National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

First of all, I'm glad to see that you spelled Electoral College correctly instead of spelling it "Electorial" as your progenitor did on numerous occasions.

Secondly, the Electoral College should never be abolished. The Founding Fathers knew the exact reasons the Electoral College should be in existence and it has worked faithfully for nearly 250 years.

Certainly the liberal elites who comprise the highly-populated states believe it should be eliminated because they know that they would control elections permanently without giving the much less populated states a say in the election. Remember, the U.S. is a union of states wherein each state should be represented as equally as possible. Of course the more populous states, rightfully so, receive more electors. It's as fair a system as possible that keeps the states' election power as balanced as it possibly can.

 

Yeah, but it doesn't make much sense anymore. Especially since states have moved to popular election of the electors.

Take this map of electors



Since you have to have at least 3 electors we might have a tiny bit of extra influence for people in states with 3 electors. If you consider states use popular election results for electors and that the rest of the numbers are updated with the census, what we essentially have is a popular election of the president with an up to 10 year lag. Why bother?

There's an argument too about how it counterintuitively gives more power to voters in low voter participation states. Why should a state get representation proportional to their population? If the population can't be bothered to vote, it's tough to say the interests of that state are even accurately being represented.

It very much goes against the principles of the "one person one vote" philosophy.

 

A popular vote is simply not fair to the states with lower populations.

Would you be agreeable to a completely different system, say, where every state receives only 1 electoral vote, regardless of population?

For instance, California would receive only one electoral vote and Wyoming would receive only one. The electoral vote for that state would be dependent on the majority vote of the population in that state. So, as an example, we know that the majority of California would probably vote blue so the electoral vote would go to the Democratic nominee. The majority of Wyoming would probably vote red, so their electoral vote would go to the Republican nominee.

Every state would be equal in this model. Each state would cast their electoral vote according to the way the majority of the people in that state voted.

This model more aligns to your assertion that the Senate best represents a balance (since every state only has two Senators).

Twenty-six votes would win a presidential election. Majority rules.

 

How can you say that when we in essence already do that, but with a weird lag from the census? I'm not at all amenable to your 1 state 1 vote plan, that's much worse. When I say the Senate represents "balance of interests" I meant it massively overpowers low population states, not that it was most fair or representative of the will of the nation.

Here's something you might find convincing. In the current system, electoral votes are determined by the census. Therefore, it acts as if the entire population votes for the same person in our majority rule elector system. Guess who's counted in the census and therefore contribute to electoral vote counts: undocumented immigrants. Therefore, the current system actively incentivizes welcoming of undocumented immigrants and essentially gives them a vote without even being able to go to the polls.

To be clear, I think their interests deserve representation too, but I don't think they should be able to vote. A majority rule system would mitigate this issue.

 

You need to realize this is a republic. Each state is equal. The founders recognized that large population cities would end up disproportionately dictating law for the majority of the land mass.

 

Land mass doesn't vote or have interests, the people in each state do. It's not like we distribute electoral votes by square miles a state has.

While land doesn't vote, in the current system, apparently undocumented immigrants do. Is that what you want?

 

First off, it’s illegal immigrants. No, they should have no rights in this country other those given to anyone that has broken the law. They have been allowed residence and the right to vote by the far left. Much like every other criminal.

No, land masses don’t vote, but the individuals that own them do. They grow the food you eat, the trees that make homes and toilet paper…. We can go on. You and many like you only exist because of them. The states they live in are typically sparsely populated. The founders were smart enough to know that you don’t cut your nose off to spite your face. That’s why created the three branches for checks and balances. Did you miss civics?

 

Okay but our current system gives undocumented immigrants voting power via their presence in the census. So do you at least think there should be some change in how we determine electoral votes?

 

Actually, the sole purpose of the federal government being to resolve disputes between the states and to protect them from outside enemies means that it acts in the interest of The States and not of The People. Further, since the president is the Chief Executive of the federal government, he or she acts in the interest of The States, and not The People. Why then would anyone think a president should be elected by popular vote?

 

To the point of @freshmeat, I don't know what you think states are other than a collection of people. States don't have interests, people within states have interests.

Presidents virtually already are elected by popular vote, just in a weird roundabout way that ends up including the population power of non-voters and even those ineligible to vote while also being on an up to 10 year lag due to the census. Why not simplify it and give actual power of choice to the voters?

I seriously can't wait for the next time Dems win the college but lose the popular vote. My position will be unchanged on the matter, will yours?

