4 ms·

Hold yourself when you hear that States are discussing a backdoor (edit: "workaround") on how they could trade Electoral College votes without amending the Cons

by rvnx 2y ago

Hold yourself when you hear that States are discussing a backdoor (edit: "workaround") on how they could trade Electoral College votes without amending the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... Like a super Faithless elector. It's going to make it easier for the AP I guess ? (unless plot twist: the States don't all keep their promises if they don't like the final result).

TheRealPomax 2y ago
You mean like actual voter representation, instead? They're not trading anything, the compact is one where all participating states agree that the only fair election is one where the candidate with the most votes should win, and so all of them have agreed that their electors will vote for the candidate who wins the most votes at the national level, regardless of what the local result is. As it should be, for a national vote.
- rvnx 2y ago
  Oh yes, I totally agree with you I think this Electoral College system is absurdly complicated (and to be back to the topic, causes issues like predicting the outcome). I shown this article because it is interesting from a "technical" perspective to see how the States are discussing together to figure out a backdoor, instead of doing what is the "right" thing: sitting on a table and amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    There’s no particular reason to call it a backdoor or not the “right” way.
    - rvnx 2y ago
      a "hack", or a "workaround" is more appropriate perhaps, rather than a backdoor. It reminds me of technical debt. Instead of rewriting the original buggy code, we add one more feature and we certainly don't change anything to the original code. So instead we have: "This is the logic, we do this A and this B, but oh well, anyway it's C" Simpler is better, especially on crucial things such as elections.
      - kiba 2y ago
        It is horrendously difficult to amend the constitution. We would need much greater societal consensus to be make it easier to amend the constitution. Changing the presidental vote to a popular vote would be the first step to doing that.
      - christianqchung 2y ago
        Getting 75% of states to support something is simpler than getting 50% of electoral college votes to agree on supporting the more popular candidate? Constitutional amendments are anything but simple.
  - krapp 2y ago
    Amending the Constitution is a metaphysical impossibility at this point. The Electoral College exists to give outsized political power to rural states, and they aren't going to agree to give that up.
    - rvnx 2y ago
      Isn't it what California and other states are doing with the NPVIC ? "Ok you don't want give up your power, and to amend the Constitution, so screw you, we will decide without you"
  - ars 2y ago
    I used to think getting rid of the Electoral College was "obviously" the right thing. Then I learned more about how the US works, and realized that the electoral college is actually its strength! Without it cities would completely dominate rural areas, like completely. Those rural areas would essentially have zero voice. Think about it: do you want a US where only a couple states control the entire thing? And I don't mean like today where some states are predictably red or blue (i.e. where only the swing states "count") - in the current state red vs blue alternate positions on capital hill, so all those states eventually get their voice heard. In a world without the Electoral College the rural states get zero voice. None. I don't think the US would survive this.
    - krapp 2y ago
      The Electoral College only affects the election of the President, who does not (despite popular misconception) actually run the government the way a CEO runs a country, rather he represents one of three equal and (ostensibly) separate branches of government. The Electoral College doesn't determine the distribution of representatives in Congress, nor the election of judges. Obviously rural states would not cease to have a voice in government if the President were elected by popular vote - which is in essence what the Electoral College is designed to prevent - because most Presidents have been and yet rural states somehow persist, pass legislation and maintain political power.
