What does everyone think of national popular vote legislation that would negate

[Poiuyt]

the Electoral College?

The proposed interstate compact implements nationwide popular election of the President by having states agree to jointly award all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The proposed interstate compact would not take effect until identical legislation is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (that is, 270 of the 538 electoral votes). Thus, the compact would only take effect when it can guarantee an Electoral College majority to the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. It's up to the states to decide how their votes are cast

Personally, I think we need more diversity of opinion, not less.

I would rather see electoral votes cast by district. Each state has one vote per member of Congress. The majority of each House district decides the vote for that one elector, and the majority of the state decides the vote for the two electors that come from the state's representation in the Senate.

[endarkenment]

3. Well obviously this would require an amendment.

But why not electoral votes cast by individual? One person, one vote. Why is that such a difficult concept?

The dead white men who set up the current system deliberately sought to empower elite landed white men as the ruling class, and we are stuck with their crappy elitist system, which is now exploited (and has been since shortly after our civil war) by the kleptocracy to run the country for the benefit of a vanishingly small and unbelieveably wealthy set of greedy bastards. They are laughing at us and our foolishness while they pillage us.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. No, it would not

The Constitution is silent as to how the Electoral votes are determined, so they are a matter for the states themselves to decide. The current "winner take all" system is a matter of state law, not federal or Constitutional law. In fact two states (Vermont and, I think, Hawaii) use the same method of allocating electoral votes that I outlined above while the other 48 have an all-or-nothing requirement.

As for "one person, one vote", remember that the Founders were very afraid of mob rule. That is why they created a republic of states and not a true democracy. Since the federal government is designed to represent the states and not the people, it is the states and not the people who elect the President. Changing that would require changing the Constitution.

[endarkenment]

8. Ok that is better than what we have.

But still not good enough. Yes I am well aware that "As for "one person, one vote", remember that the Founders were very afraid of mob rule" however phrasing direct elections as 'mob rule' is clearly argument by emotion rather than reason, and in my view what the supposedly sacred founders were up to was rule by wealthy landed white men, and what that has been translated into is our current kleptocracy. Are you happy with the corrupt rule of corporate elites for the benefit of a vanishingly small set of unbelievably wealthy people? I'm not.

[endarkenment]

2. 'bout damn time.

Plus I think we ought to have something similar to Venezuela's recall provision to allow the people to remove our temporary tyrant if he or she steps out of line.

Of course any such change has to be coupled with a verified hand-counted paper ballot national uniform election regulation and instant runoff voting.

It is time to end the two party duopoly.

[mopinko]

4. i say leave the constitution alone.

IF the senate had been made up of honorable patriots, it could have righted the terrible wrongs that we have lived with for the last 6 years. it is a big if, but i do not think that the failure of those 100 individuals should cause us to throw the baby out with the bath water. it is supposed to be a final check on local machinery. it did not work this time. but it could. and it should.
i think it sets a bad precedent to change the constitution because you do not like the outcome.

[endarkenment]

5. "change the constitution because you do not like the outcome"

Uh not really fair. I think the constitution needs change because it is being exploited to commit election fraud (Florida, Ohio) and is being and has been exploited to corrupt our nation for the last 125 years or so. Not because I don't like who arguably won the last two national elections.

[Totallybushed]

6. I don't

really like it.

Why? Because in such a case, the states could cast their electoral votes in direct opposition to what the majority of their citizens voted for. Somehow, this seems extremely anti-democratic to me. Far more so than the Electoral College.

Look, any system will break down in the extremes, like in Florida 2000 where the vote was so close that statistically we will never know who actually won. Please don't flame me with rants about the "stolen election". I am assuming, only for the sake of argument about the Electoral College, that elections will NOT be stolen. In they are, then no system will work.

Any changes that are made can work against us, as well as for us. For instance, election 2004, * would have gotten a LOT more electoral votes, if this system had been in play. For the flamers out there, refer to paragraph 2, please.

The system has worked pretty well so far. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it is broke, as I think most of us will agree that it is, then fix it right. That means honest, fair elections, by whatever the rules are. The problem is not with the rules but the cheaters.

[slackmaster]

9. The proposed compact is a chickenshit workaround

The only real fix for the EC is a constitutional amendment.