BREAKING: Electoral College on its way out!

Some great news to report:

Illinois Governor Blagojevich Signs National Popular Vote Bill

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, April 7, 2008 — Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich today signed the National Popular Vote bill. The bill has been signed into law in Maryland (10 electoral votes), New Jersey (15 electoral votes), and Illinois (21 electoral votes). This total of 46 electoral votes is more than one-sixth of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the legislation into effect.

We are closer to the day when all votes for President will count the same. If you are not familiar  with the National Popular Vote Bill please check out their website and see what's going on in your state. If you know anyone in the media please let them know about this so we can get more press on this issue.

The idea is very clever and gets around the need for a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college. It uses the legal framework of the interstate compact avoiding the need for unilateral disarmament such as the pervious proportional allocation of delegates in California as well as the 2/3's majority to amend the constitution. More details on the National Popular Vote Bill below.

The National Popular Vote bill is based on the provision of the U.S. Constitution giving the states exclusive control over the manner of awarding of their electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election. Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) currently award electoral votes by congressional districts—a reminder that a federal constitutional amendment is not required to change the way the President is elected.

The National Popular Vote 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 is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

more on interstate compacts:

An interstate compact is a contractual agreement between two or more states. The U.S. Constitution authorizes states to enter into interstate compacts. States may enter into an interstate compact in the same manner that they enact any other state law.

Compacts typically address problems that no one state can solve unilaterally. For example, the Colorado River Compact apportions waters of the Colorado River among seven western states. No one state would want to limit its access to the river’s water unless it could rely on the fact that other states would similarly limit their usage. The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children is an example of a compact involving all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is an example of the bi-state compact.

UPDATE: a comment by sab39 does a great job explaining how this works so I wanted to highlight it.

It's cleverer than that, which I didn't realize until I read this diary (I'd heard of the idea before, but not in such detail).

Since the compact doesn't come into effect unless a full 270EVs worth of states have enacted it, once it comes into effect, the popular vote winner will win the presidency, regardless of how the remaining states apportion their electors. It makes the other states' electoral votes completely irrelevant (although of course their popular vote still counts towards the whole).

Essentially, the moment that the compact comes into force, state-by-state victories become irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the states enacting it are primarily blue, because every other state could go fully red and the Dem would still be president, if and only if he won the nationwide popular vote.

•  Tips, Flames, hanging chads.

  by jmorton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:03:55 AM PDT

•  This is good news for the Republicans

  as all these states that you mentioned above tend to vote democrat. So if a Republican win the popular vote he will add on to his electoral victory.

  by johndeebo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM PDT

  •  Well

    we're pretty good at shooting ourselves in the foot.

    One forgets the Republicans are the only party to win an outright majority of the popular vote in Presidential elections in the past 30 years.

    by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:05:38 AM PDT

    •  "the most popular votes," not "the majority"

      When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

      (emphasis added)

      This law, if it were in effect in 2000, would have given Gore the win, since he won 48.4% to Bush's 47.9% of the popular vote.

      by baudelairien on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:22:36 AM PDT

      •  Yes

        but the Republicans have won the popular vote in all but four elections since 1964...even had Kerry swung 200,000 voters in Ohio, won the state and the electoral college, he still would've lost the popular vote.

        by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:24:34 AM PDT

        •  Except for 2000, electoral winner won pop. vote

          Republicans have also won the electoral vote in all but three elections since 1964 -- so you're actually making the point. When the electoral vote overrides the popular vote, it's to the Republican candidate's advantage. Since there's no example from recent history to the contrary, I would be earnestly fascinated if you could come up with one.

          Here are the popular votes going back to 1968:

          2004. Bush 50.7%; Kerry 48.3%

          2000. Bush 47.9%; Gore 48.4%

          1996. Clinton 49.2%; Dole 40.7%

          1992. Clinton 43.0%; Dole 37.4%

          1988. Bush 53.4%; Dukakis 45.6%

          1984. Reagan 58.8%; Mondale 40.6%

          1980. Reagan 50.7%; Carter 41.0%

          1976. Carter 50.1%; Ford 48.0%

          1972. Nixon 60.7%; McGovern 37.5%

          1968. Nixon 43.4%; Humphrey 42.7%

          by baudelairien on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:50:50 AM PDT

          •  Typo

            1992 should read  "Bush", not "Dole".

            by baudelairien on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:18:46 AM PDT

  •  No - it doesn't go into affect yet - needs 270.

    That's the beauty of the interstate compact the law is only valid once States with 270+ electoral votes have past the bill - so until then they stay winner take all.

    by jmorton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:07:35 AM PDT

    •  But what happens if all those states

      which enact the bill are Democratic-leaning states? We would be screwed.

