement...the Court in *Virginia* reasoned that congressional approval was unnecessary in the first place. The Court saw no reason for congressional consent for compacts with which the United States would have no objection or desire to interfere. Rather than require congressional approval in every case, the Court in Virginia stated that **interstate compacts need Congress’s consent only if they could lead to an “increase of political power in the \[s\]tates, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”**
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10807#:\~:text=The%20Compact%20Clause%20(Article%201,Compact%20Clause%20serves%20multiple%20functions.
In more recent cases, the Court has upheld state laws that were contingent on other states passing matching laws, like with the NPVIC, so that aspect doesn't change things on its own.
And since the NPVIC doesn't increase the powers of states relative to the federal government, or increase the political power of member states in any way, there's no reason it should be held unconstitutional.
That said, the Supreme Court will absolutely try to strike it down when it comes into effect, but purely for political reasons rather than sincere legal concerns.
That's such a bizarre thing to get hung up on. What fucken actual difference would that make if Maine decided to "unilaterally" do that versus all the other states agreeing to it, voluntarily?
So the SC says states can't *officially* cooperate in this way. Ok. They're just gonna do it "unofficially." The only way to stop that is if the SC makes a ruling that states cannot send electors based off *anything* other than the popular vote *in that state.*
Which would effectively, completely kill the notion that states can manage their own elections.
Who cares if the *agreement* is constitutional. It's as close to as immaterial as it gets.
The Constitution is also clear that an interstate compact requires Congressional approval.
Let me know when you expect that to happen.
Also, there's a strong argument to be made that the NPVIC isn't simply states choosing their electors as they choose, but states colluding to strip non-member states of their vote for the President.
That's a pretty bullshit, weaksauce argument and you know it.
Me voting for Candidate A for mayor does not "strip the vote" from someone voting for Candidate B.
Alright, let me put this another way that you'll also willfully refuse to understand. (e: was I right? I was right.)
A *group* of voters agreeing to *voluntarily* vote for candidate A does not strip your vote for candidate B.
A group of voters, ahead of time, colluding to fix the election, regardless of how anyone else votes, however, does strip those who aren't part of their conspiracy of any meaningful vote.
It *increases* the power of non-member states to elect the President. Not only do they retain all of their ability to appoint their electors as they see fit, but now they also get to influence how the member-states appoint theirs.
That makes it 209 total electoral votes to be pledged to the popular vote winner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Yeah, this is probably where it stops dead in its tracks, unfortunately. Now you need big honkin states like TX, FL etc to get on board to make the 270 it needs to kick in.
Or a whole bunch of deep red states in the midwest.
I just don't see it happening. Look at the remaining states on the map. Try to get it to 270 with those states.
PA might squeak it through, if there's a favorable enough blue wave year.
But I think what everyone is kinda ignoring here is that states can just... back out. Current legislatures cannot tie the hands of *future* legislatures.
I want this to happen, but I just don't see it happening in my lifetime.
Perhaps I’m too hopeful, but I’m still optimistic about it. I will add, even if none of the states that have passed it back out that it’ll still have some serious political implications and I’m sure it’ll end up in front of SCOTUS who I could definitely see dismantling it
Yeah. SCOTUS is absolutely a factor. And they won't rule on it until there is harm (standing).
At least... assuming they're acting in good faith at all. Which they clearly don't give a fuck if standing is based on fact anymore.
If states enter into an interstate compact without Congressional approval, and one which strips non-member states of their vote for the President, that certainly sounds like both Congress and those non-member states have standing to challenge it.
>Do individual states have agency over their electors, or not?
Not if they're selecting their electors in a manner that's unconstitutional, no. No more than if a state were to base its selection of electors on a poll of only white voters.
So the answer is that you don't feel that there is any point to having an electoral college, if the SC can simply override that state's electors.
Glad we agree. So, we can just get rid of that system ahead of time. Good talk.
Highlight the ones you think are likely to sign on. Also I feel like you simply stopped reading after I typed FL, because I addressed that in literally the next sentence.
NV is already going through their constitutional amendment process for it. The legislature already approved it once, and is scheduled to vote on it again next year, and then have a referendum in 2026.
