A way to democratize the Electoral College.

NYT: The Electoral College has been the subject of more amendment efforts than any other part of the Constitution. But amending the Constitution is a heavy lift.  A quicker and more realistic fix is the National Popular Vote interstate compact, under which states agree to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement kicks in as soon as states representing a total of 270 electoral votes sign on, ensuring that the popular vote will always pick the president.

have any states enacted this yet?  This would be a complete game changer in so many ways.

Yes. Several states have enacted this. I heard a very educational podcast about this (as well as political gerrymandering) many months ago on On the Media.  It has received support in "red" as well as "blue" states. They are not yet at the key number yet. It will take a while. According to Wikipedia: "As of September 2017, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 165 electoral votes, which is 30.7% of the total Electoral College and 61.1% of the votes needed to give the compact legal force."

thanks Wendy.   I took a look and see that the 165 already enacted are the big blue states (CA, NY, NJ, IL, MA), and that states with another 97 electoral votes have legislation pending for this.  That's really encouraging. 

On the other hand, let's give some thought to a scenario in which some despicable miscreant wins the popular vote whilst we few, we merry few, in Mass., Cn., NY, NJ, and Cal all select the enlightened, forward thinking candidate.

What are the merry few going to think of themselves for agreeing to put the miscreant in the Oval Office?

Just some food for thought.

Beyond the above, it should also be considered that we are a nation of fifty United States. Fifty sovereigns agreeing to act in concert for our common benefit. That's the deal the first thirteen States made when we adopted Our Constitution; and the deal, to  which each of the subsequently admitted States, agreed upon its admission.

The smart dead guys cobbled together a plan that met with each of the States' approval; from 1789 through to today. That plan included equal representation in the Senate for each of the several States (a guarantee that they had the foresight to make permanent).

The plan also provided for the Electoral College, which, based upon the same rationale persuading the sovereign States to join the Union, allocated the States' participation based upon the number of a State's Congressmen. A provision which, in my opinion, should have been made as permanent as a State's equal representation in the Senate, because it recognizes that each State in the union should be treated as the sovereign they each are.

But hey, that's one man's thoughts on the matter.

TomR

The question of State sovereignty was decisively settled in 1865.

you think the EC is a good idea?

Tom_R said:

On the other hand, let's give some thought to a scenario in which some despicable miscreant wins the popular vote whilst we few, we merry few, in Mass., Cn., NY, NJ, and Cal all select the enlightened, forward thinking candidate.

What are the merry few going to think of themselves for agreeing to put the miscreant in the Oval Office?

Just some food for thought.

Beyond the above, it should also be considered that we are a nation of fifty United States. Fifty sovereigns agreeing to act in concert for our common benefit. That's the deal the first thirteen States made when we adopted Our Constitution; and the deal, to  which each of the subsequently admitted States, agreed upon its admission.

The smart dead guys cobbled together a plan that met with each of the States' approval; from 1789 through to today. That plan included equal representation in the Senate for each of the several States (a guarantee that they had the foresight to make permanent).

The plan also provided for the Electoral College, which, based upon the same rationale persuading the sovereign States to join the Union, allocated the States' participation based upon the number of a State's Congressmen. A provision which, in my opinion, should have been made as permanent as a State's equal representation in the Senate, because it recognizes that each State in the union should be treated as the sovereign they each are.

But hey, that's one man's thoughts on the matter.

TomR

can this change to a proportional elector vote possibly be fair until all 50 states agree to it?

Tom_R said:

....

The smart dead guys cobbled together a plan that met with each of the States' approval; from 1789 through to today. That plan included equal representation in the Senate for each of the several States (a guarantee that they had the foresight to make permanent).

....

TomR

The plan for the E.C. included thinking that the college would be a defense against the rabble voting to elect a scoundrel or nitwit (Twit for you Monty Python fans) to the office.

The plan obviously failed - TWICE: Bush II and the Gropenfuhrer.

Time to change it.

The EC was created to protect against the illiterate populace as a safety for the Elector to vote against what his (there was no her then of course) state decided to do. Regardless of the pros and cons of that decision back then that was memorialized in the Constitution, it no longer applies and our country wants the Presidential elections to be determined by popular vote. This is not a red/blue matter for the most part. I believe even Arizona is on board. This compact is a work around the EC by mandating those Electors in the Compact to basically become faithless Electors if the popular vote nationwide mandates that. That's why you need to reach that number of states agreeing before the compact would kick in. I don't expect it soon but it could happen in about 10 years. Again, I suggest you all educate yourselves further. Here's a start: http://www.wnyc.org/story/reimagining-redblue-map/

I much prefer an Amendment to, rather than a work-around the Constitution.

If the elimination of the E.C. is the will of the people, then change the Constitution to reflect that.

alias said:

I much prefer an Amendment to, rather than a work-around the Constitution.

If the elimination of the E.C. is the will of the people, then change the Constitution to reflect that.

