What would go wrong with a direct vote (US)?

[Rukentuts]

There will be no national electorate in the US. We are a union of states. You'd think the name of the country might be a giveaway, plural that it is and all.

Except, there already is. With just a worthless layer of "electors" manifest of another example of an out of date United States policy.

Everybody's vote is counted. Just not everybody's vote counts. This is the problem.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

Except, there already is. With just a worthless layer of "electors" manifest of another example of an out of date United States policy.

Everybody's vote is counted. Just not everybody's vote counts. This is the problem.

^ He seems to get what I'm trying to get at here.

[jugzilla]

Can't happen in the US without a huge overhaul of the Constitution and, really, the philosophical underpinnings of our entire society and system of government. And thank goodness, because I can't imagine a bigger recipe for frivolity and venal plunder than trying to minister a direct democracy of over 300 million citizens.

**applaud**

edit: We aren't a democracy. The US is a republic. If you want to change the government there is the amendment process, and GL. Because the ideas I've seen on this thread aren't really that good, original, or with any chance of success.

[ringpriest]

Can't happen in the US without a huge overhaul of the Constitution and, really, the philosophical underpinnings of our entire society and system of government. And thank goodness, because I can't imagine a bigger recipe for frivolity and venal plunder than trying to minister a direct democracy of over 300 million citizens.

Actually, it can happen without touching the Constitution at all. The states individually decide how to allocate their electoral votes. The vast majority of them currently operate under a winner-take-all basis, but Maine and Nebraska award their votes by Congressional District (with the overall state winning getting the remaining two), and Republicans have proposed other alternatives in states (like Pennsylvania) where they think the outcomes from such changes would benefit their party. Both precedent and law are quite clear - states can decide to award their electoral votes in any way they please - lottery, die roll, taller candidate, etc.

Given that precedent, enter the National Popular Vote Compact

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states plus the District of Columbia to allocate their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote under certain conditions.[2] Proposed in the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among the participating states in the compact only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. In the next presidential election, these participating states would award all of their electoral votes to presidential electors associated with the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, the national popular vote would always win the presidency by always winning a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner.

As of March 2015, the compact had been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia. Their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for the compact to go into effect. In addition to these jurisdictions, NPVIC legislation is pending in two states.

As it stands presently, if Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio were to ratify it, the compact would go into effect. (It's unlikely, but that's the best case scenario - four more states.)

[Stormdash]

As it stands presently, if Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio were to ratify it, the compact would go into effect. (It's unlikely, but that's the best case scenario - four more states.)

I think a very strong case can be made that a state that held a nominal election for its electors, but ever awarded sent electors voted against by their own population in favor of a slate of the party that had the most nation wide vote totals, would be violating the 14th Amendment rights of its own citizens. The NPVIC is basically constitutional amendments for people too lazy or corrupt to actually go in search of one, because they know they couldn't get it ratified. It would be eminently challengeable as applied.

[Rukentuts]

I think a very strong case can be made that a state that held a nominal election for its electors, but ever awarded sent electors voted against by their own population in favor of a slate of the party that had the most nation wide vote totals, would be violating the 14th Amendment rights of its own citizens. The NPVIC is basically constitutional amendments for people too lazy or corrupt to actually go in search of one, because they know they couldn't get it ratified. It would be eminently challengeable as applied.

Then why hasn't 157 cases prompted a ruling against it?

[Stormdash]

Then why hasn't 157 cases prompted a ruling against it?

Because you haven't the slightest idea what "as applied" means? The compact isn't in effect, by its own terms. There is no present case or controversy, and therefore no standing, for anybody to challenge it. And that is just to be able to challenge it on its face, let alone as applied to any particular plaintiff. The plaintiff I think wins is in Small State, voted for electors for Candidate A, whose electors won a majority of Small State's vote, but nonetheless lost their franchise to a national popular vote. State law rendering a majority of state citizen's votes subordinate to the votes of non citizens in other states -- not a position one wants to defend in court. But it would have to actually be in effect for that case to be brought.

[Rukentuts]

Because you haven't the slightest idea what "as applied" means? The compact isn't in effect, by its own terms. There is no present case or controversy, and therefore no standing, for anybody to challenge it. And that is just to be able to challenge it on its face, let alone as applied to any particular plaintiff. The plaintiff I think wins is in Small State, voted for electors for Candidate A, whose electors won a majority of Small State's vote, but nonetheless lost their franchise to a national popular vote. State law rendering a majority of state citizen's votes subordinate to the votes of non citizens in other states -- not a position one wants to defend in court. But it would have to actually be in effect for that case to be brought.

I think you need to acquaint yourself with our current system. We vote for the electors, not the politicians. States can already mandate what electors are sent, and even what their vote must be (anti-faithless elector statutes).

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…"

But in the interim, I'll wait from a source from a qualified legal expert on the matter. Could you provide one?

[Gestopft]

It is rare but I was thinking more about the other parties besides dems and republicans. Yeah, a third party can come to power the same way the dems and republicans can but it doesn't seem likely one will happen, let alone a majority of points going to them.

The inability of a third party to gain any traction has less to do with the electoral college and more to do with the way we vote, i.e First-past-the-post (aka "winner take all.")

In a winner take all system, voting for a party that is unlikely to win is essentially a "wasted vote." The best way to vote is not to vote for the candidate you actually like, but for the candidate that is most likely to defeat the one that you most dislike. Third parties like the Green Party actually harm their own base, because if you vote for the third party, it makes it more likely that the party you oppose will win. If Democrats are up 51-49, and Green takes 6% of the populace (that would've otherwise voted Democrat), suddenly a narrow Democrat win becomes a big Republican win thanks to the Green Party voters. This is called the spoiler effect.