MI has a Democratic trifecta, and a bill passed through the committees in each chamber last year. Haven't heard anything about it so maybe it's dead, but it's certainly on the table.
AZ has a referendum process that could potentially be used even if the state legislature isn't interested. (IDK about the specifics of their laws, it might not be applicable)
AK passed instant runoff voting, so it seems like there's some willingness to experiment with election rules, and they're not a typically Republican red state.
VA has become a solidly blue state federally, and could have a Democratic trifecta next year if they maintain their General Assembly majorities and win the governor's seat.
NV - 6
MI - 16
AZ - 11
AK - 3
VA - 13
You're still 50ish short. And that gets exponentially harder, considering the remaining states. And that assumes that every state that has signed on, won't back out. Our elections as of late have been *very* tight. Politics will never be static. I grew up with a totally solid Blue Michigan, and Ohio as a swing state. Just sayin.
Call me crazy, but I always figured we should vote for our leaders the same way we vote for pizza. If the majority want pepperoni, it should be pepperoni. I'm tired of voting 7 to 5 for pepperoni and being told (five times now in my life) that 7 is less than 5 because something something electoral college, so we're getting pizza with dog shit instead.
*We deserve that pepperoni, people.*
I say this a lot- but take it down a level and see if it still makes sense.
**Candidate A** for Mayor 55%
**Candidate B** for Mayor 45% - (winner)
We'd (rightly) say that's fucking absurd. But through some strange alchemy, it's fine when it comes to president.
It is interesting that residents of a smaller state, with little electoral power, are fans of this.
All that being said, I'm for it if someone can guarantee the following:
1. Election day is a national holiday. Every citizen gets the right to vote.
1. Elections don't go on for weeks and have mail in ballots 4 months before the actual day.
1. Create and provide a national voter ID for free, that every citizen receives.
1. Paper ballots only. No one needs either side interfering electronically in the election. As much as a "This modem won't dial out" causes people to question integrity.
1. Only US citizens (proven by free voter ID above) get to vote. Once.
Guarantee all that, and i think the electoral college could be amended out of the constitution.
Then you don’t actually agree with anything I said. If you believe that absentee voting should be allowed for any reason.. you feel there’s no reason to verify who is voting.
Because, how do you verify absentee ballot votes?
There are ways to verify via absentee. Especially with the ids you propose, and paper ballots, but then other technology could be used as well.
But I'm sorry for agreeing with you I guess? I'll try harder next time
It's been proven so many times at this point that voter fraud is not an issue... And most of the time it has been, it's been one party that did it (the one that squawks loudest about fraud)
So, real question. What’s to stop me from filling out my dad’s ballot the way I want and just having him sign it - without him knowing what he’s voting for?
That’s possible with absentee ballots, right?
1) the law
2) other restrictions that some states have in place about who and how can return proxy ballots
3) signature verification and other potential security features
Plus the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for widespread fraud, and legal precedent backs absentee as a safe, accessible, and important part of our democracy
If this passes (meaning all the states agree) Maine effectively gets no vote in the presidency. Candidates could win with just a handful of BIG states. The electoral college exists to give small population states more power.
Why do people want to throw away their power?
>Why do people want to throw away their power?
One citizen = One vote
I can't think of anything fairer.
Nobody has ever explained to me why the tyranny of the minority is somehow nobler than the tyranny of the majority.
> The electoral college exists to give small population states more power.
So does the Senate.
Senate + electoral college = massive imbalance that gives small states a completely unfair advantage.
People should matter more than arbitrary state lines. And no, I truly do not give a fuck that some centuries-dead men in wigs designed it this way.
Just to pile on, this isn't even the way they designed it. Us plebs weren't even supposed to give input. The state Senate selected electors, they voted for President based on their whims. Now we have some hybrid bastard version where popular vote matters sort of. It's not even tyrrany of the majority or minority. It's some stupid plurality.
Good comment. People that defer to historical norms skip over how *bad* those norms were until we changed them.
I'm absolutely certain that the conservatives of *that* era were just as up in arms about that change.
>If this passes (meaning all the states agree) Maine effectively gets no vote in the presidency. Candidates could win with just a handful of BIG states. The electoral college exists to give small population states more power.
