National Popular Vote

[El Barto]

https://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/22/sracic.president.election/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

Under NPV, states approve an interstate compact agreeing to give all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Since it was launched in 2006, the campaign for NPV has moved consistently forward, aided by the support of prominent politicians such as former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tennessee.

The compact goes into effect once enough states sign on to total an Electoral College majority of 270 votes. The addition of California will leave the NPV plan just a hair shy of half of that total. Seven states and the District of Columbia have already signed on.

Correct me if I'm wrong (statistics make Baby Jesus cry),  but wouldn't this completely disenfranchise any state that signed aboard?  I'm all in favor of changing the stupid-ass scheme we have now, but it seems like this just goes right back to the method that the electoral system was trying to prevent.

[MasterShakezula]

Um, why not just have each electoral vote in a district be counted by the actual popular vote within the district, as opposed to some random person, and then add up all the electoral votes. 

[Dr. DTVT]

I don't like that its a half-assed fix when a proper fix is possible.  I'd be worried that there would be some loophole or technicality that someone would exploit when it suits their party and it would just devolve into a shitfest and courtroom battles.

I'm all for going straight popular vote, but do it right with a constitutional ammendment.  I honestly wonder how many people in definite red or blue states don't vote just because they don't need to. 

[j]

Yeah this sounds like a lateral move to me.  WTF.

-J

[Scheavo]

The legal trickery here is like the founder's saying the Constitution is in effect for all 13 colonies when 9 of them ratify it. There's nothing actually unconstitutional about it, but it's really just sad that we still have the electoral college anyways. We talk a lot about being a democracy in America, but we keep archaic institutions like this around.

[Super Dude]

I prefer bureaucratic rule to mob rule.  Mobs don't know shit.  Not that I'm saying bureaucratic rule is that much better, but if we gotta choose between one or the other...

[yorost]

An electorate from a district should not be forced to vote against that districts wishes.  What most states do now is already unethical, ie forcing all districts to vote with the state's popular winner.  It's pretty much the same idea as a city forcing everybody to change their vote in a gubernatorial election to the candidate that ultimately won the city.  We wouldn't except that, not if it meant changing our individual votes.

I hate the idea of popular vote for president, and I've voiced my reasons here before.  Basically, high turnout in one state that heavily votes one way is more important to candidates than trying to win across the country.

[Scheavo]

Basically, high turnout in one state that heavily votes one way is more important to candidates than trying to win across the country.

That's pretty much true right now, candidates only care about the bigger states. Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Alaska; they maybe get a polite mention, or a stop through, but they're pretty much ignored.

[yorost]

Basically, high turnout in one state that heavily votes one way is more important to candidates than trying to win across the country.

That's pretty much true right now, candidates only care about the bigger states. Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Alaska; they maybe get a polite mention, or a stop through, but they're pretty much ignored.

I explain things poorly, sorry.  I agree with you, my point was partly that going to popular vote will make it even worse.  The electorate should be going the other way, all districts get to choose their own electors, states only get to choose the 2 senatorial electors.