      This is the problem with state politics. There are some areas, such as federal elections, that should just be left to the federal government. I'm all for implementing a popular vote system, but it must apply to all states in order to be legitimate.

      by chicagovigilante on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:16:49 AM PDT

      •  you misunderstand

        read sab39's explanation, below...

        by HarlanNY on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:17:50 AM PDT

        •  I think I understand it

          What I'm saying is that if the states that enact this (enough to add up to 270 electoral votes) are mostly Democratic states, this policy would create a serious disadvantage for our Presidential candidates. Imagine states like Texas not participating in this sort of election process while states like Illinois, New York, California, etc. do - it would devastate our number of electoral votes.

          by chicagovigilante on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:21:53 AM PDT

          •  You're still missing the point

            If states adding up to 270 electoral votes agree to the plan, there is no way to win the presidency without winning the national popular vote.

            If Texas or other states do not opt in to the plan, it makes no difference to the outcome of the election. There is no way for any sum of the remaining states to overcome the 270 vote block which would then be tied to national popular vote. (Think of it as a national winner-takes-all contest.)

            by baudelairien on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:28:46 AM PDT

          •  Please read my update - thx - sab39

            by jmorton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:28:57 AM PDT

  •  No it's not

    It's cleverer than that, which I didn't realize until I read this diary (I'd heard of the idea before, but not in such detail).

    Since the compact doesn't come into effect unless a full 270EVs worth of states have enacted it, once it comes into effect, the popular vote winner will win the presidency, regardless of how the remaining states apportion their electors. It makes the other states' electoral votes completely irrelevant (although of course their popular vote still counts towards the whole).

    Essentially, the moment that the compact comes into force, state-by-state victories become irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the states enacting it are primarily blue, because every other state could go fully red and the Dem would still be president, if and only if he won the nationwide popular vote.

    by sab39 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:16:25 AM PDT

    •  The pact isn't binding even then.

      It needs Congressional approval.

      by ohwilleke on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM PDT

•  Hmm

  I wonder what'll happen if this gets through and McCain wins the popular vote, but Obama wins the electoral vote.

  by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:04:23 AM PDT

  •  As I said this plays for the Republicans

    advantage big time no matter how you look at it.

    by johndeebo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:06:23 AM PDT

    •  I don't see how this is good for Repubs.

      What the law does is say that the Nationwide popular vote decides the winner. That is, Gore would have been president after winning the popular vote and the issue would never have gone to the Supreme Court.

      The law, very cleverly, says that each state that is a signatory (after 270 EV's worth have signed) will delegate their EVs to the winner of the National popular vote winner.

      Therefore, once it goes into effect, the National popular vote winner is automatically the winner. Gerrymandering no longer affects the presidential winner, only popular votes nationwide do.

      by Juan4All on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:30:10 AM PDT

    •  No

      This is COMPLETELY party neutral.  The popular vote winner nationally WILL WIN the presidency.  It's that simple.

      Just read the proposal.  It's foolproof, and game-proof.

      by punkdavid on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:17:27 AM PDT

  •  The pact isn't binding yet

    It only comes into play when enough states have signed on to the pact that their combined electoral votes are enough to win the election.

    by LA rupert on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:09:29 AM PDT

  •  Possible

    But the electoral college favors Republicans because Republicans tend to win rural smaller states, while Democrats win bigger urban states. Smaller rural states proportionally gets more votes in an electoral college system because every state no matter its size gets two electoral votes. Because on average, in a 50-50 election, Republicans win ten more states than Democrats, Republicans start of with a 20 electoral vote built-in advantage. It's like Republicans starting off by winning Ohio before the voting even begins.

    by BlueTide on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:26:41 AM PDT

    •  Then why don't we start winning

      smaller rural states too? Democrats used to win them.

      by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:33:34 AM PDT

      •  That

        was before the Republicans' "God, gays, and guns" strategy.

        by Angry White Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:49:02 AM PDT

        •  Something has to usurp that

          We need our own "God, gays and guns strategy"

          by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM PDT

    •  There's an easy way to mostly ameliorate

      the EC advantage of smaller states, increase the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. The current size of the House, 435 members was set in 1911 with the passage of Public Law 62-5. Now, the Constitution guarantees that each state shall have at least one representative in the House, so states such as Wyoming, which has a population of 522,000 get one representative in the House a ratio of 1:522,000 while states such as California get 53 representatives in the House, a ratio of 1:698,000.

      One very elegant way to resolve this would be to adopt the Wyoming Rule where the representative to population ratio would be set so that it was equal to that of the smallest entitled unit, in this case the state of Wyoming which has a population of 522,000. If such a rule were in place the number of representatives in the House would increase from 435 to 577 (estimated population of the US in 2007, 301,000,000 divided by the estimated population of Wyoming in 2007, 522,000. 301,000,000/522,000 = 577). This would increase the number of representatives from California to 70 from 53 which would increase California's electoral votes and reduce the current unfair advantage possessed by small states.