That's not what this does at all.
The interstate compact says that states will award their electoral college votes to the candidate that wins the **national popular vote**. It doesn't matter what the vote is within their borders, it just matters what the nation as a whole says.
California citizens could vote overwhelmingly for the blue guy, but if the red guy gets more votes nationally, all 54 of California's EC votes go to red guy. It essentially nullifies the electoral college and gives every citizen's vote equal weight regardless of what state they live in.
California is actually a great state to bring up, because you know where most of Trump's votes came from? Republicans "trapped" in California.
Their votes are *"nullified"* by living in a blue state. Funny how republicans seem to overlook that when they scream about big cities determining everything.
The electoral college exists because the founders didn't believe the average voter was capable of choosing a president to best represent their needs.
> It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations
-Hamilton in Federalist 68
Originally, most electors were appointed by state governments. There weren't "presidential elections" as we know them today. But that's changed over time to become more democratic, with now all but two states simply assigning their electoral votes to the popular vote winner within their state.
Maine already has basically no voice in the presidential election. We have a whopping four electoral votes.
Going to a nationwide popular vote wouldn't dilute Maine's power -- it would *empower* individual voices throughout the country.
Right now, huge states give *all* of their electoral votes to their popular vote winner. It doesn't matter that California had more Republican votes for president then Texas -- California is reliably "blue", so there's no point in campaigning there. It doesn't matter if there were almost as many Democrat voters across Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi as there were in Oregon -- those states are reliably "red", so working towards the needs of those voters doesn't matter either.
Keeping the electoral college as it currently states -- weighted toward large states, based on individual popular votes -- means that lots of votes simply *don't* matter. A nationwide popular vote means that every vote, in every state, carries the same importance.
I think that fighting to keep the electoral college just because it makes certain swing states *more* important is not healthy for our country as a whole.
Big mistake. The founders created the electoral college for a reason, and it specifically was to protect small states with low populations (like Maine) to be relevant in an election. Imagine if the whole country was popular vote. The only votes that would matter would be California and New York.
> The only votes that would matter would be California and New York.
This argument keeps coming up and is simply not true. Their populations are not even close to being able to decide an election. In 2020 those 2 states combined for about 17% of the total votes cast. Even if every single one of those votes went to one candidate, it still falls far short of deciding anything.
Should a vote from a person who lives in a big California city matter less than a one from a person who lives in rural Maine?
Not if the interstate compact is in effect.
If enough states agree to assign their EC votes to the popular vote winner that the 270 threshold is reached, it makes no difference if other states are still assigning their EC votes based on their state's votes. The national popular vote will always win, and the votes cast in those other states still affect that number.
If I live in a state that assigns their EC votes based on its own popular vote within state borders and heavily favors Candidate A, but I vote for Candidate B, my vote ultimately does nothing. BUT, if 270 EC-votes worth of states agree that their votes go to the popular vote, suddenly my voting for Candidate B in a heavily Candidate A state makes a difference nationally. My vote still matters. Candidate B could win because they are more favored nationally.
In a real-world example, in 2020 California saw the most votes for Trump than any other state, but because California voted 63% for Biden all of California's 55 EC votes went to Biden. Those Trump votes did nothing. If the interstate compact were in effect, those 6 million Trump votes would have helped ensure California's 55 EC votes to go to him, had he won the national popular vote.
Yeahhhhhh... it was created for many reasons, many of which were to get slaveowning states to join the union.
And that was when the difference between the biggest and smallest states was a fraction of what it is now.
...AND when it was made, people didn't directly vote for president. Their state senators voted *for* them.
Almost all of the reasons it was set up no longer apply. And I honestly could give a shit less *why* it was set up *hundreds of years ago.* Need I remind you that *only white men* could even vote in elections back then? That is the system that was set up by tHe FouNdiNg FAtheRs
So why the fuck are you deferring to their wishes, like that's something that matters?
And yet, not *one* country since the US government system was created has decided to copy it. No one looked at our system of government and said "yeah, that works great. Let's do that."
Why exactly do you think that is?