    - sapphicsnail 2y ago
      Why should someone in a rural area get a bigger say than someone in an urban one? California has more people than ~15 least populous states combined. Also, all the rural red counties in CA effectively have no voice in the presidential election. It's a dumb, outdated, arbitrary system.
    - mcphage 2y ago
      > Think about it: do you want a US where only a couple states control the entire thing? You mean like the US we have, where the entire race is focused on 7 states?
- sokoloff 2y ago
  The compact has the mechanism and effect you describe, but you seem to have added your own editorialization as to the motivation: "participating states agree that the only fair election is one where the candidate with the most votes should win." That's not part of the bill in the one state that I reviewed (MA), nor in the text describing the compact generally. [Voters in] States participating may in fact believe that multiple types of fair elections exist, but that they merely prefer this particular one.
picture 2y ago
?? Some people do agree that the Electoral College system was more suited for a previous time where the States were more disjointed and the federal government wanted to entice each state to participate in the system by giving the smaller states more power. In modern day, a system that's closer to people's actual votes makes more sense to some people. This simply allows changing from Electoral College where a candidate can win despite having less votes than another candidate, to a more true first-past-the-post. Of course, I think ranked choice voting is much much better but I don't think it's fair to make this sound like some secret nefarious conspiracy. It's also not apparently related to the article
- no_wizard 2y ago
  RCV could open the door to proportional representation too
Sparkle-san 2y ago
The Constitution gives the states complete control over how they use their electors. If they want to say "we will give them to the popular vote winner if enough states will do the same such that the popular vote winner wins" then that is completely within their power. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
- bitshiftfaced 2y ago
  Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 > No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
  - Sparkle-san 2y ago
    It is certainly an open question as to whether or not it would need the approval of Congress. Does the compact clause have more weight or does the plenary powers doctrine have more weight? Realistically, it depends who the nine justices of the supreme court are if it ever makes it that far.
- edmundsauto 2y ago
  At the same time, how these electors are chosen cannot trample on the civil right that citizens have to vote. States can’t just do whatever they want, if what they want to do is disenfranchise voters. At least that’s my hope.
  - Sparkle-san 2y ago
    It would probably depend on constitutional interpretation as to what a state legislature could do nowadays. South Carolina's legislature picked their electors until 1860 and if they wanted to revert to that an orignialist interpretation of the constitution would support it. One could make an argument that taking the right to vote away after granting it isn't in line with other later amendments or the spirit of the constitution and the justices seem more than capable of picking and choosing to make whatever outcome they want to happen, happen. All that being said, switching to apportioning electors according to the popular vote winner would make many more people's votes count given that we're realistically waiting on the results of 7 states to decide the upcoming election.
petesergeant 2y ago
That sounds great? Wouldn’t the only downside there be for candidates who can’t win the popular vote?
reaperducer 2y ago
Hold yourself when you hear This is what happens when they stop teaching civics in high school. People never learn how the government works, and then when they learn one uncommon nugget of information, the only way to fit it into their worldview is to turn it into some crazy conspiracy theory. It's pretty much the definition of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by rvnx 2y ago