I suggest you do a bit more research to back up your "preference" which is simplistic and wrong in my opinion. 

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

Tom_R said:

....

The smart dead guys cobbled together a plan that met with each of the States' approval; from 1789 through to today. That plan included equal representation in the Senate for each of the several States (a guarantee that they had the foresight to make permanent).

....

TomR

The plan for the E.C. included thinking that the college would be a defense against the rabble voting to elect a scoundrel or nitwit (Twit for you Monty Python fans) to the office.

The plan obviously failed - TWICE: Bush II and the Gropenfuhrer.


Time to change it.

Really?   

The founders envisioned an electoral college composed of citizens of standing who have integrity and a care for their new republic. Also, a compromise for balancing the representation of slave vs. non-slave states.

Currently the electoral college is composed of appointed political hacks. A good idea gone down the drain.

alias said:

I much prefer an Amendment to, rather than a work-around the Constitution.

If the elimination of the E.C. is the will of the people, then change the Constitution to reflect that.

An amendment would require the approval of 2/3rds of the House or 3/4 of the states. Both are controlled by right wing Republicans. They believe they are the beneficiaries of the current system so they have little interest in changing things.

BG9 said:

....
Currently the electoral college is composed of appointed political hacks. A good idea gone down the drain.

Not so. They are elected by the citizens of the states.

Another disgrace is the Democratic nominating process which incorporates Super Delegates that cater to the "establishment" Democrats.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

An amendment would require the approval of 2/3rds of the House or 3/4 of the states. Both are controlled by right wing Republicans. They believe they are the beneficiaries of the current system so they have little interest in changing things. 

Actually 2/3 of Congress AND 3/4 of the States.

BG9 said:

....
Currently the electoral college is composed of appointed political hacks. A good idea gone down the drain.

Not so. They are elected by the citizens of the states.

Another disgrace is the Democratic nominating process which incorporates Super Delegates that cater to the "establishment" Democrats.

State legislatures are responsible for nominating electors. The process can actually differ from state to state. In general, though, the two most common ways are:

• The elector is nominated by his or her state party committee (perhaps to reward many years of service to the party).
• The elector campaigns for a spot and the decision is made during a vote held at the state's party convention.

wendy said:

The EC was created to protect against the illiterate populace as a safety for the Elector to vote against what his (there was no her then of course) state decided to do. Regardless of the pros and cons of that decision back then that was memorialized in the Constitution, it no longer applies and our country wants the Presidential elections to be determined by popular vote. This is not a red/blue matter for the most part. I believe even Arizona is on board. This compact is a work around the EC by mandating those Electors in the Compact to basically become faithless Electors if the popular vote nationwide mandates that. That's why you need to reach that number of states agreeing before the compact would kick in. I don't expect it soon but it could happen in about 10 years. Again, I suggest you all educate yourselves further. Here's a start: http://www.wnyc.org/story/reimagining-redblue-map/

Incorrect. Please study it out. 

Study what out? Pretty obnoxious response.

Oh my goodness Arizona is not one of the states.  Here is some information for all to look at. I didn't memorize it though. Mea culpa.

Motivation behind the compact[edit]

See also: Electoral College (United States) § Contemporary issues

"Because of the way states have historically chosen to apportion their electoral votes, presidential candidates have lost the popular vote nationally but still won the presidency.^[5] Public opinion surveys suggest that a majority of Americans support the idea of a popular vote for President. A 2007 poll found that 72% favored replacing the Electoral College with a direct election, including 78% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans, and 73% of independent voters.^[6] Gallup polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a direct vote; however, support decreased significantly in their 2016 poll, conducted a few weeks after the 2016 election, when they found support for the popular vote at 49%, an all-time low, with 47% wanting to keep the Electoral College.^[7][8] Reasons behind the compact include:

• Current Electoral College rules allow a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote, as happened in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. In the 2000 election, the outcome was decided by a margin of 537 votes in Florida, despite a 543,895 margin in the other direction nationally.
• Current Electoral College rules effectively force candidates to focus disproportionately on a small percentage of pivotal swing states, while sidelining the rest. A study by FairVote reported that the 2004 candidates devoted three quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states, while the other 45 states received very little attention. The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV advertising.^[9] This means that swing state issues receive more attention, while issues important to other states are largely ignored.^[10][11][12]
• Current Electoral College rules tend to decrease voter turnout in states without close races. Voters living outside the swing states have a greater certainty of which candidate is likely to win their state. This knowledge of the probable outcome decreases their incentive to vote.^[10][12] A report by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate found that 2004 voter turnout in competitive swing states grew by 6.3% from the previous presidential election, compared to an increase of only 3.8% in noncompetitive states.^[13] A report by The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) found that turnout among eligible voters under age 30 was 64.4% in the 10 closest battleground states and only 47.6% in the rest of the country—a 17% gap.^[14]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

wendy said:

Study what out? Pretty obnoxious response.

How observant. 

Compact among States = Confederation of States.  No?