 

Again, did you take civics class or did you fail it? No, the electoral college is the presidential election system. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?

 

I know, but can you not see how this has in effect become a crude approximation of the popular vote? Sure the approximation breaks down in blowouts (see Reagan/Mondale), but at least in those cases it still quite strongly agrees with the popular vote.

I ask again: given our current system gives undocumented immigrants voting power via their presence in the census, do you at least think there should be some change in how we determine electoral votes? Looking in to it, I discovered this is a Republican position currently. Chuck Edwards is pushing the charge with a bill on this matter currently.

https://edwards.house.gov/media/pre...-passes-edwards-bill-only-include-us-citizens

 

So why do you support the party that sued the Trump administration that tried to stop them from being counted? Why does the left support unfettered illegal immigration and sanctuary cities? You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone on the right supporting these policies. Why aren’t you supporting the ouster of DHS secretary?

 

Look, I've been trying to follow your points and lead you back to the central questions of this thread (how we count presidential elections), but I'm not following you going on all those tangents while ignoring the crux of what I'm saying. Make a new thread.

I'm just gonna try again because I think there's a central misunderstanding you're having. What Trump tried to do had nothing to do with what I'm calling undocumented immigrants "voting"

Children and felons are "voting" under our current system too, I just thought undocumented immigrants might be a good lynchpin to get the point across to you people.

If you don't want the presence of undocumented immigrants to count towards picking the president, you have to fix that at the census level. Further than that, I don't think it makes sense to give influence to non-paticipants in the election.

In the current system for instance, if California is won by the Dems, the electoral college acts as if all 39 million people in California voted for a Dem. They get electoral votes proportional to an all inclusive census count of people in California.

Since most every state is winner take all and about 11 million people voted for Biden, you can think that those 11 million had the voting weight on the national scale as if they were the entire 39 million. Consider this:

-A bit under 2 million of those 39 million are undocumented immigrants

-A quarter million are convicted felons

-Another ~9 million are too young to vote

-6.5 million voted for Trump or 3rd party.

-The final nearly 10 million just chose not to vote for one reason or another.

Yet all of those counted electorally as going to Biden because of the votes of the 11 million. Do you think that's the best system we can do?

When it comes to a singular leader, why not just do direct election?

 

Good, now some questions.

1. Should non-citizens count?
2. Should felons count?
3. Should children count?
4. Should people who simply choose not to vote count?

 

1. Absolutely not, again these are illegal aliens.
2. Only if that are legal us citizens.
3. “
4. “

 

Now that I’ve given you an answer, I have some questions. One at a time as not to encourage obfuscation.
1) At a state level who does the government represent? This includes the congressional delegation and the governor.
Are the individuals that voted, didn’t vote, felons, or children represented? How about the the citizens of the state that didn’t vote for them?

 

Everyone in their state regardless of who voted for them, age, felony status, or indeed even citizen status.

Not as well potentially, but yes. On the state level, it is majority rule and the direct elections take place.

Same as above.

So majority rule and direct elections work fine at the state level, but for some reason would be a disaster at the federal level? Remember, literally the only thing I'm trying to apply this to is office of the president, so I answered your questions, but they're not exactly pertinent.

 

That's the first correct thing I've read from you. This is why the Marxists, traitors, and ignorant liberals have opened our borders to the world - the Census numbers. Unfortunately, this act has helped ruin our country and we are paying for it with our money, lives, and the destruction of the American Culture. Next the terrorism hits.

Hey Gene, do you think when your Chinese friends sent the balloons over our country it had anything to do with all the Chinese owned property near our military bases?
_____________________________________________________________________
Remember: NoBama knows we need to change our language, traditions, and culture.

 

That is a disingenuous oversimplification if I've ever seen one. States are tribes, with differing geographical, demographic, educational and cultural wants and needs. Were it not for the fact that the federal government has outgrown its charter and seized economic oversight, there would be no insulated power center in DC . . . no lack of accountability . . . no out of control spending. Instead, those few politicians who dared corrupt the system would be hanging from the gallows, and the tribes would be much more satisfied with the service delivered by their local governments.

Right now our government is beholden to those who suck the most money out of the budget, and not to those who must replenish it. In your words, "Why not simplify it", make it more just, and give actual power of choice only to those who pay federal income tax? After all . . . the rest are merely passengers.

This Central Planning BS you liberals embrace is for the birds . . . Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela have all proven that.