Why doesn't anyone know we're incredibly close to replacing the Electoral College with the popular..

[DonViejo]

SUNDAY, MAY 7, 2017 02:00 PM EDT

Why doesn’t anyone know we’re incredibly close to replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has passed a total of 35 state legislative chambers in 23 states

MAEGAN CARBERRY

It’s been six months since the divisive 2016 election, and America’s ritualistic, obligatory bitching about the Electoral College is already fading in the face of nascent policy battles.

That’s the cycle: Every four years we rend our garments only to have off-season outcries over new executive orders or legislation distract us before we can achieve any kind of major structural changes. By the time another general election rolls around, we’re back where we were — watching John King baffle CNN viewers with his fancy maps. And, yet, a way out of the electoral chaos is not that far off, thanks to the quiet, wonky National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Though the initiative gets sporadic media coverage, it is hardly general public knowledge. It should be.

The simple compact proposes that states pledge their electoral votes “to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.” This rather brilliantly obviates the need for an amendment dumping the Electoral College from the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would only take effect when a sufficient number of states sign on such that their combined electoral votes constitute the magic 270 we’ve always needed to elect a president.

So far 165 electoral votes from 11 states have been secured. Of the remaining 105 required, 82 are seriously in play, having passed at least one legislative chamber in 10 states. Optimistically, we’re 23 new electoral votes away from ridding ourselves of the Electoral College. It’s something that could be managed through strategically pressuring a handful of state representatives.

more
http://www.salon.com/2017/05/07/why-doesnt-anyone-know-we-are-incredibly-close-to-replacing-the-electoral-college-with-the-popular-vote/

[AgadorSparticus]

1. KNR

[Wawannabe]

2. What can we do?

And where?
Thanks!

[n2doc]

3. Problem is, the states that really need this are red

It has been enacted into law in 11 states with 165 electoral votes (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA).

Only blue states have passed it. I don't give a rip if one state house in a state has passed it. That doesn't count unless it gets passed and signed. And no red states have done so. Wake me up when MI, WI, OH or FL do so....

[karynnj]

6. It was a beautiful out of the box idea that changes it without a Constitutional Amendment, but you

are right. If both sides, equally thought it could be to their benefit in some years, there might be a chance. The problem is that you can't look at a past election and use it as proof that it could help the Republicans.

Here's why. The entire general election would change enormously. Why have an event in a small town in Ohio at the end when you could have a giant rally in Central Park in NY? Imagine a HUGE GOTV rally there. Under the current rules, it makes no sense - Hillary (or any Democrat who is not destined to lose about 40 states) could not use a million extra NY votes .. or , as seen, CA votes. Under a popular vote system, they matter. Not to mention, the media focuses on NY and CA.

You could take 2004 as an example where the Republicans would have won the popular vote while they would have lost the EC had Ohio had not suppressed the city vote by limiting the number of voting machines. However, remember ALL the musicians - many long time friends of Kerry (Springstein, Bono, James Taylor, Carol King, Foo Fighters etc) that did many many GOTV rallies? Imagine how different the campaign could have been with Kerry in NYC, Boston, LA, SF, DC, Chicago ...and Austin, Atlanta etc.

I would contend that where in the primaries it might be easier to consolidate support, hone a message, and engage in a real 2 way conversation in smaller meetings and events, by the time of the primaries, you have at least mediocre support from the base of your party. In the general election, it would be easier to generate momentum and excitement in the big cities -- and you could get the candidate's message out as it would be harder not to cover a candidate if there were these rallies where people could see them.

[Rebl2]

12. My super

red state of Missouri would never allow this to happen.

[SHRED]

4. We need a runoff voting system also

[MichMan]

5. Don't like the popular vote compact

I don't like this idea for a couple reasons

IMO, you are really disenfranchising your state's voters. Here is an example to illustrate why I think that could be an outcome. In 2004, GW Bush won the popular vote over John Kerry. States like New York and California voted overwhelmingly for Kerry, yet under this proposal, their votes would be switched to Bush. My state of Michigan also voted for Kerry. I know if my state voted overwhelmingly for a candidate, I wouldn't like being told that our votes didn't count based on what voters in other states did and to be told they were being switched

Secondly, if all 50 states agreed (very unlikely, but possible) every election would end up being unanimous. Theoretically, even if someone won the popular vote by just one vote, they would win the electoral college 538-0.