      Since the size of the House is set by the House it would be easy enough for Nancy Pelosi to advocate for this, why she doesn't I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.

      by Wile E Quixote on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:22:59 AM PDT

      •  Most of the small state advantage comes from the

        Senate.

        Wyoming is just about the only state that gets a significant advantgage in the House due to a below quota population.  All others have at least about 690,000 people (300 million population divided by 435) or very close to that number.  And the Wyoming rule doesn't solve the rounding errors that will crop out in any system although it slightly reduces them.

        Wyoming gets a big EV edge because it and California both get two EVs due to their Senate share, which triples the Wyoming EV count, but only gives CA a little over 2% more EVs.

        Also, the notion that small states are cohesive, which makes small state overrepresentation a problem has not largely born out.  Historically, in what I sometimes called the "fortunate coincidence", almost all of the partisan discrepency between the Senate and the House is due to the staggering of Senate terms, not partisan leanings that favor small v. large state.    

        Likewise, the number of elections in which the Senator factor in the number of electoral votes in a state has been decisive is small.

        This is not actually so much a coincidence as a product of political care in admitting new states only when the status quo is maintained, and the fact that political preferecences in individual states tend to be stable and that anomolous party choices tend to balance out on each side of the aisle.

        Most of the discrepency between the popular vote and the EV comes from the way the EV mutes intensity in preference differences between states (i.e. a 51% of the vote win and a 70% of the vote win count the same), not from the extra votes due to Senate seats.

        by ohwilleke on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:40:55 AM PDT

•  I'm not convinced

  As much as the electoral collage can be a pain in the ass, I'm not sure I agree with getting rid of it entirely.  If we moved entirely to a popular vote model, candidates would just hang out in big metropolitan areas and policies would be urban-centric.

  I would favor revising the electoral college such that  states are split proportionally and that it wasn't all or nothing.   I think the Dems way of doing this in the primary makes the most amount of sense.

  by Bailey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:04:56 AM PDT

  •  Er, "college" not "collage"

    by Bailey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:05:40 AM PDT

    •  Paint by numbers politics

      by FischFry on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:18:37 AM PDT

  •  Keep it as it is. It has been like this

    since the foundation of this great nation. No need to change.

    by johndeebo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:09:06 AM PDT

    •  We're quick to want to change

      when it doesn't work once.

      Our system is flawed and may need fine tuning, but it failed, what? Twice in 220 years?

      by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:10:11 AM PDT

      •  but why let it fail?

        If we agree that the popular vote is a better metric to determine who gets elected, why use a system that mimics the popular vote all but a few percent of the time when we can use a system that selects based on the popular vote all of the time?

        by scotths on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:55:13 AM PDT

    •  It was because of Slavery

      Not everything that this great nations founders came up with was a good idea. The electoral college came out of the southern states not allowing slaves to vote but using them as population (2/3's) for electoral college purposes.

      by jmorton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:11:41 AM PDT

  •  Hmm ...

    If your proposal (split states by proportion) were enacted, would that not lead to the exact same result -- the winner of the popular vote would be President?

    What do you see the difference being?

    by Bronxist on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:10:06 AM PDT

    •  That's an awesome sig line

      nt

      by chicagovigilante on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:19:09 AM PDT

      •  Thanks ....

        Link

        by Bronxist on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:54:12 AM PDT

    •  No proportional EV favors small states n/c

      by jmorton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:22:10 AM PDT

    •  2 differences

      1.  The electoral college contains more votes per-person in smaller states.  Even if we split those proportionally the voters in those small states would still receive more weight.

      2.  There could be potential discretization problems; round off errors essentially.  States with a small even number of EVs (ie 4) would require a larger margin of victory for a candidate to avoid a 2-2 split than those with a small odd number (ie 3) where 50%+1 would lead to a split.  

      Assigning 1 EV per congressional district seems another interesting possibility, but this could lead to gerrymandering issues as states look to secure districts for their party.  The remaining 2 EVs could be assigned to the winner of the state or perhaps they could be assigned proportionally.  As candidates would be unlikely to achieve a margin of victory large enough to avoid a 1-1 split that would likely effectively remove the bias in favor of small states.

      I think either way is more likely to reflect the popular vote with a higher probability that the current electoral college but it is still possible they could deviate in a close election.

      by scotths on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:03:16 AM PDT

      •  The proportional advantage of small states...

        ...is part of the constitutional design. Ironically, it was probably intended to counteract the very "tyranny of the majority" effect that utterly negates the votes of the minority populations within those states under winner-take-all.

        by baudelairien on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:10:21 AM PDT

  •  urban-centric is good! most people live in cities

    The majority of the major domestic issues facing most people in the US are urban issues. The decline in manufacturing, the crumbling infrastructure, some of the pockets of poverty. Not to mention the major sources of economic growth are mostly urban, including technology and information.

