Thu Nov 24, 2016, 10:00 PM

There is a way to bypass the Electoral College without a constitutional ammendment.

http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote

States are allowed under the Constitution to award their electors however they like. In theory having a coin flip would be legal. The national popular vote is an interstate compact where the states pass legislation to award all their electors to the winner of the national popular vote.

So far 11 states (well 10 states + DC) totaling 165 electoral votes have passed this compact in their state. States which have already passed the national popular vote:
CA
DC
HI
IL
MA
MD
NJ
NY
RI
VT
WA

To avoid penalizing states which adopt early the compact only takes effect once states totaling 270 electoral votes pass similar legislation. Once that happens the winner of the national popular vote will always have 270+ EV and the electoral college is essentially moot. It will still exist until repealed by an amendment but it will be easier to repeal it after a couple of decades under the national popular vote. Even if you are in favor of a full repeal the national popular vote is a way to get there.

12 replies, 3409 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

12 replies	Author	Time	Post
There is a way to bypass the Electoral College without a constitutional ammendment. (Original post)	Statistical	Nov 2016	OP
K&R nt	eppur_se_muova	Nov 2016	#1
That's right. This information needs to be repeated everywhere until it becomes	lunamagica	Nov 2016	#2
I agree that would be a great thing; but some states aren't likely to sign it ever	el_bryanto	Nov 2016	#3
Yep	SickOfTheOnePct	Nov 2016	#4
In VA vs TN the Supreme Court rules that only compacts which ...	Statistical	Nov 2016	#8
True some states won't sign however it only requires states totalling 270 votes.	Statistical	Nov 2016	#5
The irony is that the country would be much better off were	stopbush	Nov 2016	#6
I totally agree; but you can't expect people int those states to agree with that unfortunately. nt	el_bryanto	Nov 2016	#7
Really? So CA and NY should choose the president? With no input from small states? Sorry	jack_krass	Nov 2016	#9
He didn't say they should just that the voters would probably be better off.	Statistical	Nov 2016	#10
I prefer that to the South getting to pick our presidents.	stopbush	Nov 2016	#11
I currently live in a rural state and the people consistnely vote against their own self-interests.	white_wolf	Nov 2016	#12

Response to Statistical (Original post)

Thu Nov 24, 2016, 10:04 PM

eppur_se_muova (35,253 posts)

1. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Response to Statistical (Original post)

Thu Nov 24, 2016, 10:19 PM

lunamagica (9,967 posts)

2. That's right. This information needs to be repeated everywhere until it becomes

common knowdlege.

Reply to this post

Response to Statistical (Original post)

Thu Nov 24, 2016, 10:21 PM

el_bryanto (11,804 posts)

3. I agree that would be a great thing; but some states aren't likely to sign it ever

Particularly Southern States - where they worry about federal encroachment on their rights. Someone from Mississippi or Alabama can just kind of argue, convincingly, that their vote no longer matters because they would be overridden by people from New York and California.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Response to el_bryanto (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 24, 2016, 10:26 PM

SickOfTheOnePct (6,230 posts)

4. Yep

Plus, there is some question as to whether this would be Constitutional - something about the Constitution prohibiting states from making pacts without Congressional approval; don't know the details.

Reply to this post

Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 24, 2016, 10:32 PM

Statistical (19,264 posts)

8. In VA vs TN the Supreme Court rules that only compacts which ...

increase the power of the states over the federal government require congressional approval.

Since compact or not states determine their electors and compact or not those electors determine the President it is hard to make an argument this diminishes the power of the federal govt. It may diminish the power of some states (*cough* swing states *cough*) but that wasn't the deciding factor in Virginia v. Tennessee.

Still let's assume that the courts did rule it required congressional approval before it could go into effect. That barrier (straight majority) is far easier than the barrier for a constitutional amendment.

Reply to this post

Response to el_bryanto (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 24, 2016, 10:27 PM

Statistical (19,264 posts)

5. True some states won't sign however it only requires states totalling 270 votes.

One problem is that swing states directly benefit from the fucked up EC system. They get a disproportionate amount of federal funding, disaster relief, advertising, campaign promises, and campaign stops. It is unlikely any swing state would pass the compact no matter which party controls the legislature.

Reply to this post

Response to el_bryanto (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 24, 2016, 10:28 PM

stopbush (24,131 posts)

6. The irony is that the country would be much better off were

the voters in NY and CA calling the shots nationally.

Reply to this post

Response to stopbush (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 24, 2016, 10:30 PM

el_bryanto (11,804 posts)

7. I totally agree; but you can't expect people int those states to agree with that unfortunately. nt

Reply to this post

Response to stopbush (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 24, 2016, 11:35 PM

jack_krass (1,009 posts)

9. Really? So CA and NY should choose the president? With no input from small states? Sorry

Im not sold. I think there is some merit to the EC. Obviosly nobody is very happy with it now because it got us a Trump....

But maybe the lesson learned is that we (Democrats) need to be paying more attention to rural issues?

Reply to this post

Response to jack_krass (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 24, 2016, 11:37 PM

Statistical (19,264 posts)

10. He didn't say they should just that the voters would probably be better off.

NY and CA don't have enough population to win the national vote.

Reply to this post

Response to jack_krass (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 24, 2016, 11:50 PM

stopbush (24,131 posts)

11. I prefer that to the South getting to pick our presidents.

Reply to this post

Response to jack_krass (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 25, 2016, 12:10 AM

white_wolf (6,238 posts)

12. I currently live in a rural state and the people consistnely vote against their own self-interests.

Furthermore, if the majority of people live in cities then cities should elect the president. That's how democracy works. I'm well aware we are a constitutional republic, but, in this area, I am fully in favor of moving towards a more democratic system. Then again, I'm a bit of a radical on this issue. I firmly believe the concept of states rights and federalism has caused more trouble than it is worth.

Reply to this post

2016 Postmortem (Forum)