Finally, any election in which the popular vote was very close, would essentially mean recounting the entire country which would be a logistical & legal nightmare.

[Ezior]

9. But this is how sane elections work

There's no disenfranchisement IMO, because every single vote counts. Even republican votes in California and dem votes in Alabama. So this is better than the EC. (That NY or CA would sometimes vote for republicans in the EC is pure optics. This would only happen if the republican candidate won the popular vote. At the same time, Alabama and Texas would vote for the dem candidate if they win the popular vote if they join this effort.)

Yeah, if all 50 states agreed then all elections would be unanimous. The EC would just be a formal thing that nobody cares about.

The beauty of this is that only states representing 50% of the EC need to join the effort in order for it to work 100% of the time. I didn't realize this before I read this post. (Though I don't know if it's legally possible, see post below.)

I agree that it would be a logistical nightmare when the popular vote is very close, but that's the same with every sane election system.

[pnwmom]

16. Already, NONE of a state's votes MATTER above the 50% mark. They're already disenfranchised.

That was several million voters in California alone this year.

It is already possible to get an Electoral College tie.

Recounting the entire country wouldn't be any more of a nightmare than counting it. We just wouldn't have instant results, as we've been trained to expect.

[MichMan]

21. How are they disenfranchised ?

How were voters in California disenfranchised? They voted for Hillary and she won all of the California Electoral votes.

That is totally different than voting in large numbers for candidate A and then being told that your state will instead be voting for candidate B, based on how other states clear on the other side of the country decided to vote.

I get the dislike of the EC, but this solution has a lot of problems

[pnwmom]

22. Because once a state gets 50% plus one vote, EVERY electoral college vote is awarded.

All the other votes above the 50% have ZERO impact.

So Hillary could have won by 10 million popular votes and still lost the Electoral College. It's a screwed up system.

The Dems are the party that has been hurt by the EC system, and will be hurt more and more, because we do better in the larger, diverse states. We are much more likely to be the popular vote winner. So, as a person in a state inside the compact, I'm comfortable with all our votes going to the popular vote winner, even if in a particular election that meant WA's votes went to the Republican.

[DaleFromWPB]

7. Never going to happen for these two reasons

1st - The Compact Clause of the Constitution

The Compact Clause of the Constitution states that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." The courts have ruled in the past that if federal supremacy is threatened, then congressional consent is required for a compact to be valid.

2nd - The reaction of the citizens of CA or CT or MA when the Democrat wins 70% of the state's votes and the state legislature has to pledge the state's electoral votes to the Republican. The state would quickly convene a legislative session and back out of the compact.

We need to focus on winning elections the old-fashioned way -- convincing people to vote for us.

We need to have a 50 state strategy - from dog catcher to school board to Governor to President.
We need to be the party that helps people get whatever voter ID is required by their state.
We need to be the party that fights for worker's rights
We need to be the party that fights for veterans rights and healthcare
We need to have spokespeople on every channel - including Fox news

Anything less will leave us as a permanent minority party

[PoliticAverse]

13. In summary, if it ever gets to the point that it mattered there's be great incentive for a state...

to defect from the compact.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

14. The compact assumes that all states that ratify it will behave honorably.

I do not trust that politicians will be have honorably. We have too many examples to the contrary.

>The state would quickly convene a legislative session and back out of the compact.

Yes. And the only recourse would be to try to take them to court. This could tie up the election results for months.

[DanTex]

8. Its a great idea, but it's gonna be tough getting enough EVs.

The problem is, as usual, Republicans. The electoral college is absurd, and there's no way to defend it on logical or democratic grounds. But, since it tends to favor Republicans, Republicans like it. And so i don't see red states signing up for this.