    There are more people in New York City than in the entire population of Wisconsin! Shouldn't democracy be about improving the lives of the most people?

    by HarlanNY on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:16:48 AM PDT

    •  Yes

      but not where there is the most people...democracy is improving the lives of the most people nationwide, not just where you can get enough popular votes to win.

      by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:20:41 AM PDT

    •  food comes from rural areas

      we need all parts of our country to be well off and work together. It's a system and if we neglect one part of it, then the whole system suffers.

      I don't like the idea that a candidate could just campaign in major urban areas and ignore the rest. not cool.

      by geejay on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:38:07 AM PDT

      •  But its ok for Candidates to ignore NY, CA & TX?

        except for fundraising?

        by jmorton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:40:15 AM PDT

        •  absolutely not

          they need to pay attention to the whole picture - urban, suburban and rural. No part of the system should be ignored.

          by geejay on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:44:32 AM PDT

      •  I agree but...

        imagine a world where we never had the electoral college.  I think it would seem normal that cities carry more weight.  And I think this change would have a net effect of campaigns targeting more voters than in the past.  Which is a good thing.  

        AND, if Congress doesn't like it, they can finally change the g. damn electoral college.

        by yazilikaya on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:58:47 AM PDT

  •  how the hell do you know?

    First of all, where do you think candidates hang out NOW?  In larger EV prizes like OH, PA, MI, WI, FL, etc., states that have... big metropolitan areas!  I cannot understand the argument that we shouldn't change a system that makes candidates campaign in too few states because candidates would then campaign in too few states.

    The truth is you have no idea how campaigns would react.  They might go to the fastest-growing areas in the country, which aren't urban at all but actually the exurbs.  They may play for a draw in the urban vote and spend heavy in cheaper rural areas to get a big advantage.  There's no model for this in the United States so any suggestion is speculative.  What I do know is that the person with the most votes would win, which is true of every single election around the world EXCEPT for the Presidential election in America as currently constructed.

    by dday on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:51:01 AM PDT

    •  Why should swing state cities get all the love?

      The reason that we have such an utterly broken foreign policy regarding Cuba is quite possibly linked to the fact that every presidential candidate is obliged to spend a lot of time in Miami.

      by baudelairien on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:54:12 AM PDT

    •  what could happen

      First of all, why all the hostility?  i.e. "how the hell do you know?"  Have I done something to you in the past that is coming back to haunt me?

      Secondly, there are also alot of urban/sub-urban areas in "red" states that Dems never visit because they don't think there is a chance there, overall.  When's the last time a Dem campaigned in Texas?  In Georgia?    In Colorado?  Even Missouri?  Hopefully with a candidate that has a 50-state campaign in mind, these practices may change and we will see changes in voting patterns in states traditionally written off.

      It is possible that a proportional EV split in states would actually begin the trend of continuously putting MORE states in play during the general election.

      I'm very weary of elections being waged in only 18 states as has been the case for pretty much all of my lifetime.  

      by Bailey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:23:14 AM PDT

  •  Disagree

    Proportional distribution of electors, while seemingly more democratic, has some serious flaws.

    For one, the chance of no one candidate getting a majority of the electoral college vote is much greater in a proportional allocation system.  In 2000, Nader could have siphoned off enough EVs from CA, NY, TX, FL, MI, IL, OR, WI, etc. to denied either Gore or Bush a majority of EVs.  The constitutional remedy for this scenario is to throw the election to the House of Representatives, giving each state delegation one vote for President.  Meaning that WY and CA would each get one vote.

    Also, in a proportional allocation, candidates start paying attention to the cutoffs between winning extra electors.  As an example, say a state has 4 electors and surveys show that the state is basically 50-50 tied in terms of candidate support.  Each candidate will almost undoubtedly receive 2 EVs apiece, because it would take a 67.5-32.5 split for the EVs to be split 3-1.  Therefore, this state gets completely ignored.

    Now, if the state had 5 electors; well, then it's a battleground because both candidates will be fighting to get above 50% to enable the electors to break 3-2 in his/her favor.

    National Popular Vote is the only democratic alternative.

    by skipppppp on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:47:15 AM PDT

•  I think it is a stupid idea

  because it would be larger states running roughshod over smaller states, without going through the amending process intended to protect the smaller states.

  Is it constitutional?   Maybe, since state legislatures have the power to determine how to award electoral votes.

  But there is this - theoretically everyone in one of the participating states could vote for candidate A while candidate B wins the national popular vote -  does that mean that the voters in that state have been denied their right to vote for electors of the president and vice-president?   Can we really be sure how SCOTUS would rule on such an issue, particularly given that a lot of Republicans LIKE the electoral college because of magnifying their influence in places like Utah and Wyoming beyond any impact those popular votes might have.

  by teacherken on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:08:29 AM PDT

  •  The thing is

    the voters have no constitutional right to vote for electors for the President. The Constitution specifically gives that power to the state legislatures.

    And as for small states, they will still be dramatically overrepresented in the Senate, so I have no sympathy.

    by Angry White Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:37:12 AM PDT

    •  Question....

