Have you heard of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) before? It’s a really bad idea that has gotten enough traction that it could conceivably become the law down the road. Here’s NPR giving a basic explanation of how this works: The compact is basically a contract between states that goes into effect once enough states representing a majority of electors — 270 — sign onto it. The states in the compact agree that rather than giving their presidential electors to the candidate who wins the most votes in that state, they will award all of their electors to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country. While the Electoral College would not be eliminated, the result would be a president elected by a national popular vote.
This idea of a Popular Vote Conpact would, if enacted, trigger a civil war. I've said this before, but I believe there is just no way that people who live in "fly over country" will allow urban/coastal elites to effectively silence them. States rights would be swept away and everything would be federal. Stupid, greedy, ignorant, crazy idea that would cause way more problems than it could possibly solve.
Under the current electoral system in states where one party dominates the incentive to cheat is lower as the state is already won, but if the popular vote is the deciding factor then the incentive to run up the vote totals by cheating is huge. Imagine states e.g. CA that can create an extra million votes to ensure the national vote goes their candidate's way.
A side benefit of the electoral college is that if there is a dispute about the vote in one state, most of the time this won't change the outcome of the election. We can just say, "whichever way Montana ultimately comes down, Senator Jones won the election" and not worry about it. Or if that one state is enough to change the outcome, at least recounts and lawsuits can be limited to that one state. But with a national popular vote, if there's a dispute about results anywhere in the country, then the entire country would be in dispute. Indeed, any close election would likely result in disputes all over the country. Like, if a candidate lost Florida by 200,000 votes, it's unlikely that any number of recounts or challenges over validity of ballots is going to win him 200,000 more votes in Florida. But if he loses the national vote by 200,000 votes, he might piece together 10,000 votes here and 5,000 votes there and make it up.
Yes. I'd be interested to see what would happen if this passes, and then a participating state observes that the candidate who won in their state has lost the election, but if they had cast their votes for their own favorite candidate, he would have won. I suspect the compact would fall apart the first time this happened.
This idea of a Popular Vote Conpact would, if enacted, trigger a civil war. I've said this before, but I believe there is just no way that people who live in "fly over country" will allow urban/coastal elites to effectively silence them. States rights would be swept away and everything would be federal. Stupid, greedy, ignorant, crazy idea that would cause way more problems than it could possibly solve.
Under the current electoral system in states where one party dominates the incentive to cheat is lower as the state is already won, but if the popular vote is the deciding factor then the incentive to run up the vote totals by cheating is huge. Imagine states e.g. CA that can create an extra million votes to ensure the national vote goes their candidate's way.
A side benefit of the electoral college is that if there is a dispute about the vote in one state, most of the time this won't change the outcome of the election. We can just say, "whichever way Montana ultimately comes down, Senator Jones won the election" and not worry about it. Or if that one state is enough to change the outcome, at least recounts and lawsuits can be limited to that one state. But with a national popular vote, if there's a dispute about results anywhere in the country, then the entire country would be in dispute. Indeed, any close election would likely result in disputes all over the country. Like, if a candidate lost Florida by 200,000 votes, it's unlikely that any number of recounts or challenges over validity of ballots is going to win him 200,000 more votes in Florida. But if he loses the national vote by 200,000 votes, he might piece together 10,000 votes here and 5,000 votes there and make it up.
Yes. I'd be interested to see what would happen if this passes, and then a participating state observes that the candidate who won in their state has lost the election, but if they had cast their votes for their own favorite candidate, he would have won. I suspect the compact would fall apart the first time this happened.