Skip to main content

View Diary: John Nichols unearths yet another Republican-backed Electoral College-rigging push (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  NPV (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flitedocnm, Dallasdoc, Beetwasher

    You've just described the NPV plan. It is already going forward and says that when enough states to reach 270 electoral votes pass it (and not until then), then those states will allocate their electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner.

    It effectively creates a national popular vote for President while leaving the electoral college as a vestigial appendage (thus not requiring a Constitutional amendment).

    It is already law in states accounting for 132 electoral votes. Those states are: VT, MD, WA, IL, NJ, DC, MA, CA, HI. Notice anything? They're all predominantly Democratic. Republicans "know" that if they go to anything resembling real Democracy they are out of power federally.

    Take it easy, but take it.

    by ltsply2 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:02:42 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The PA legislature should be forced to answer (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook, Jeff Y, ardyess

      the question of why not just join the National Popular Vote Compact?

      They stay relevant as a state in the current EC system until enough states join and once they do, they get the popular vote like they purported want.

      The problem of course is that they don't really give a damn about the popular vote, it is all just about stealing the next national election.

      Priebus should be made to answer why he isn't pushing the popular vote in red states as well.

      •  78% of Pennsylvania Voters Support NPV (0+ / 0-)

        A survey of Pennsylvania voters showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
        Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
        By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
        By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.

        NationalPopularVote

    •  Why wait for 270? (0+ / 0-)

      If a single state passed this, its electoral votes would go to the national popular vote winner.  Would that be a bad thing?  Do we want those votes going to the popular vote loser, anyway?

      I like the idea, but on reflection fail to see why it has to achieve critical mass to be put into effect.  The more states that did this, the more effective it would be, but even a few large states would change presidential elections.

      Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

      by Dallasdoc on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:29:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gurantees Presidency to Candidate with Most Votes (0+ / 0-)

        The purpose of the compact is to achieve a nationwide popular vote for President and Vice President. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country only when states with 270 electoral votes agree.

        No single state would ever be likely to unilaterally enact a law awarding its electoral votes to the nationwide winner. For one thing, such an action would give the voters of all the other states a voice in the selection of the state’s own presidential electors, while not giving the enacting state the benefit of a voice in the selection of presidential electors in other states.
        Enactment of such a law in a single state would encourage the presidential candidates to ignore the enacting state. Such unilateral action would not guarantee achievement of the goal of nationwide popular election of the President.

        If the states participating in the arrangement possess a majority of the electoral votes, the system operates in an even-handed and non-partisan way without regard to the political complexion of the enacting states. With an electoral majority threshold, the political complexion of the enacting states becomes irrelevant.

      •  Because of Red states intransigency (0+ / 0-)

        What you've described is the Republican's dream. "Blue" states, like California, give roughly 50% of their electors to each party, while "red" states, like Texas, give 100% of theirs to the Republican. This is why it doesn't work unless everyone (or at least enough to make a majority of the electoral college) does it.

        Take it easy, but take it.

        by ltsply2 on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:41:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site