      "And as for small states, they will still be dramatically overrepresented in the Senate, so I have no sympathy."

      So, is it screw the needs of the smaller State in favor of the larger??  Larger States can more than overrule smaller ones in the House.

      by nchristine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:09:24 PM PDT

      •  Huh?

        I have no idea how what you wrote has any relation to anything I wrote.

        by Angry White Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:37:56 PM PDT

        •  Your statement said that smaller States have an

          unfair representation in the Senate.

          By that statement, to me, implies that smaller States should have 1 or no Senators based upon population alone.  That is what the House of Representatives does.  In the Senate all are equal, regardless of size.

          I'm reading what you've written to mean that the more populated states have the 'right' to tell the less populated states what the 'rules' are going to be.  That makes it were the needs of the minority can be overruled in any/all cases.  That's pretty much what the Republican party is trying to do now with regards to religion and religious points of view.

          by nchristine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:56:34 PM PDT

          •  Politicans represent people

            Not tracts of land.

            I think it's ridiculous that the 500,000 people who live in Wyoming get the same two votes in the Senate that the 30 million people who live in California get.

            It's not about "telling states what the rules are going to be," it's about each citizen in the country getting an equal level of representation in the government.

            by Angry White Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:09:04 PM PDT

            •  That's what the House of Representatives is for.

              California has 55 votes there and Wyoming has 1.  You can run right on over anything Wyoming thinks is important.  It takes both Houses of Congress to pass a law.  I don't think Califoria should be the one decide for everyone how healthcare should be provided (for example).

              Or are you asking for two Houses of Representatives, or asking to dispose of the Senate??  It's about balancing of power (in my opinion).

              In the presidental race, Wyoming has 3 votes and California has 57.  California still runs right on over Wyoming.  I can kinda see where the total popular vote for the President would be a good idea, in theory.  But, I think that the politicians would court the Big Cities and to hell with the needs of the less populated areas.  Just because Des Moines has a population of 260k doesn't mean it doesn't have the same/similar needs as Chicago.  But Des Moines would be ignored in favor of Chicago.

              by nchristine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM PDT

              •  Why should someone's vote count for less

                just because they live in a big city?

                by Angry White Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:32:07 PM PDT

                •  asdf

                  In all things that affect this nation, or just the Presidential election??

                  If just the Presidential election, in theory an absolute national popular vote on pure numbers would work.  But, I seriously doubt it would actually work in practice.  The reason is the 'almighty dollar'.  Politicians will spend where they will get the biggest bang for the buck (which logically is the correct way to do it), which means that the less populated area will not receive the presidential politicians' message.  Unless of course they're targeting a very specific population in hopes that that population segment can somehow overcome another.  So, that would mean that the presidential politicians will, more than likely, cater to the needs of primarily the 'big city' and damn everyone else.  Why should the needs of the 'big city' outweigh the needs of the whole??

                  by nchristine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:06:54 PM PDT

•  Signed by "soon to be indicted" .,,

  Governor Rod Blagojevich!

  by irate on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:11:38 AM PDT

•  Gerrymandering congressional districts if

  votes were apportioned that way would still lead to a rat-focked election. And with republicans willing to redistrict anytime they get a state wide majority the entire electoral process would be in flames all the time. That would help the repubs too since the more people are turned off from politics the better the rethugs do.

  by OHdog on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:11:41 AM PDT

  •  That's the biggest drawback I see

    Gerrymandering has been a bane on American electoral politics since it has become widespread.  Now with the advent of computer aided gerrymandering, it's going to get a whole lot worse.  I can't see that adding to electoral integrity without a whole lot of thought entering into it.

    The rules are clear now and everybody understands them. I hope we don't enter into a period of experimentation that might lead to bigger problems down the road. It's worth looking into, but I don't favor a wholesale leap into this kind of thing.  

    by dougymi on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:18:52 AM PDT

    •  Has nothing to do with Gerrymandering

      Since the EV are not allocated proportionally but rather win take all based on the National vote not the State vote.

      by jmorton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:24:33 AM PDT

•  i like the electoral college!

  I'd rather have 50 state elections then 1 national election.

  I'd rather we do it like we do the Dem Nomination.  435-seperate elections by CD, electing delegates.

  Yeah, I'm weird.

  by pacified on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:11:41 AM PDT

  •  I prefer that solution, too...

    ...but can you imagine any path which gets us there?