TheRealPomax 2y ago

You mean like actual voter representation, instead? They're not trading anything, the compact is one where all participating states agree that the only fair election is one where the candidate with the most votes should win, and so all of them have agreed that their electors will vote for the candidate who wins the most votes at the national level, regardless of what the local result is. As it should be, for a national vote.

rvnx 2y ago
Oh yes, I totally agree with you I think this Electoral College system is absurdly complicated (and to be back to the topic, causes issues like predicting the outcome). I shown this article because it is interesting from a "technical" perspective to see how the States are discussing together to figure out a backdoor, instead of doing what is the "right" thing: sitting on a table and amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  There’s no particular reason to call it a backdoor or not the “right” way.
  - rvnx 2y ago
    a "hack", or a "workaround" is more appropriate perhaps, rather than a backdoor. It reminds me of technical debt. Instead of rewriting the original buggy code, we add one more feature and we certainly don't change anything to the original code. So instead we have: "This is the logic, we do this A and this B, but oh well, anyway it's C" Simpler is better, especially on crucial things such as elections.
    - kiba 2y ago
      It is horrendously difficult to amend the constitution. We would need much greater societal consensus to be make it easier to amend the constitution. Changing the presidental vote to a popular vote would be the first step to doing that.
    - christianqchung 2y ago
      Getting 75% of states to support something is simpler than getting 50% of electoral college votes to agree on supporting the more popular candidate? Constitutional amendments are anything but simple.
- krapp 2y ago
  Amending the Constitution is a metaphysical impossibility at this point. The Electoral College exists to give outsized political power to rural states, and they aren't going to agree to give that up.
  - rvnx 2y ago
    Isn't it what California and other states are doing with the NPVIC ? "Ok you don't want give up your power, and to amend the Constitution, so screw you, we will decide without you"
- ars 2y ago
  I used to think getting rid of the Electoral College was "obviously" the right thing. Then I learned more about how the US works, and realized that the electoral college is actually its strength! Without it cities would completely dominate rural areas, like completely. Those rural areas would essentially have zero voice. Think about it: do you want a US where only a couple states control the entire thing? And I don't mean like today where some states are predictably red or blue (i.e. where only the swing states "count") - in the current state red vs blue alternate positions on capital hill, so all those states eventually get their voice heard. In a world without the Electoral College the rural states get zero voice. None. I don't think the US would survive this.
  - krapp 2y ago
    The Electoral College only affects the election of the President, who does not (despite popular misconception) actually run the government the way a CEO runs a country, rather he represents one of three equal and (ostensibly) separate branches of government. The Electoral College doesn't determine the distribution of representatives in Congress, nor the election of judges. Obviously rural states would not cease to have a voice in government if the President were elected by popular vote - which is in essence what the Electoral College is designed to prevent - because most Presidents have been and yet rural states somehow persist, pass legislation and maintain political power.
  - sapphicsnail 2y ago
    Why should someone in a rural area get a bigger say than someone in an urban one? California has more people than ~15 least populous states combined. Also, all the rural red counties in CA effectively have no voice in the presidential election. It's a dumb, outdated, arbitrary system.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    > Think about it: do you want a US where only a couple states control the entire thing? You mean like the US we have, where the entire race is focused on 7 states?
sokoloff 2y ago
The compact has the mechanism and effect you describe, but you seem to have added your own editorialization as to the motivation: "participating states agree that the only fair election is one where the candidate with the most votes should win." That's not part of the bill in the one state that I reviewed (MA), nor in the text describing the compact generally. [Voters in] States participating may in fact believe that multiple types of fair elections exist, but that they merely prefer this particular one.

picture 2y ago

?? Some people do agree that the Electoral College system was more suited for a previous time where the States were more disjointed and the federal government wanted to entice each state to participate in the system by giving the smaller states more power. In modern day, a system that's closer to people's actual votes makes more sense to some people. This simply allows changing from Electoral College where a candidate can win despite having less votes than another candidate, to a more true first-past-the-post. Of course, I think ranked choice voting is much much better but I don't think it's fair to make this sound like some secret nefarious conspiracy. It's also not apparently related to the article

no_wizard 2y ago
RCV could open the door to proportional representation too

Sparkle-san 2y ago

The Constitution gives the states complete control over how they use their electors. If they want to say "we will give them to the popular vote winner if enough states will do the same such that the popular vote winner wins" then that is completely within their power. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

bitshiftfaced 2y ago
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 > No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
- Sparkle-san 2y ago
  It is certainly an open question as to whether or not it would need the approval of Congress. Does the compact clause have more weight or does the plenary powers doctrine have more weight? Realistically, it depends who the nine justices of the supreme court are if it ever makes it that far.
edmundsauto 2y ago
At the same time, how these electors are chosen cannot trample on the civil right that citizens have to vote. States can’t just do whatever they want, if what they want to do is disenfranchise voters. At least that’s my hope.
- Sparkle-san 2y ago
  It would probably depend on constitutional interpretation as to what a state legislature could do nowadays. South Carolina's legislature picked their electors until 1860 and if they wanted to revert to that an orignialist interpretation of the constitution would support it. One could make an argument that taking the right to vote away after granting it isn't in line with other later amendments or the spirit of the constitution and the justices seem more than capable of picking and choosing to make whatever outcome they want to happen, happen. All that being said, switching to apportioning electors according to the popular vote winner would make many more people's votes count given that we're realistically waiting on the results of 7 states to decide the upcoming election.

petesergeant 2y ago

That sounds great? Wouldn’t the only downside there be for candidates who can’t win the popular vote?

reaperducer 2y ago

Hold yourself when you hear This is what happens when they stop teaching civics in high school. People never learn how the government works, and then when they learn one uncommon nugget of information, the only way to fit it into their worldview is to turn it into some crazy conspiracy theory. It's pretty much the definition of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]