tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post8737177978094336359..comments2024-03-18T07:11:29.068-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: The National Popular Vote Plan...and Other Ways of Reforming the Electoral CollegeJosh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-91215419335359256412008-07-01T16:32:00.000-04:002008-07-01T16:32:00.000-04:00We're with you on the value of primary schedule re...We're with you on the value of primary schedule reform (see our work on FixThePrimaries.com), but clearly differ on the current Electoral College system. For why we think the current system is indefensible, please see our Presidential Elections Inequality report at<BR/>http://fairvote.org/?page=1729<BR/><BR/>Note how a handful of states are showered with attention, and most states -- including nearly all small population states - are completely ignored. In contrast, when every vote is equal, a candidate and people who like a candidate cannot ignore potential voters. We know this because popular vote elections governed by the same plurality voting rules as spelled out in the national popular vote plan are used to elect nearly all our governors. <BR/><BR/>For defenders of the current system, try an experiment -- launch an effort to change your state's elections for governor and U.S. Senate to an Electoral College-type system that would make most of your people utterly ignored.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-9432851157588068832008-06-30T19:44:00.000-04:002008-06-30T19:44:00.000-04:00Anonymous,Your last sentence is the most instructi...Anonymous,<BR/>Your last sentence is the most instructive: NPV needs to have passed state legislatures in states equaling or surpassing 270 electoral votes to take effect. And while that is certainly a lower bar than having to have an amendment ratified in 3/4 of the states be added to the constitution, the 50% mark is still sufficiently high. <BR/><BR/>However, having said that, it is interesting, as Scott said, that so much has happened so quickly and without too much attention from the media. What is the tipping point in the number of state electoral votes that causes NPV to get more attention in the MSM? 100? 200? That, to me, will be something to keep an eye on between the current cycle and 2012.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-90220097162835319352008-06-30T18:27:00.000-04:002008-06-30T18:27:00.000-04:00Change is already in the works . . .The National P...Change is already in the works . . .<BR/><BR/>The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 19 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-88019339644669344872008-06-28T08:34:00.000-04:002008-06-28T08:34:00.000-04:00Well said, Robert.I like the Maine-Nebraska experi...Well said, Robert.<BR/><BR/>I like the Maine-Nebraska experiment because it <I>can</I> be implemented slowly. If Nebraska gets enough extra attention this cycle, then other smallish states may try it. (It has no effect on a state with one CD, and it dilutes the influence of big states.) Oregon, South Carolina, and West Virginia would seem like interesting candidates. I name them because they might shift from "safe" states to battlegrounds, which is a big incentive for them to do it. And maybe Oregon and South Carolina, for instance, could do it in tandem, thus splitting up one traditional blue state and one traditional red state to reduce partisan resistance.<BR/><BR/>One thing that would have to be resolved before widespread adoption of the Maine-Nebraska plan is gerrymandering of CD's. This can be done: Iowa, for instance, has reformed the process. And it's something that should be done anyway...<BR/><BR/>--Scott<BR/><BR/>P.S. Does anyone know the history of why Nebraska and Maine adopted this plan in the first place?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14690577323454357276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-24761335650897260752008-06-28T07:25:00.000-04:002008-06-28T07:25:00.000-04:00In theory I am for one person, one vote, but, as J...In theory I am for one person, one vote, but, as Josh indicates, NPV does not give you one person, one vote. As long as television plays a role in national campaigns, larger metropolitan voters gain a huge advantage over rural, less-populated areas by NPV. If the Internet truly takes over with media markets becoming meaningless, then NPV could assure one person, one vote. At that point the specter of the Scott doomsday scenario becomes much more realistic.<BR/><BR/>What makes our constitution so great is that it recognizes the importance of geographical diversity and the need to balance urban and rural interests. I am willing to have a problematic election every 75 years to keep the electoral system we have now. I would prefer the Nebraska-Maine solution if it were mandated by every state, but I don't think states should unilaterally disarm. <BR/><BR/>Also, it is easy to condemn the two-party system, but it is key to how such a geographically diverse country can operate. If you have problems with two parties, spend some time and an election in a country that has more than two. It is much worse than having two. Of course a two-party state is far superior to a one-party state.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-65866084426168574882008-06-27T22:04:00.000-04:002008-06-27T22:04:00.000-04:00Thanks MSS. I've been on the road today and put t...Thanks MSS. I've been on the road today and put this post together in pieces. I meant to put a democratic theory angle in as well. You're completely right of course. But I'll still fall back on the argument that both realistically and pragmatically, if a change was going to be made on this front, it would have been made following the 2000 election.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-90939885842321592802008-06-27T21:54:00.000-04:002008-06-27T21:54:00.000-04:00Sarah, of course NPV is based on the plurality, be...Sarah, of course NPV is based on the plurality, because there is no way to mandate either a national second round or that all states ask second (and third, etc.) preferences on the first round.<BR/><BR/>So, there is simply no way to do it without using the national plurality.<BR/><BR/>I share Sarah's concerns about plurality, but in the end, there is no way to unblock the amendment process that I can see other than this plan. That is, once it was on the verge of enactment, you can bet that there will be a serious discussion of amendments (to establish a runoff, "instant" or otherwise), because the choice set would have been altered.<BR/><BR/>And, yes, some of us are "hung up" on that whole one person, one vote thing. We are called democrats. Small 'd'.<BR/><BR/>If, on the other hand, you like effectively throwing away lots of votes and weighting voters' influence on the one national office according to where they live, then you should indeed like the status quo.MSShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14199636437911986505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-72574071677596258862008-06-27T21:00:00.000-04:002008-06-27T21:00:00.000-04:00Scott, Excellent addition. I just don't see this ...Scott, <BR/>Excellent addition. <BR/><BR/>I just don't see this one taking off (no matter what kind of support it has now). Change is good for me. It gives me something to look at in an academic sense. But this one is dead in the water. If it didn't change after 2000, the electoral college won't be changed now (unless we have a close one with differing winners this year).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-56254657041158891002008-06-27T20:00:00.000-04:002008-06-27T20:00:00.000-04:00Since making my first post on this, I actually wen...Since making my first post on this, I actually went to the site and read the 8-page summary of the National Popular Vote plan. It's worse than I thought! It awards the Presidency to the candidate who wins a <I>plurality</I> of votes. In other words, if five strong candidates compete, someone could win by getting only about a quarter of the vote.<BR/><BR/>Unlikely? I'm not at all sure. Splits like that happen quite often in countries with parliamentary systems, and also those with run-off systems. I'm unaware of any country that chooses the winner based on a plurality, though; they either form a coalition government or have a run-off. If they didn't do that, they'd run a strong risk of a nut-job with a core of dedicated followers being able to sneak in when the rest of the field is split.<BR/><BR/>Of course, our current system also allows someone to win with a plurality; in fact, Kennedy and Nixon both did it, and Clinton did it twice. But since we require a <I>majority</I> of electoral votes, at least the candidate has to have geographic diversity and has to get the plurality again and again and again. The hypothetical 25% nut-job could never do that, because different states would end up different ways, and the candidate would be very unlikely to win in enough states to get to half of the electoral vote. <BR/><BR/>I'm shocked, actually, that a proposal that allows such a nightmare result has gained as much traction as it has. If we're going to do this by a popular vote (a choice I oppose, as Josh mentioned), then we have to do this by a Constitutional amendment with some sort of run-off provision.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14690577323454357276noreply@blogger.com