    The solution describe in this diary is far from ideal, but it has the the unique advantage of being possible to implement. I've yet to hear another solution that doesn't require that key states votes against the interests that they are currently enjoying in the present, state-by-state, winner-takes-all system.

    by baudelairien on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:36:27 AM PDT

  •  I'm sorry

    but election by CD is one of my least favorite ideas of all.  The partisan gerrymandering and redistricting processes already plays too large a role in our system of government.  We don't need to inject this process into another branch of government.

    by skipppppp on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:12:10 PM PDT

•  Good News but

  Wait until enough states with about 250 electoral votes sign the pact into law. Getting the final states to sign on will be very difficult because the last legislature and last governor to approve the law will be the one that puts the law into effect. My guess is that the pact has less than a 50-50 chance of being approved. It will take another election even more controversial than 2000 to create the changes. Unfortunately, that would probably mean another Republican stealing the election.

  by BlueTide on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:20:03 AM PDT

  •  Good point, but 70% of the population favors this

    So if the national focus turned towards this it should do well.

    by jmorton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:41:55 AM PDT

•  This is a pretty horrible idea and I am alarmed

  A president should have to represent a plurality of states not a majority of voters. Nothing can undo the election of 2000. The answer is to run better campaigns with better candidates.

  The instant the situation is reversed and the electoral college would usher in a Democrat but the popular vote disagrees you would all flip flop on this so bad.

  by Krinkle on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:21:37 AM PDT

  •  why a plurality of states?

    Actually I think, perhaps you mean a majority of states rather than  a plurality of voters?  It doesn't happen often that the popular vote and electoral vote differ.  I don't personally see any reason to believe that it will differ in favor of Democrats more  often than in favor of Republicans.  I certainly don't see that possibility as reason not to make this change.

    The question of plurality versus majority is an interesting one.  Perhaps a candidate might be viewed as having a more of a mandate if they can claim a majority amongst ev's even if they can't claim that amongst the popular vote.  Perhaps a better solution here would be an instant run off vote to ensure that the winner has a majority nationwide in the end.  I suspect this would most accurately measure the intent of the voters.

    by scotths on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:01:05 PM PDT

    •  yes, sorry

      I just liked the sound of it. Like the time I thought penultimate meant better than ultimate.

      I just meant that in the event that someone is very popular in a huge state and wins every single vote in that state, but loses by 2-5% in every other state, he shouldn't be president.

      by Krinkle on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:05:59 AM PDT

•  National Popular Vote is a lousy way forward

  How about just letting the candidate who wins a majority of the popular vote be President, while figuring out a good system for when that doesn't happen?

  No need to do stuff where 60% of Illinois voters could vote Obama, and their EVs go to McCain because McCain wins the popular vote overall.

  by RBH on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:25:53 AM PDT

  •  Its about individuals not States

    How about just letting the candidate who wins a majority of the popular vote be President

    That's exactly what the NPV bill does - what would it matter what % of voters vote for a candidate in a specific state all that should matter is that the President has a majority of ALL American's votes

    by jmorton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:33:40 AM PDT

    •  No, it doesn't

      From the NPV site

      The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia)

      There's no majority requirement. A plurality is not a majority.

      I think having a majority should be pretty important. If a candidate gets a majority of the popular vote, then he wins the Presidency.

      If he doesn't, some sort of proportional EV to start sorting things out. But that's a whole other thing.

      by RBH on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:54:59 AM PDT

      •  how about an instant run off election

        The electoral college simply creates an artificial majority though the use of winner take all states.  Usually it seems to choose well, but he gore/bush vote seems to show a case in which the Nader vote given to redistributed to Bush and Gore would have likely produced a better result.  (By better I mean here a result more consistent with the will of the voters, not one that we all would have liked better on this forum).

        by scotths on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:04:36 PM PDT

  •  The effect of this does exactly what you want.

    What's the problem.

    If this passes enough states, the National Popular Vote determines the president. The Electoral College would still exist, but be irrelevant, since the National Popular Vote would mandate their actions.

    by Juan4All on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:36:25 AM PDT

•  Wow

  I'm really blown away by how many people don't realize what NPV does and seem to think that it would somehow hurt the Democrats.  It's a small-d democratic reform but its formulated in such a way that it doesn't provide partisan advantage to anybody.  It's quite ingenious.

  Sadly, two bills to join the NPV compact died in the Washington House of Representatives this session (one which had already overwhelmingly passed the Senate).

  by lorax on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:38:06 AM PDT

•  if this happens

   then 40 states can simply forget about ever having a say in the race for President. The campaign will be a media market campaign.
   
    In the 1990's and even 2000, the campaigns still fought over places like Louisiana (Gore only lost by 7 and Clinton won it both times), NM, IA, WV and other places.

    Now, none of those states will matter. CA, NY, IL, FL, PA, MI will be the only states to merit any serious attention.

    That is a travesty. Our Constitution set up the Electoral College to make sure the entire country was included and its issues not ignored.
     
    OF COURSE the Governor of IL signed the bill. His state is one that will reap the benefits of that system.

  by usmeagle69 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:42:42 AM PDT

  •  Maybe THAT will finally

    push Congress to change the electoral college.  

