What I didn't realize about founding father elections

Quote: Nareed

Yes, but the Compact can't go into effect with just the signatories so far. So they need at least some red states to join.

Exactly. But the light blue states are not even going to sign, let alone a light red state. That's why it is "pandering". Everyone is aware that there is no way to get enough signatories, so it will never pass.

There was a similar compact where if they got enough signatories that each state promised to switch to a system like the one in Maine and Nebraska where each congressional district gets one vote, and the winner of the state gets two votes. I believe that compact only went into effect if all 50 states signed it. Once again, it was pure pandering as there is no way that all 50 states would sign the compact.

In 2016 California had 7 districts that voted Republican, but Texas had 14 districts that voted Democratic. CLINTON additional 7 votes
In 2012 California had 12 districts that voted Republican, but Texas had 11 districts that voted Democratic. ROMNEY additional 1 vote

So if you wanted to try for an honest compact, than California and Texas could both sign a compact that promises they will vote one ECV per district and two for the state if the other state agrees. At least you could re-invigorate the turnout in the two largest states as the minority party would feel like their vote counts. With a higher turnout, it is not clear which party would take an advantage compared to Winner Take All method. The example set by two largest states might then be copied by smaller states.

Incidentally if each congressional district got one vote in 2012
224 + 24*2= 272 Romney instead of 206 WTA
211 + 27*2= 265 Obama instead of 332 WTA

Romney would have won the Presidency in 2012.

Trump would have won with either system in 2016.

Quote: Pacomartin

Romney would have won the Presidency in 2012.

Trump would have won with either system in 2016.

Notably this proposal would still give the win to the loser of the popular vote.

Back to the Popular Vote Compact, there are several ways in which a red state or two could adopt it. One, if a Democrat, God forbid, wins the Electoral College and loses the popular vote. Two, if they want more attention and pork as new battleground states. And others less likely, as if a red state goes blue.

Quote: Nareed

Notably this proposal would still give the win to the loser of the popular vote.

I don't think anyone in power truly cares about the winner of the popular vote unless it helps them. And looking forward to the next century, there is no assurances that it will always be the Democrats that are the winner of popular vote and still lose.

Besides, the compact does not have the force of law, so states can always fall back on their constitutional right to do whatever they want with their electoral college votes.Even if the state passes a state law, they can always pass another law to change it.

Expanding my earlier compact to the four biggest states, CA, TX, NY, FL Trump would have lost 11 votes and Romney would have gained 17 (primarily because Trump won Florida with winner take all and Romney lost FL). Neither change would have changed the final outcome. But as those four states have a third of the congressmen, it would galvanize people outside of FLORIDA to vote.

Quote: Pacomartin

I don't think anyone in power truly cares about the winner of the popular vote unless it helps them.

That's politics in brief:

1) It's wrong only when the other party does it.
2) The question isn't "is this right?" but "does this help our party?" (and "can we get away with it?")

Quote:

Besides, the compact does not have the force of law, so states can always fall back on their constitutional right to do whatever they want with their electoral college votes.Even if the state passes a state law, they can always pass another law to change it.

And they can also ignore their own law claiming it's unconstitutional. More so now that norm-breaking is in vogue.

The intent of the Compact is to change the system to a popular vote one. Regardless of my second point above, some politicians do play fair and hold to principles (remarkable as that may seem) In short, who knows what would happen if the Compact ever gets adopted.

Here's another glitch:

In 1992 Slick Willie won the electoral vote, but had only a plurality of the popular vote (under 50.01%, but the most votes). This was an odd year with a relatively popular third party candidate, Ross Perot. What happens with the Compact if such a situation repeats? It depends on how it's worded, to begin with. But one can argue no one won the popular vote. So do you give your electoral votes to the one with the most votes? Or split them pro-rata among all candidates?

Quote: Nareed

The intent of the Compact is to change the system to a popular vote one. Regardless of my second point above, some politicians do play fair and hold to principles (remarkable as that may seem) In short, who knows what would happen if the Compact ever gets adopted.

The stated intention of the compact is a way to adopt the popular vote without changing the constitution. But in reality the only states that will sign the Compact feel they have nothing to lose as it is impossible for it to be adopted.

Even if all the states on this list signed the Compact, it would not go into effect with PA, MI, or OH, or FL. Nothing that even resembles a battle ground state will ever sign it. So it is pure pandering.

Ranked by % of Vote in 2016 for Hillary Clinton. Yes means joined the Compact.

1. District of Columbia YES
2. Hawaii YES
3. California YES
4. Maryland YES
5. Massachusetts YES
6. New York YES
7. Vermont YES
8. Illinois YES
9. New Jersey YES
10. Connecticut
11. Rhode Island YES
12. Delaware
13. Washington YES
14. Oregon
15. Virginia
16. New Mexico
17. Colorado
18. Nevada
19. Maine (at-lg)
20. New Hampshire
21. Minnesota

Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump
California 8,753,788 to 4,483,810
New York 4,556,124 to 2,819,534

and it doesn't matter if she had won by a single vote. The result is the same.

Quote: Pacomartin

Ranked by % of Vote in 2016 for Hillary Clinton. Yes means joined the Compact.

1. District of Columbia YES
2. Hawaii YES
3. California YES
4. Maryland YES
5. Massachusetts YES
6. New York YES
7. Vermont YES
8. Illinois YES
9. New Jersey YES
10. Connecticut
11. Rhode Island YES
12. Delaware
13. Washington YES
14. Oregon
15. Virginia
16. New Mexico
17. Colorado
18. Nevada
19. Maine (at-lg)
20. New Hampshire
21. Minnesota

Blue as the deep blue sea. VA, NM, CO, NV, NH a little purple. Easy to see this is a liberal idea.

A side question is why are liberals so concentrated in so few geographic areas?

Quote: Pacomartin

The stated intention of the compact is a way to adopt the popular vote without changing the constitution.

"It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future."

You're right that battleground states have much to lose by subscribing to the Compact. There's no rational reason for them to do so. But neither people nor politicians are always rational.

On the other hand, changing the Constitution requires a 2/3 super majority in Congress to pass an amendment, and then the ratification of 3/4 of the states. That's really difficult, it would take a lot of time, and cost a lot of money. the Compact has a lower barrier, would take less time and a smaller fortune.

I think the issue needs to go mainstream. Nothing influences a politician's mind like public opinion.

Quote: Nareed

. Nothing influences a politician's mind like public opinion.

Public Opinion is shaped by lobbyists and press releases.

Quote: Nareed

On the other hand, changing the Constitution requires a 2/3 super majority in Congress to pass an amendment, and then the ratification of 3/4 of the states. That's really difficult, it would take a lot of time, and cost a lot of money. the Compact has a lower barrier, would take less time and a smaller fortune.

Furthermore, there is highly unlikely to be a majority of people that are in favor of a popular election of the President. Nebraska may do away with their one EC vote per district.

If there was a popular election, would a majority be required? Would we actually make it 51% minimum to cover errors in voting process?

What kind of contingent election would be required after the 1992 vote?
Bill Clinton 43.01%
George H. W. Bush 37.45%
Ross Perot 18.91%

If the 1 vote per CD and 2 votes per STATE system were used Perot would still have zero. Clinton still would have won, but not by as big a margin with the winner take all.

The actual vote was 370 to 168.