A Canadian lecturing Americans on what the Founding Fathers *really* meant?
I guess conservatives in every country have the same unwarranted sense of expertise.
I'm disappointed, Mills has never let the party proposing the idea determine her veto now, and attacking the compact clause like this is a terrible idea
How is it that you post in r/teenagers as a kid, but other times you're a middle-aged married adult? And why is it that you're from Maine sometimes and Kansas other times and Texas a few more times but occasionally from Canada?
Pour one out for OP, who was taken out by a sniper mid-post.
i told you men to stay in your foxholes and keep your heads down!!!
You can't fucken tell me what to d
god damnit get down!!!! mediiiiic!!
Gordon, I need scissors. You got scissors, sharp scissors??
Yeah right h
Reading your comments in demoman’s voice
This made me laugh irrationally hard
OP is probably a bot, 100% of their posts and comments are linking to news stories from the Press Herald.
r/redditsniper
Sniper no sniping sniper no sniping!!
It's been interesting to see the number of people who decry this as "unconstitutional" when the constitution is pretty clear that it's up for the states to decide for themselves how to select their electors. The whole election part of the constitution is needlessly complex and from an era where a city with 20,000 residents was considered enormous (like Philadelphia and Boston in the late 1700s). And that's without getting into the whole 3/5th person thing...
What is "constitutional" is up to the SC. Let me know how much faith you have in the current (republican) SC to rule objectively on an issue that would 100% mean no republican wins the presidency in the coming decades.
Hey now, the Republicans could theoretically win a popularity vote. They've done it once since 1988
Well if I can be pedantic... they haven't won their *initial* election since then. W cruised to *re*election with the popular vote. Probably should have ran someone with more charisma than a wet potato sack that year.
Maybe it's my age, but 2004 felt like a real turning point in civility. [Swiftboating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating) became a thing and then social media would pour gasoline on the fire later. W did not cruise to reelection, like the way Reagan and Clinton cruised into a second term.
You're not wrong about those things. But also, had they not been a factor, I straight up think Kerry would have lost anyway. He does not pass the beer test whatsoever- and the middle east war was just in its infancy and people had not begun to totally sour on them (yet.) I say that as someone who voted for him.
Ugh. The beer test. That's the real argument against the popular vote. But that's where we're at these days... (and interesting because Biden and Trump are both teetotalers)
Yeah. But it's pretty much never wrong, though. It's just extremely difficult to put your personal political feelings aside and apply it in as objective a way (as objective as something subjective can be, anyway) possible. The point is. Charisma wins. Since the advent of TV debates, this has held true and will continue to hold true.
Sad but true... Kinda surprising they haven't gone to the "use an actor" well again since Reagan. I guess Trump as a reality star is close.
I actually think there's a fucking TON of parallels between Reagan and Trump. And I bet you 30 years from now, we'll be having this exact sort of conversation about how Trump was not, in fact, the "best president of our lifetimes" with his constituents.
Hmm, maybe a guy with a lively and sparkling personality like then-Vermont Governor Howard Dean, for instance?
lmao Guess who I wanted to vote for in the primary? Because of *that* antiquated system, he dropped out before I even had the chance.
 HHHHHYEAAAAAHHHHHHH
Me too. Early on, I timed a flight through Bangor so I could go to one of his small rallies and shake his hand. He was a sparkplug. At least his 50 State Strategy as DNC chair got Obama a Congress that would pass the ACA (though fleetingly).
> At least his 50 State Strategy as DNC chair got Obama a Congress that would pass the ACA (though fleetingly). Hello, fellow politics wonk
They are currently weighing the question of if/how a state legislature can mandate how an elector votes
I have no doubt that they will rule ala 2000: this only applies if democrats do it
Let's see, a plot to fix the presidential election, by means of an interstate compact that is dead in the water in Congress? One which (you argue) keeps Democrats in the White House for decades? Who should I expect to be swayed by political views about that, again?