    This is how we make change.

    by yazilikaya on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:55:51 AM PDT

  •  What it's like to be a Red State Dem

    Did you know that 38% of Texans voted for John Kerry? That's almost 3 million people. But their votes were entirely canceled out due to the winner-take-all system.

    There are winners and losers in the current system. There will be winners and losers in any system. If we stick with the current system, it means that for the foreseeable future we will have the president determined by a relatively small minority of voters in Ohio and Florida.

    George W. Bush was elected by winning just over 100,000 voters in Ohio in 2004. He was elected (arguably) by less than 1,000 Florida voters in 2000. Based on these results, what's the argument for keeping the current system?

    by baudelairien on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:06:35 AM PDT

    •  Their votes were not cancelled out.

       They voted for John Kerry and John Kerry lost that state.

        Bush won in 2004 b/c he won more electoral votes AND more popular votes. He didn't win b/c of 100,000 voters in OH. He won b/c he won more Electoral votes and more popular votes.

        2000 was a tight race, no question about it. You don't change the Constitution b/c a close race for President happened.

        You change the EC and you get a minority of voters in about 10 states deciding the election EVERY TIME. Which is also where the Future Presidents will be focusing their legislation and their money. Their Congressmen get more power than the rest of the nations. The Judges that sit on their appellate courts decide social policy for the entire country.
       
        It's a VERY BAD idea to force a change like that on the country simply b/c we had a close election once or twice.

      by usmeagle69 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:38:09 AM PDT

      •  Change the system on principle...

        ...not because of the results of any particular election. But the results of recent elections give some great examples of the principles at stake.

        "Winner-takes-all" is essentially a sampling method which is subject to an enormous "sampling error" -- which is to say, that the result has very little to do with the population being sampled. In statistics this is considered a defect. I think that defect carries over when viewed according to the principle of "one person, one vote."

        If the votes of 100,000 or even 1,000 people in one state are decisive in electing a President, while the votes of 3 million people in another state are entirely discounted towards the outcome of the same contest -- the essential principle of democracy is not at work.

        by baudelairien on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:10:39 PM PDT

        •  It's not that simple

            the EC is what makes Democracy happen in this country, that the votes of North Dakota or New Hampshire or Oregon can make the difference b/w the White House and the golf course...not just the votes of Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York and Florida.

            Once again, if that's changed....then only Congressmen and Senators from those states will ever have legislative power. Social policy will be decided only by judges in those states. Tax policy, economic policy, RACIAL FAIRNESS policy, all of it will be decided with JUST THOSE VOTERS in mind...the President will no longer need to represent the entire country with his legislative action.

            This is a bad BAD idea. To pursue it b/c you want to focus on the narrow agenda of making elections more fair is crazy. It won't make elections any more fair...99/100 the popular vote winner wins more EV's anyway. This will cripple the country. The Constitution should not be changed lightly. This would be not just wrong for the country, it would be CATASTROPHIC!!

          by usmeagle69 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:15:27 PM PDT

          •  Not simple, and not a change to the Constitution

            While I don't agree with you that the Electoral College is "what make Democracy happen in this country" -- I am glad to read a full-throated defense of the Electoral College.

            The framers of the Constitution certainly understood that since each state received two Senators (and thus two electoral votes) regardless of size, that smaller states would have slightly more voice in the Union than their population justified. I'm fine with that.

            But the Constitution is silent in the matter of how states allot their electoral votes. The current winner-take-all system of allocating each state's electoral votes is not constitutionally justified, and has the opposite effect within each state that the electoral college has within the Union: The Electoral College amplifies the voices of the little guys within the Union; Winner-take-all silences the voices of the little guys within each state.

            I would like to see the votes of people in the Dakotas and Oregon and Louisiana to be counted -- all of their votes, not just whoever can get 50% + 1 to vote for the candidate. Similarly, Republicans in Boston, Massachusetts shouldn't have to throw their presidential vote away any more than Democrats in Mobil, Alabama. We don't have to change the Constitution to solve this problem. We simply have to remove the incentive of states to abuse the Electoral College to advance the interests of their majorities at the expense of their minorities.

            The effect of moving away from winner-takes-all would not be, as you suggest, a gain for big states. To the contrary, it would ensure that a narrow majority in any one of the big states would be no more likely to decide the election than the same number of voters in any of the prairie states. It would ensure that any candidate for president has to campaign nationally -- rather than falling back on the old formula of safe states plus swing states. It would do away with the fiction of Red States and Blue States, and lessen the attraction of the kind of politics that pits urban against rural populations -- that simply wouldn't be as useful when the path to the White House no longer entailed writing off whole sections of the country.