In addition to that, winner take all also encourages gerrymandering. And, with the natural devolution into a two-party system, large segments of voters feel that they don't have a party that represents their interests, resulting in a disinterested voting populace.

[Kulanae]

It really depends on the States. How a State distributes its electoral votes is for it to decide. An individual State could distribute its votes based on popular vote if they wanted......they just need to amend their State Constitution.

Benefits to elimination of the Electoral system would be that campaigning in each State would matter. You could not afford to skip smaller states and only focus on larger ones, because the margin of victory might be smaller than the population of the least populous State.

The downside to a popular vote in our system could be the sheer number of recounts it might generate in a close race. You thought FL was bad in Bush v. Gore.......try recounts in all 50 states at the same time. It would be a nightmare.

[Gestopft]

I could see a middle ground between the two being what certain states do and split up the electoral votes depending on the percentages within their own state.

That would definitely help, but a Wyoming voter would still be equal to 3.6 California voters.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

I could see a middle ground between the two being what certain states do and split up the electoral votes depending on the percentages within their own state.

That'd be a nice middle ground.

[Alvito]

All but a tiny group of presidents were the pick of the popular vote. Only one that wasn't that I can think of is Bush the Younger who lost the popular vote but won the presidency in the electoral college. His opponent was Gore.

Maybe it's happened twice in US history.

With gerrymandering getting worse and worse it will become a larger issue moving forward. It certainly has played a part in offices below the president in getting voted into office.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

With gerrymandering getting worse and worse it will become a larger issue moving forward. It certainly has played a part in offices below the president in getting voted into office. [IMG]http://blog.lucidrealty.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/District-4.jpg[/IMG

Gerrymandering never ceases to amaze me.

[Flutterguy]

Gerrymandering's been around for a long time.

Your best bet for "fixing" the electoral college is to eliminate the "winner take all" deal with the states.

[Stormdash]

I think you need to acquaint yourself with our current system. We vote for the electors, not the politicians. States can already mandate what electors are sent, and even what their vote must be (anti-faithless elector statutes).

Gosh... maybe that's why my initial comment on the subject effing started out by saying a state "that held a nominal election for its electors", i.e. that a popular election would be a necessary condition of the challenge I described. A state can have or not have an election, true, but what it can't do is have an election and not let that election mean anything. It's adorable that you thought this was your mighty retort and I had dealt with it before the first sentence of my post as complete. It's like I... know a lot more about the law than you or something. Weird.

Gerrymandering's been around for a long time.

Gerrymandering is a constant, there's nothing remarkably new or different happening in that regard. It's just a cognitive dissonance complaint over elections being lost. I saw some real brain trusts blame the GOP taking the Senate on gerrymandering -- think that over for a second.

[Rukentuts]

Gosh... maybe that's why my initial comment on the subject effing started out by saying a state "that held a nominal election for its electors", i.e. that a popular election would be a necessary condition of the challenge I described. A state can have or not have an election, true, but what it can't do is have an election and not let that election mean anything. It's adorable that you thought this was your mighty retort and I had dealt with it before the first sentence of my post as complete. It's like I... know a lot more about the law than you or something. Weird.



Gerrymandering is a constant, there's nothing remarkably new or different happening in that regard. It's just a cognitive dissonance complaint over elections being lost. I saw some real brain trusts blame the GOP taking the Senate on gerrymandering -- think that over for a second.

I don't care about how much you think you know, I am still waiting for that source.

[Bad Ashe]

Because each state also has their own state-level laws. Extreme example: 50 states. One state has a billion people. That state then just decided the federal laws for 49 other states.

this is the reasoning, but correct me if i'm wrong, but Electoral College votes actually are based on per capita. thats why there are "battleground states" that get a baby coddling level of candidate attention and advertising.

[Ghostpanther]

There will be no national electorate in the US. We are a union of states. You'd think the name of the country might be a giveaway, plural that it is and all.

This is a great answer. We are called the "United States of America" for good reasons. But there is movements to get rid of State rights and have only Federal rule. Which means one set of laws for all states to cover all situations. The day that happens, we will cease to be the USA. Would have to come up with a different name. Like the Republic of Central North America ( since Canada controls most of the Northern part of North America. ) Also amending the Constitution is no easy or small matter. Personally I am fine with how it works now.

[Stormdash]

I don't care about how much you think you know, I am still waiting for that source.

If there is one thing you will spend no short amount of time in your life waiting on, it will be more information. On this we agree.

this is the reasoning, but correct me if i'm wrong, but Electoral College votes actually are based on per capita. thats why there are "battleground states" that get a baby coddling level of candidate attention and advertising.

I think more people would have an intuitive grip on the electoral college if not for the 17th Amendment; the direct election of Senators makes the purpose of the Senate -- and of bicameral legislature at all in the US -- a lot less obvious on its face. And if you don't understand that you won't really "get" the electoral college, which is basically just there to be a proxy Congress with one responsibility. I think if the Framers were to have broken one way or another on the election of the President instead of setting up the EC, they'd have just had a majority of a joint session of Congress elect the President, not a national popular vote.

This is a great answer. We are called the "United States of America" for good reasons. But there is movements to get rid of State rights and have only Federal rule. Which means one set of laws for all states to cover all situations. The day that happens, we will cease to be the USA. Would have to come up with a different name. Like the Republic of Central North America ( since Canada controls most of the Northern part of North America. ) Also amending the Constitution is no easy or small matter. Personally I am fine with how it works now.

Think we need to reassert federalism pretty strongly, get right with the benchmark from Federalist 45 -- a national government with powers that are few and defined, powers reserved to the states that are numerous and indefinite. 50 states can have 50 different answers on any social issue or object of benevolence their populations would like.