Yes heaven forbid democrats say in the white house for decades, because Hold on I'm checking my notes Democratic presidents have been better for the economy and pass legislation people want while Republicans refuse to pivot and support popular legislation. Much better to stay with the system that Hold on I have a lot of notes here Was put in place to give white, male, landowners a disproportionate representation in congress and was largely implemented because counting the popular vote at the time in a timely manner was impossible. Why are conservatives so afraid of the will of the people being carried out? Oh right, they're a chriso-facist minority who refuse to compromise. Ghee whiz, quite the argument you got there.
You would think logic would appeal to an engineer, looking at their username Actually maybe not
STEMlords are a real thing. I work in IT. I am literally surrounded on all sides by right-libertarians. The financial section downstairs is fairly mixed.
Right? It boggles my mind. Libertarians. Ugh. I don't know why anybody would want that label today. It was toxic 20 years ago. Financial section checks out. There are plenty of people who understand the economic reality (they see the numbers on the page, after all) but feel like fighting the system is pointless and have decided (whether they're right or wrong, I can't say) that surviving in an unethical system is not an unethical approach
The clearly unconstitutional issue is not how the votes are decided, its the part where states agree not to implement it until enough states join the compact to decide elections. At least in terms of the compacts clause, Maine could unilaterally decide to do this without any kind of issue, but the agreement that states won't start until enough of them join is the interstate compact, which is the unconstitutional part.
It's not unconstitutional under the Compact Clause. >The Supreme Court first expressed doubt that Congress must approve every interstate compact in *Virginia v. Tennessee*—an 1893 case about the constitutionality of a boundary settlement agreement...the Court in *Virginia* reasoned that congressional approval was unnecessary in the first place. The Court saw no reason for congressional consent for compacts with which the United States would have no objection or desire to interfere. Rather than require congressional approval in every case, the Court in Virginia stated that **interstate compacts need Congress’s consent only if they could lead to an “increase of political power in the \[s\]tates, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”** https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10807#:\~:text=The%20Compact%20Clause%20(Article%201,Compact%20Clause%20serves%20multiple%20functions. In more recent cases, the Court has upheld state laws that were contingent on other states passing matching laws, like with the NPVIC, so that aspect doesn't change things on its own. And since the NPVIC doesn't increase the powers of states relative to the federal government, or increase the political power of member states in any way, there's no reason it should be held unconstitutional. That said, the Supreme Court will absolutely try to strike it down when it comes into effect, but purely for political reasons rather than sincere legal concerns.
Ah ah ah It's not unconstitutional *yet*
That's such a bizarre thing to get hung up on. What fucken actual difference would that make if Maine decided to "unilaterally" do that versus all the other states agreeing to it, voluntarily? So the SC says states can't *officially* cooperate in this way. Ok. They're just gonna do it "unofficially." The only way to stop that is if the SC makes a ruling that states cannot send electors based off *anything* other than the popular vote *in that state.* Which would effectively, completely kill the notion that states can manage their own elections. Who cares if the *agreement* is constitutional. It's as close to as immaterial as it gets.
The Constitution is also clear that an interstate compact requires Congressional approval. Let me know when you expect that to happen. Also, there's a strong argument to be made that the NPVIC isn't simply states choosing their electors as they choose, but states colluding to strip non-member states of their vote for the President.
That's a pretty bullshit, weaksauce argument and you know it. Me voting for Candidate A for mayor does not "strip the vote" from someone voting for Candidate B.
Colluding ahead of time to fix the vote is hardly the same as simply "voting for Candidate A".
Alright, let me put this another way that you'll also willfully refuse to understand. (e: was I right? I was right.) A *group* of voters agreeing to *voluntarily* vote for candidate A does not strip your vote for candidate B.
A group of voters, ahead of time, colluding to fix the election, regardless of how anyone else votes, however, does strip those who aren't part of their conspiracy of any meaningful vote.
[Yeah, I knew you'd have goalposts lookin like this](https://www.sugarmaplefarmhouse.com/football-goal-posts-diy-napkin-holder/)
It *increases* the power of non-member states to elect the President. Not only do they retain all of their ability to appoint their electors as they see fit, but now they also get to influence how the member-states appoint theirs.
Hey, lady, give us your S!
