4 ms·

The compact isn’t structured to award based on who gets the strict majority (>50%) vote. It’s structured to award electoral votes based on who wins the national

The compact isn’t structured to award based on who gets the strict majority (>50%) vote. It’s structured to award electoral votes based on who wins the national popular vote, which means a plurality of votes cast. It’s the same way all but two states currently award their electoral votes, but the compact is tying it to the national—as opposed to state-level—popular vote. Had the compact been in effect for 2016, the US would have had its first female president—if I’ve understood it correctly.

yellowapple 8y ago
> plurality of votes cast So we'd be electing someone against whom the actual majority of voters voted. Not really an improvement, since either way a minority of voters ends up winning the election. > the compact us tying it to the national - as opposed to state-level - popular vote In other words: the states are completely ignoring the voices of their own citizens and completely defeating the whole point of the Electoral College (especially in cases where, say, the majority or plurality of the state's voters voted against the plurality nationwide, in which case the state would be actively betraying its own citizens). There are surely better ways to fix our political system than to defenestrate what semblance of democracy we actually have (though I will admit that it's a good demonstration of the flaws of the Electoral College - in particular, the flaw that states are apparently not required to actually cast their votes according to the wishes of the citizens of those states).
- bobwaycott 8y ago
  > So we'd be electing someone against whom the actual majority of voters voted. No. The 2000 & 2016 elections—along with 3 others since 1824—saw a person elected despite the majority of voters who cast ballots voting against that individual—52% voted against Bush, 54% voted against Trump. Both elections saw the US electing someone against whom the actual majority of voters voted. The compact is essentially an agreement to make presidential elections match up with the person who secures the most votes nationwide, which sure seems to be far closer to a democratic election than the indirect EC system which has, twice in recent memory, awarded the presidency against the wishes of the majority of voters who cast votes. No more playing the EC game—you either win the election with the most votes cast, or you don't win. The only other options would be far heavier overhauls of the voting system—ditching SMDP, and implementing a two-round system whereby we eventually end up with one person who gets >50% of the vote. That's unlikely to ever happen, as it would rely on a constitutional amendment, so the compact is leveraging the power states have to determine how they award their electoral votes—awarding them based on who secures the most votes nationwide so the elected president always matches the popular vote. Again, since US national elections already rely on getting the most votes, and not a true >50% majority of votes cast, this is likely the closest the US can get to a purely democratic presidential election without an amendment that removes the EC entirely and establishes a TRS election in its place to ensure there is always an undeniable majority winner.
  - yellowapple 8y ago
    > Both elections saw the US electing someone against whom the actual majority of voters voted. And with the proposal here we would still end up with the US electing someone against whom the actual majority of voters voted. This proposal fixes nothing. In fact, it makes things even worse, since - again - the state might very well be actively going against its own voters. > The only other options would be far heavier overhauls of the voting system There are plenty of other options that are just as possible: - Allocating electors by congressional district (this is what Maine and Nebraska already do) - Allocation electors by electoral district - Allocating electors proportionally (e.g. if - state-wide - 60% of voters vote for A and 40% vote for B, then 60% of EC electors will vote for A and 40% of EC electors will vote for B) Proportional allocation of EC votes would be gerrymandering-resistant (since there'd be no creatively-drawn districts involved) and would be a more accurate representation of the will of the people of that state. It would allow, for example, Democrats in otherwise-Republican-dominated states (e.g. Houston v. the rest of Texas) to be represented electorally (and likewise allow the same for Republicans in otherwise-Democrat-dominated states like California). If an actual "fix" for our electoral system is what you seek, then that'd be the best option by pretty much every metric.

yellowapple 8y ago

> plurality of votes cast So we'd be electing someone against whom the actual majority of voters voted. Not really an improvement, since either way a minority of voters ends up winning the election. > the compact us tying it to the national - as opposed to state-level - popular vote In other words: the states are completely ignoring the voices of their own citizens and completely defeating the whole point of the Electoral College (especially in cases where, say, the majority or plurality of the state's voters voted against the plurality nationwide, in which case the state would be actively betraying its own citizens). There are surely better ways to fix our political system than to defenestrate what semblance of democracy we actually have (though I will admit that it's a good demonstration of the flaws of the Electoral College - in particular, the flaw that states are apparently not required to actually cast their votes according to the wishes of the citizens of those states).

bobwaycott 8y ago
> So we'd be electing someone against whom the actual majority of voters voted. No. The 2000 & 2016 elections—along with 3 others since 1824—saw a person elected despite the majority of voters who cast ballots voting against that individual—52% voted against Bush, 54% voted against Trump. Both elections saw the US electing someone against whom the actual majority of voters voted. The compact is essentially an agreement to make presidential elections match up with the person who secures the most votes nationwide, which sure seems to be far closer to a democratic election than the indirect EC system which has, twice in recent memory, awarded the presidency against the wishes of the majority of voters who cast votes. No more playing the EC game—you either win the election with the most votes cast, or you don't win. The only other options would be far heavier overhauls of the voting system—ditching SMDP, and implementing a two-round system whereby we eventually end up with one person who gets >50% of the vote. That's unlikely to ever happen, as it would rely on a constitutional amendment, so the compact is leveraging the power states have to determine how they award their electoral votes—awarding them based on who secures the most votes nationwide so the elected president always matches the popular vote. Again, since US national elections already rely on getting the most votes, and not a true >50% majority of votes cast, this is likely the closest the US can get to a purely democratic presidential election without an amendment that removes the EC entirely and establishes a TRS election in its place to ensure there is always an undeniable majority winner.
- yellowapple 8y ago
  > Both elections saw the US electing someone against whom the actual majority of voters voted. And with the proposal here we would still end up with the US electing someone against whom the actual majority of voters voted. This proposal fixes nothing. In fact, it makes things even worse, since - again - the state might very well be actively going against its own voters. > The only other options would be far heavier overhauls of the voting system There are plenty of other options that are just as possible: - Allocating electors by congressional district (this is what Maine and Nebraska already do) - Allocation electors by electoral district - Allocating electors proportionally (e.g. if - state-wide - 60% of voters vote for A and 40% vote for B, then 60% of EC electors will vote for A and 40% of EC electors will vote for B) Proportional allocation of EC votes would be gerrymandering-resistant (since there'd be no creatively-drawn districts involved) and would be a more accurate representation of the will of the people of that state. It would allow, for example, Democrats in otherwise-Republican-dominated states (e.g. Houston v. the rest of Texas) to be represented electorally (and likewise allow the same for Republicans in otherwise-Democrat-dominated states like California). If an actual "fix" for our electoral system is what you seek, then that'd be the best option by pretty much every metric.