[BigOleDummy]

11. Agreed

.... with this truly outdated system in play (the EC) the repuglicans will always have a chance to steal the elections and there's NO way they would ever agree to do that. They know that time and history are NOT on their side and need this to assure their power. In my lifetime I've seen them flat out steal 2 presidential elections and who knows how many local and state wide contests. Does anyone really think they will give up this advantage willingly?

I've been a liberal/progressive my entire life but sometimes I think that too many of us live in a pie in the sky world. We think being fair to everyone is the way to go but we are alone in this thinking. Our opposition cares about nothing but power and oppression to those it does not "like", fairness be damned! That's why we'll never see a fair redistricting OR a ban on corporate money in our politics. To truly believe otherwise is frankly naïve imho.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

10. That does not replace the Electoral College.

Not by a long shot. It simply has the potential to assign those votes differently.

A genuine elimination of the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment and is highly unlikely to happen. Too many Republican controlled legislatures.

[panfluteman]

15. I Know Why the Corporate Media Doesn't Cover This.

There are two basic reasons, or lines of reasoning involved:

1) The Republicans are corporate whores. Due to rapidly shifting demographics in this country which naturally favor the Democrats, they now NEED the Electoral College, because without it, they would never be able to get a president elected. So the media won't cover such a movement or initiative because, after all, they are the corporate media, and benefit from everything that favors corporations over people. So why would they cover a movement that threatens to get rid of the very thing that enables corporate whore Republican administrations come to power?

2) The corporate media newsrooms love all the fancy bells and whistles of the electoral map, the vote tallies, etc... It's like Wolf Blitzer salivating over all his high tech toys in the situation room that enable him to go on digital flyovers every time we go to war. And besides, the media thrives on all this gadgetry, suspense and drama. If it isn't there, ratings go down.

Thank you very much for posting this. It needs to be known by all Americans. Heck - if the corporate media won't cover it, for the reasons listed above, then get the word out there on the social media and alternative media!

[MurrayDelph]

17. The only way I want to replace the Electoral College

is with a more-proportional Electoral College.

It works like this: Let's say your state has 5% of the country's registered voters. Your state then gets 5% of the Electoral College pool. If your candidate gets 60% of the state's total votes cast, that candidate is give 3% of the EC total.

My concern with going with a straight total-vote option is that certain corrupt (I.e. Red) state's, might suddenly start providing three million more votes for their candidate than there are voters. With this method they can steal a state, but that one state can steal the country all by itself.

[Lithos]

18. It's not replacing the electoral college

It's replacing how the electors are chosen. Sad thing is, it goes into effect before all states have signed up meaning the hold out stateup corrupt the notion. Even worse that it can go into effect with such a large block of non-signatories states that the Red states will have an even larger majority in the electoral college.

Stupid idea. If you really want to get rid of the electoral college, then do it thru the constitution and make it the law of the land. Half-assed efforts like this are stupid and only make things worse.

[oberliner]

19. Only left-leaning states have signed on to this

No right-leaning states have (or will).

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. Sadly, this would be sent to SCOTUS

Interstate compacts are a tricky thing constitutionally.

[Oneironaut]

23. I don't agree with this. The system works now.

"But, Donald Trump won!" Isn't an argument for why it doesn't work. Had the roles been reversed, many Liberals would be saying how great the EC is.

Can we please not change what isn't broken? Donald Trump won fair and square (in a general sense, not counting his slimy tactics with Russia, etc.). If we switch to the popular vote, people will be whining about that when they lose too. They'll have a legitimate gripe, as the rules were changed. Nobody wants to deal with the crap show that comes as a result.

Trump won because he duped angry people. I'm sorry, but I sense a lot of "we lost, let's change the rules!" among Liberals, and that's a dangerous attitude to have. If anyone has an actual argument against the EC other than the fact that it helped Republicans win, I'm all ears.

I know the Republicans are changing the rules too now to get what they want, but that's immoral bullshit. Keep going down that road, and we won't have a country left.