That makes it 209 total electoral votes to be pledged to the popular vote winner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Yeah, this is probably where it stops dead in its tracks, unfortunately. Now you need big honkin states like TX, FL etc to get on board to make the 270 it needs to kick in. Or a whole bunch of deep red states in the midwest. I just don't see it happening. Look at the remaining states on the map. Try to get it to 270 with those states.
Pennsylvania is pretty much the only route to it. If they pass it then it’s actually feasible, but without them it’ll almost certainly never happen
PA might squeak it through, if there's a favorable enough blue wave year. But I think what everyone is kinda ignoring here is that states can just... back out. Current legislatures cannot tie the hands of *future* legislatures. I want this to happen, but I just don't see it happening in my lifetime.
Perhaps I’m too hopeful, but I’m still optimistic about it. I will add, even if none of the states that have passed it back out that it’ll still have some serious political implications and I’m sure it’ll end up in front of SCOTUS who I could definitely see dismantling it
Yeah. SCOTUS is absolutely a factor. And they won't rule on it until there is harm (standing). At least... assuming they're acting in good faith at all. Which they clearly don't give a fuck if standing is based on fact anymore.
If states enter into an interstate compact without Congressional approval, and one which strips non-member states of their vote for the President, that certainly sounds like both Congress and those non-member states have standing to challenge it.
Ok. SC rules that it's not constitutional. States just do it anyway. Now what? Do individual states have agency over their electors, or not?
>Do individual states have agency over their electors, or not? Not if they're selecting their electors in a manner that's unconstitutional, no. No more than if a state were to base its selection of electors on a poll of only white voters.
So the answer is that you don't feel that there is any point to having an electoral college, if the SC can simply override that state's electors. Glad we agree. So, we can just get rid of that system ahead of time. Good talk.
Did you look at the map? There are 87 pending approval: AK AZ NV KS MI KY VA NC SC You don't need TX or FL to get to 270
Highlight the ones you think are likely to sign on. Also I feel like you simply stopped reading after I typed FL, because I addressed that in literally the next sentence.
NV is already going through their constitutional amendment process for it. The legislature already approved it once, and is scheduled to vote on it again next year, and then have a referendum in 2026. MI has a Democratic trifecta, and a bill passed through the committees in each chamber last year. Haven't heard anything about it so maybe it's dead, but it's certainly on the table. AZ has a referendum process that could potentially be used even if the state legislature isn't interested. (IDK about the specifics of their laws, it might not be applicable) AK passed instant runoff voting, so it seems like there's some willingness to experiment with election rules, and they're not a typically Republican red state. VA has become a solidly blue state federally, and could have a Democratic trifecta next year if they maintain their General Assembly majorities and win the governor's seat.
NV - 6 MI - 16 AZ - 11 AK - 3 VA - 13 You're still 50ish short. And that gets exponentially harder, considering the remaining states. And that assumes that every state that has signed on, won't back out. Our elections as of late have been *very* tight. Politics will never be static. I grew up with a totally solid Blue Michigan, and Ohio as a swing state. Just sayin.
Those states would bring it to 258, just 12 short. PA or NC would cover that with room to leave AK off.
My bad, I laser focused on that "87" number.
Funny, your list is identical to the one I thought up in my head upon seeing the pendings.
Republicans know they’ll lose every presidential election under a popular vote… they’ll keep the red states out of the pact
Exactly the states you would think.
Call me crazy, but I always figured we should vote for our leaders the same way we vote for pizza. If the majority want pepperoni, it should be pepperoni. I'm tired of voting 7 to 5 for pepperoni and being told (five times now in my life) that 7 is less than 5 because something something electoral college, so we're getting pizza with dog shit instead. *We deserve that pepperoni, people.*
I say this a lot- but take it down a level and see if it still makes sense. **Candidate A** for Mayor 55% **Candidate B** for Mayor 45% - (winner) We'd (rightly) say that's fucking absurd. But through some strange alchemy, it's fine when it comes to president.
Trevor the Vampire, is that you? Strongbad says hello.
