3 ms·

I want to point out this article was written in May, and is a bit out of date. For example, Nevada (heavily mentioned in the article) never adopted the National

I want to point out this article was written in May, and is a bit out of date. For example, Nevada (heavily mentioned in the article) never adopted the National Popular Vote compact because the governor vetoed the bill after the legislature passed it. FiveThirtyEight published an article last week on the current state of the compact: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-movement-to-skip-the-electoral-college-may-take-its-first-step-back/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-movement-to-skip-th...

Izkata 7y ago
> Unsurprisingly, given that almost every state government to pass the National Popular Vote compact was completely controlled by Democrats, It kinda feels like this part keeps getting glossed over when people talk about this. I don't think those signing on have really thought it through, and are just reacting to the 2016 election results. Of course the party that lost wants to change the system in a way that, that time, they may have ended up winning - especially with all the open hate for Trump.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  The NPVIC was introduced into state legislators in 2006, so it's pretty hard to write off as just a reaction to Trump. And while there certainly is a lot of open hate for Trump, it's the fact that he lost the popular vote and won anyway that kicked this back up again. The Bush election in 2000 was the first time that'd happened since 1888. Having it happen again just 16 years later -- and with Clinton winning the popular vote by a bigger margin than Gore did in 2000 or Cleveland did in 1888! -- and this is to be expected. And, sure, it benefits the Democrats -- but given that population trends over the last few decades have all been about migration to urban areas from rural ones, I think it's at least worth asking whether keeping the electoral college and giving ever fewer voters a disproportionately ever-greater say over the country is truly what we want. If another national election goes the "lose popular election, win election anyway" route within the next few cycles, this is going to start getting a lot of noise around it.
- cosmobot 7y ago
  It's worth noting that the same thing happened to the Democrats in 2000, and hadn't happened in the US at that point for over 100 years. Looked at from the perspective of the Democratic party: they have won the popular vote 4 out of the last 5 elections, but only won the presidency twice. It's not surprising the party's frustration with the Electoral College would continue to grow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
  - drak0n1c 7y ago
    Interestingly in 2008 Hillary Clinton won the popular vote to be the Democratic Nominee but did not become the Nominee. The Democrats criticize the EC, but also don't mind using a form of it internally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presiden...
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      Both of those are untrue. Super delegates have never decided a Democratic primary, and Obama got more votes in 2008 (the official tally excludes Washington, Michigan, and Florida, who went for Obama but didnt publish vote tallies) The delegate system is proportional, not winner-take-all, it is utterly unlike the electoral college.
    - justin66 7y ago
      "Popular vote" is a deceptive concept here since some of the states rely on caucuses instead of primaries to choose their delegates to the convention.

Izkata 7y ago

> Unsurprisingly, given that almost every state government to pass the National Popular Vote compact was completely controlled by Democrats, It kinda feels like this part keeps getting glossed over when people talk about this. I don't think those signing on have really thought it through, and are just reacting to the 2016 election results. Of course the party that lost wants to change the system in a way that, that time, they may have ended up winning - especially with all the open hate for Trump.

chipotle_coyote 7y ago
The NPVIC was introduced into state legislators in 2006, so it's pretty hard to write off as just a reaction to Trump. And while there certainly is a lot of open hate for Trump, it's the fact that he lost the popular vote and won anyway that kicked this back up again. The Bush election in 2000 was the first time that'd happened since 1888. Having it happen again just 16 years later -- and with Clinton winning the popular vote by a bigger margin than Gore did in 2000 or Cleveland did in 1888! -- and this is to be expected. And, sure, it benefits the Democrats -- but given that population trends over the last few decades have all been about migration to urban areas from rural ones, I think it's at least worth asking whether keeping the electoral college and giving ever fewer voters a disproportionately ever-greater say over the country is truly what we want. If another national election goes the "lose popular election, win election anyway" route within the next few cycles, this is going to start getting a lot of noise around it.
cosmobot 7y ago
It's worth noting that the same thing happened to the Democrats in 2000, and hadn't happened in the US at that point for over 100 years. Looked at from the perspective of the Democratic party: they have won the popular vote 4 out of the last 5 elections, but only won the presidency twice. It's not surprising the party's frustration with the Electoral College would continue to grow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  Interestingly in 2008 Hillary Clinton won the popular vote to be the Democratic Nominee but did not become the Nominee. The Democrats criticize the EC, but also don't mind using a form of it internally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presiden...
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    Both of those are untrue. Super delegates have never decided a Democratic primary, and Obama got more votes in 2008 (the official tally excludes Washington, Michigan, and Florida, who went for Obama but didnt publish vote tallies) The delegate system is proportional, not winner-take-all, it is utterly unlike the electoral college.
  - justin66 7y ago
    "Popular vote" is a deceptive concept here since some of the states rely on caucuses instead of primaries to choose their delegates to the convention.