            The diaried proposal is not perfect. I would rather see each state allot their electors proportionally, or by congressional district. But I cannot see a political path to accomplish that which does not first remove the incentive that the governing majorities within each state have to preserve their present monopolies on electors.

            by baudelairien on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:27:46 PM PDT

            •  asdf

              "The effect of moving away from winner-takes-all would not be, as you suggest, a gain for big states. To the contrary, it would ensure that a narrow majority in any one of the big states would be no more likely to decide the election than the same number of voters in any of the prairie states. It would ensure that any candidate for president has to campaign nationally"

              Unfortunately, I don't think it would end up working that way.  The politicians would look at demographics, see where the higher population centers are, and spend the most effort there.  It would mean that a relatively large combination of the following cities would decide the election (Dallas, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, NY, Philiadelphia, Chicago, Memphis, Detroit, Milwalkee, St Louis, Kansas City, Salt Lake City, LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Minneapolis).  By focusing on the large population centers, they would get more bang for the buck because fewer outlets would be needed to get to more population.

              In theory, yes, the candidates would have to focus on the nation as a whole because there is not a guarantee that the large population centers would vote 'accordingly'.  But, in reality, I don't see it happening.  I would see it as further dividing urban from rural areas, particularly who's campaigning where.

              by nchristine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:07:40 PM PDT

              •  That scenario is still an improvement

                While far from perfect, I think that the scenario you describe is still an incremental improvement on the status quo.

                Politicians are going to spend their time and their money wherever they can get the most electoral bang for their buck. Which is to say, they always target population centers -- this is true with or without winner-take-all. But with winner-take all, candidates have no reason to visit population centers outside of swing states. Do Democratic candidates spend much time in Dallas, Houston or Salt Lake City? Do Republicans visit Boston, Chicago and San Francisco?

                With NPV or proportionally-allocated electors, you'll see Democrats visiting El Paso, Texas and Billings, Montana, which both went for Kerry in 2004, despite solid statewide leads for Bush. You'll see Republicans visiting the smaller cities that act as hubs for predominantly rural populations in "Blue" states such as Spokane, Washington and Santa Rosa, California. And in each case, you will see the other candidate campaigning there, too, because these are fights that either party could win.

                Republican presidential candidates wouldn't be as free to run on "god, guns and gays" if the winner-take-all system wasn't enabling them to ignore  the cities. Democrats, on the other hand, have never had the luxury of running an exclusively urban agenda, since even under winner-take-all, the electoral votes of the most urbanized states don't add up to 270. But they haven't taken rural issues as seriously as they might if states like Kansas and Idaho held any electoral possibilities for them.

                by baudelairien on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:06:18 PM PDT

                •  I can agree with having proportional

                  division of EV within each state based upon number of votes as being better than what we currently have.  And that it has the potential to put more areas into 'play'.  But, I still think that if it were a national 'who has the most number of votes' is the winner has a greater chance of making the politics more urban than it already is, than evening it out over the whole.

                  by nchristine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:40:36 PM PDT

  •  yes, this was clearly illustrated in this years

    democratic primary race.  For instance, neither of the candidates paid any attention to the not so densely populated states or rural areas.  Delegates earned in these areas had no effect on the race in anyway at all.  We saw very clearly how paying attention only to the largest of the states was quite effective in winning the race.

    by scotths on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:10:24 PM PDT

  •  what would matter would be the locations of the

    voters most likely to change their vote.  In this election, for instance, it appears a though their are many voters in the plains and mountain west that are seriously considering switching party affiliations.  The democrats can expand the party in those areas and likely flip some states.  However, in this area a vote in North Dakota (where the democrats seem to have a chance) is much more valuable than a vote in Idaho (where they seem to have less of a chance despite potentially large gains).  Under the proposed system they would have equal value.

    by scotths on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:16:41 PM PDT

•  I've been on board

  with the NPV for a long time.  If we get a Democratic governor in 2010 in California I'd expect this to pass; the legislature has already passed it (Arnold vetoed).  So that's 55 more EVs.

  The NPV would be a dramatic step for fairness in our electoral system.  If the electoral college were instituted today it would violate the Constitutional provision of equal protection.  It's a relic that ought to be scrapped.

  by dday on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:46:30 AM PDT

•  What I don't like about this system ...

  ... is that it makes it possible for a candidate to win just one state by a large margin and lose all 49 other states in close races and end up being president. Something that is impossible under the existing system.

  by MindRayge on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:09:00 AM PDT

  •  So - why does it matter?

    Exactly it would no longer matter what happened in each state but rather what happens in ALL the states - considering the President represents all the people not specific states your situation isn't a problem.

    by jmorton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:57:29 PM PDT

•  Wrong on interstate compacts.

  Two states may enter into an interstate compact only with the permission of Congress.

  "No state shall, without the4 consent of congress . . . enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power[.]"

  U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 10 (in the pertinent part).

  Whether or not this legislation amounts to an interstate compact or not is, of course, another story, but there is a solid argument that it has this character.

  Also, one could fairly argue that this arrangement amounts to a Constitutional Amendment under Article V, without the necessary proposal and ratification process, and hence, is invalid on that point, although that is a weaker argument in my view.

  by ohwilleke on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:27:27 AM PDT