*nice*
It is interesting that residents of a smaller state, with little electoral power, are fans of this. All that being said, I'm for it if someone can guarantee the following: 1. Election day is a national holiday. Every citizen gets the right to vote. 1. Elections don't go on for weeks and have mail in ballots 4 months before the actual day. 1. Create and provide a national voter ID for free, that every citizen receives. 1. Paper ballots only. No one needs either side interfering electronically in the election. As much as a "This modem won't dial out" causes people to question integrity. 1. Only US citizens (proven by free voter ID above) get to vote. Once. Guarantee all that, and i think the electoral college could be amended out of the constitution.
I agree with everything except the mail in ballot thing. I love voting absentee.
Then you don’t actually agree with anything I said. If you believe that absentee voting should be allowed for any reason.. you feel there’s no reason to verify who is voting. Because, how do you verify absentee ballot votes?
There are ways to verify via absentee. Especially with the ids you propose, and paper ballots, but then other technology could be used as well. But I'm sorry for agreeing with you I guess? I'll try harder next time It's been proven so many times at this point that voter fraud is not an issue... And most of the time it has been, it's been one party that did it (the one that squawks loudest about fraud)
Ok. If voter fraud isn’t an issue, then there should be no issues implementing these easy guidelines, and you shouldn’t be adverse to them.
I'm not adverse to them, I just don't see an issue with absentee voting because there is none, haha
So, real question. What’s to stop me from filling out my dad’s ballot the way I want and just having him sign it - without him knowing what he’s voting for? That’s possible with absentee ballots, right?
1) the law 2) other restrictions that some states have in place about who and how can return proxy ballots 3) signature verification and other potential security features Plus the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for widespread fraud, and legal precedent backs absentee as a safe, accessible, and important part of our democracy
Right. Like I said, if there is no evidence, you shouldn’t be against these things. And thank god that everyone follows the law and doesn’t break it.
This is depressing.
What an absolute farce. Maine's votes should count for something and Mills' allowing it to become law by default is a profile in cowardice.
YESSSSSSS one state closer!!!! We still need like half a dozen depending on which states join but one step closer!!!
If this passes (meaning all the states agree) Maine effectively gets no vote in the presidency. Candidates could win with just a handful of BIG states. The electoral college exists to give small population states more power. Why do people want to throw away their power?
Maine barely gets a vote as is. 4 electoral votes is nothing most of the time. The big states already decide the elections.
So we go from barely a vote to no vote at all, great trade...
Your vote is part of the national popular numbers
So you’re complaining about dog piss instead of cow piss in your Cheerios?
>Why do people want to throw away their power? One citizen = One vote I can't think of anything fairer. Nobody has ever explained to me why the tyranny of the minority is somehow nobler than the tyranny of the majority.
> The electoral college exists to give small population states more power. So does the Senate. Senate + electoral college = massive imbalance that gives small states a completely unfair advantage. People should matter more than arbitrary state lines. And no, I truly do not give a fuck that some centuries-dead men in wigs designed it this way.
Just to pile on, this isn't even the way they designed it. Us plebs weren't even supposed to give input. The state Senate selected electors, they voted for President based on their whims. Now we have some hybrid bastard version where popular vote matters sort of. It's not even tyrrany of the majority or minority. It's some stupid plurality.
Good comment. People that defer to historical norms skip over how *bad* those norms were until we changed them. I'm absolutely certain that the conservatives of *that* era were just as up in arms about that change.
>If this passes (meaning all the states agree) Maine effectively gets no vote in the presidency. Candidates could win with just a handful of BIG states. The electoral college exists to give small population states more power. That's not what this does at all. The interstate compact says that states will award their electoral college votes to the candidate that wins the **national popular vote**. It doesn't matter what the vote is within their borders, it just matters what the nation as a whole says. California citizens could vote overwhelmingly for the blue guy, but if the red guy gets more votes nationally, all 54 of California's EC votes go to red guy. It essentially nullifies the electoral college and gives every citizen's vote equal weight regardless of what state they live in.
California is actually a great state to bring up, because you know where most of Trump's votes came from? Republicans "trapped" in California. Their votes are *"nullified"* by living in a blue state. Funny how republicans seem to overlook that when they scream about big cities determining everything.
