USA The National Popular Vote Compact

[Albion]

A proposed amendment to the national constitution is slowly making its way toward passage.** In fact, it has been creeping in that direction for some years now. Known as the National Popular Vote Compact, it would require the winning candidate's electors in any state to vote in the Electoral College for whoever won the nationwide popular vote. They would not be allowed to vote for their own party's candidate, even if he or she had won the majority in their home state.

Not a lot of people realize that this is quite possibly going to be put into effect if enough states ratify the proposal, but what do you think of the idea? Is this a good idea or a bad one? Why so?

**Edit. See post #4 for more information.

 

[Josiah]

If I correctly remember, a Constitutional Amendment requires 2/3's of the states to approve it. Since this would severely weaken 2/3's of the states, I rather doubt they'll approve it. But, who knows?

Several times, the person who won the national vote did not win the electorial vote - and that always causes a lot of discussion (that last happened in 2016). But folks need to remember, the USA is a confederation of states. That's glossed over today. The framers of our Constitution did not want pure federalism, they did not want a few states to control the whole nation - making other states irrelevant. Today, most states would be irrelevant. In some democracies, the voters of one city determine national elections for the whole country because more than half the population lives in one city. Almost everywhere, city dwellers rule the country making voters in rural areas irrelevant. That can be defended as "national, federal democracy" but it does mean that the outside that city - their views, needs, etc. - are moot and disregarded: the people of one big urban area rule the whole country. Issues either way, I suppose.

It's a debate we've had in the USA for a very, very long time. But again, STATES have to approve the change and that would mean most would loose their role in electing presidents - and they've not yet shown any signs of wanting to do that. That could change, of course.



.

 

[Lamb]

I used to be for the popular vote until I realized what it actually meant. The country's fathers really anticipated a lot, and we take their brilliance for granted and think we know better. Maybe we just need to make cities their own small states? It's awful that the state of Illinois is represented by the people who live in Chicago, even though the majority of the state is rural. City people don't understand the lives of those in the country, and I can give a great example from Covid where we were all told to wear a mask outside. That was absolutely ridiculous to those outside of the cities, and yet, they didn't understand why we balked about their mandate.

 

[Albion]

Turns out, I should have double checked the technicalities of this project. While it may wind up being something that only a Constitutional Amendment could authorize, that would be up to the courts. The proposal at present is for a sufficient number of states to sign on, by law, to this concept and require their electors to vote as I described.

When the state legislature decides to join in, it is with the provision that the thing will only go into effect when enough states have affirmed it, meaning enough states to reach 270 electoral votes.

To date eighteen states, I think it is, have voted to join in, and they account for a bit more than 200 Electoral College votes. So it's not yet operable, but every year lately another one or two take it up. Maine just passed it, very narrowly.

 

[Lees]

A proposed amendment to the national constitution is slowly making its way toward passage.** In fact, it has been creeping in that direction for some years now. Known as the National Popular Vote Compact, it would require the winning candidate's electors in any state to vote in the Electoral College for whoever won the nationwide popular vote. They would not be allowed to vote for their own party's candidate, even if he or she had won the majority in their home state.

Not a lot of people realize that this is quite possibly going to be put into effect if enough states ratify the proposal, but what do you think of the idea? Is this a good idea or a bad one? Why so?

**Edit. See post #4 for more information.

It is just a way of doing away with the electoral college altogether. It makes the U.S. a 'true democracy', which the founding fathers feared. It would mean a vast majority of Americans would no longer be represented. Only those in the more populous areas or states would be represented. It would be their interests that politicians would make promises and cater to.

Americans are so blind. We act as if the majority wants it, then it is good. It is the 'will of the people'. Which is fine when the will of the people is good. But when the will of the majority is evil, you have a rule of evil and a dictator by the mass.

Lees

 

[Lamb]

It is just a way of doing away with the electoral college altogether. It makes the U.S. a 'true democracy', which the founding fathers feared. It would mean a vast majority of Americans would no longer be represented. Only those in the more populous areas or states would be represented. It would be their interests that politicians would make promises and cater to.

Americans are so blind. We act as if the majority wants it, then it is good. It is the 'will of the people'. Which is fine when the will of the people is good. But when the will of the majority is evil, you have a rule of evil and a dictator by the mass.

Lees

I totally agree! The big cities would control everything and they don't always know what's best for everyone else.

 

[Lees]

I totally agree! The big cities would control everything and they don't always know what's best for everyone else.

That is true. But what is also true is that power is located mostly in the big city New England area. And they are not concerned about the South or West.

In other words, to them, 'what is best' for the Southern and Western states, depends on how they benefit New England's interest.

Immigration is a prime example. To them it is best that the South and West become Mexican and liberal. Because it benefits the liberal, leftist, Democratic party. Thus open the doors to Mexican immigration....until they make it up to New York. Now we got a problem.

Lees

 

[Lamb]

That is true. But what is also true is that power is located mostly in the big city New England area. And they are not concerned about the South or West.

In other words, to them, 'what is best' for the Southern and Western states, depends on how they benefit New England's interest.

Immigration is a prime example. To them it is best that the South and West become Mexican and liberal. Because it benefits the liberal, leftist, Democratic party. Thus open the doors to Mexican immigration....until they make it up to New York. Now we got a problem.

Lees

I've seen that happen in Chicago too! They were all for people coming through to Arizona and Texas, but they want them to stay there, not come to THEIR cities so that they have to care for them.