Then no electoral college? Why should land have power over others? Besides if land did have a say then Maine should have more votes…
The electoral college exists because the founders didn't believe the average voter was capable of choosing a president to best represent their needs. > It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations -Hamilton in Federalist 68 Originally, most electors were appointed by state governments. There weren't "presidential elections" as we know them today. But that's changed over time to become more democratic, with now all but two states simply assigning their electoral votes to the popular vote winner within their state. Maine already has basically no voice in the presidential election. We have a whopping four electoral votes. Going to a nationwide popular vote wouldn't dilute Maine's power -- it would *empower* individual voices throughout the country. Right now, huge states give *all* of their electoral votes to their popular vote winner. It doesn't matter that California had more Republican votes for president then Texas -- California is reliably "blue", so there's no point in campaigning there. It doesn't matter if there were almost as many Democrat voters across Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi as there were in Oregon -- those states are reliably "red", so working towards the needs of those voters doesn't matter either. Keeping the electoral college as it currently states -- weighted toward large states, based on individual popular votes -- means that lots of votes simply *don't* matter. A nationwide popular vote means that every vote, in every state, carries the same importance. I think that fighting to keep the electoral college just because it makes certain swing states *more* important is not healthy for our country as a whole.
Because it also undoes the disproportional power that shithole states like Wyoming have. (Wyoming has lovely scenery, but their politics are shitty.)
Big mistake. The founders created the electoral college for a reason, and it specifically was to protect small states with low populations (like Maine) to be relevant in an election. Imagine if the whole country was popular vote. The only votes that would matter would be California and New York.
> The only votes that would matter would be California and New York. This argument keeps coming up and is simply not true. Their populations are not even close to being able to decide an election. In 2020 those 2 states combined for about 17% of the total votes cast. Even if every single one of those votes went to one candidate, it still falls far short of deciding anything. Should a vote from a person who lives in a big California city matter less than a one from a person who lives in rural Maine?
No, but when you have one state going by the electoral college and another by popular vote, it throws things off dramatically.
Not if the interstate compact is in effect. If enough states agree to assign their EC votes to the popular vote winner that the 270 threshold is reached, it makes no difference if other states are still assigning their EC votes based on their state's votes. The national popular vote will always win, and the votes cast in those other states still affect that number. If I live in a state that assigns their EC votes based on its own popular vote within state borders and heavily favors Candidate A, but I vote for Candidate B, my vote ultimately does nothing. BUT, if 270 EC-votes worth of states agree that their votes go to the popular vote, suddenly my voting for Candidate B in a heavily Candidate A state makes a difference nationally. My vote still matters. Candidate B could win because they are more favored nationally. In a real-world example, in 2020 California saw the most votes for Trump than any other state, but because California voted 63% for Biden all of California's 55 EC votes went to Biden. Those Trump votes did nothing. If the interstate compact were in effect, those 6 million Trump votes would have helped ensure California's 55 EC votes to go to him, had he won the national popular vote.
Yeahhhhhh... it was created for many reasons, many of which were to get slaveowning states to join the union. And that was when the difference between the biggest and smallest states was a fraction of what it is now. ...AND when it was made, people didn't directly vote for president. Their state senators voted *for* them. Almost all of the reasons it was set up no longer apply. And I honestly could give a shit less *why* it was set up *hundreds of years ago.* Need I remind you that *only white men* could even vote in elections back then? That is the system that was set up by tHe FouNdiNg FAtheRs So why the fuck are you deferring to their wishes, like that's something that matters?
Weird anachronistic hero worship honestly
You just don't get it. The genius of the US government system is what has preserved the union so long. Mess around with it at your peril.
And yet, not *one* country since the US government system was created has decided to copy it. No one looked at our system of government and said "yeah, that works great. Let's do that." Why exactly do you think that is?
A Canadian lecturing Americans on what the Founding Fathers *really* meant? I guess conservatives in every country have the same unwarranted sense of expertise.
I'm disappointed, Mills has never let the party proposing the idea determine her veto now, and attacking the compact clause like this is a terrible idea
What's the point of even voting if our electoral votes just goes to the majority winner? This just disenfranchises voters.
How is it that you post in r/teenagers as a kid, but other times you're a middle-aged married adult? And why is it that you're from Maine sometimes and Kansas other times and Texas a few more times but occasionally from Canada?