Current Events > The Popular Vote Compact.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status


I think that if a blue wave happens, this can become reality.

---

If this ever does pass through enough swing states to become official policy, I think it falls apart if a Democratic candidate wins the former-electoral vote but loses the popular vote and then loses the election.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

If this ever does pass through enough swing states to become official policy, I think it falls apart if a Democratic candidate wins the former-electoral vote but loses the popular vote and then loses the election.

Do you actually see something like that EVER happening? Republicans are the minority party, only holding onto power through tricks.

the last remnants of the old republic have been swept away

---

It almost happened in 2004.

Democrats have a huge advantage in the electoral college (just looking at safe states), so yeah it could definitely happen..

---

Medussa posted...

the last remnants of the old republic have been swept away

[citation needed]

Questionmarktarius posted...

[citation needed]

The new generation doesn't know how their country works, how voting works, or what their rights are.

They will just do what Twitter or their celebrity says, so its easy to manipulate the average American voter into voting blue.

Nightdrive07 posted...

The new generation doesn't know how their country works, how voting works, or what their rights are.

Article 2 never specified a popular vote for president.

Damn_Underscore posted...

If this ever does pass through enough swing states to become official policy, I think it falls apart if a Democratic candidate wins the former-electoral vote but loses the popular vote and then loses the election.

I dont think it does

I think democrats have shown that theyre willing to abide by the rules to a fault
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Article 2 never specified a popular vote for president.

Doesn't matter, ask the average protestor what Article 2 is.

Democrats could bypass all legalities and nobody would know, or care.

Nightdrive07 posted...

Ah another "totally not a recently banned user you guys".

---

Nightdrive07 posted...

Democrats could bypass all legalities and nobody would know, or care.

There's nothing at all unconstitutional about this popular vote compact.

Nightdrive07 posted...

Doesn't matter, ask the average protestor what Article 2 is.

Democrats could bypass all legalities and nobody would know, or care.

Who gives a FUCK what a 250 year old document says

If the laws are outdated and archaic, change them

The people that wrote the constitution were all knowing arbiters of whats right
---

TheGoldenEel posted...

Who gives a FUCK what a 250 year old document says

If the laws are outdated and archaic, change them

The people that wrote the constitution were all knowing arbiters of whats right

Not the point, but ok.

Damn_Underscore posted...

It almost happened in 2004.

um no

bush won florida by 5%, easily securing it, and ohio by 3%

by comparison trump won florida by 1.2%, michigan by 0.2%, PA by 0.72%, and WI by 0.77%

---

TheGoldenEel posted...

Who gives a FUCK what a 250 year old document says

If the laws are outdated and archaic, change them

The people that wrote the constitution were all knowing arbiters of whats right

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev
There you go.
That 250-year-old document you don't give a fuck about, included its own mechanism for changing itself when it gets archaic.

Nightdrive07 posted...

The new generation doesn't know how their country works, how voting works, or what their rights are.

They will just do what Twitter or their celebrity says, so its easy to manipulate the average American voter into voting blue.

you're right. now its time to restrict voters to only those the founders wanted! no women, no blacks, no poor! only landed farmers of high moral standing!!! oh, but no Catholics or other dirty religions...

---

monkmith posted...

you're right. now its time to restrict voters to only those the founders wanted! no women, no blacks, no poor! only landed farmers of high moral standing!!! oh, but no Catholics or other dirty religions...

I agree, not everyone should be allowed to vote, this is why the US is so out of hand.

Nightdrive07 posted...

The new generation doesn't know how their country works, how voting works, or what their rights are.

They will just do what Twitter or their celebrity says, so its easy to manipulate the average American voter into voting blue.

i think you have that backwards, because empty platitudes and outright lies are manipulating the average American voter into voting red.

Bush won Ohio by 2.11% or about 118k votes, allowing him to win the election.

That is objectively close

---

Nightdrive07: user is not currently an active member

Add to the very questionable post 18

Questionmarktarius posted...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev
There you go.
That 250-year-old document you don't give a fuck about, included its own mechanism for changing itself when it gets archaic.

the popular vote compact operates within the bounds of the constitution and you know that

what it gets around is the obvious incentive republican states and swing states both have to oppose an amendment

Damn_Underscore posted...

Bush won Ohio by 2.11% or about 118k votes, allowing him to win the election.

That is objectively close

that's twice the trump margin in FL, 3 times the trump margin in WI and PA, and 10 times the trump margin in MI

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev
There you go.
That 250-year-old document you don't give a fuck about, included its own mechanism for changing itself when it gets archaic.

The mechanisms to change it dont work anymore, is the thing
---

you know. people bitching that this is "AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION" seem to forget the fact the constitution specifically empowers states to decide how they award EC votes...

so i guess i'm wondering why these people seem to hate states rights?

---

TheGoldenEel posted...

The mechanisms to change it dont work anymore, is the thing

Yes they do.
It's just that the ones who want change insist on imposing it on everyone else, like it or not, instead of convincing 38 states that the change is a good idea.

Sackgurl posted...

the popular vote compact operates within the bounds of the constitution and you know that

post 12.

Sackgurl posted...

that's twice the trump margin in FL, 3 times the trump margin in WI and PA, and 10 times the trump margin in MI

Ok?

Like I said it almost happened in 2004 that the Democrat lost the popular vote but won the election. All it takes is for the Republican to win the popular vote by a small margin and the Democrat has a decent chance of winning the election due to the electoral college advantage they have. Democratic safe and likely states are much stronger than Republican safe and likely states, it's just a matter of winning a handful of swing states to win the election.

---

in general the results in swing states trend to the right of the results nationally, you're ignoring this very important detail

democrats' advantages in total safe votes are significantly outstripped by republicans' advantages in swing states

for 2004 to go to the democrats would've required a much larger statistical anomaly than 2016 going to republicans did

which is the underlying point: democrats can consistently win the popular vote and lose the election, for republicans to do this would require a very unlikely outcome of states more conservative than the country trending opposite their voter demographics

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's just that the ones who want change insist on imposing it on everyone else, like it or not, instead of convincing 38 states that the change is a good idea.

there is no way you will ever convince leadership in any of the core swing states or the core republican states to join the compact. they know the electoral college gives them too much power and don't want to give it up.

which is the most clear proof that the EC isn't advantaging democrats, it's advantaging republicans

i mean you're trying to make this argument based on a theoretical that was extremely unlikely in the face of it having actually happened in the other direction twice

---

perhaps more significantly: blue states signing on to this sends the very clear message that we're okay with risking that outcome

if it happens, it would be because the compact forced republicans to abandon their white supremacist voters and court new voters nationwide, essentially massively shifting to the left

that's also a win for us

---

monkmith posted...

you know. people bitching that this is "AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION" seem to forget the fact the constitution specifically empowers states to decide how they award EC votes...

so i guess i'm wondering why these people seem to hate states rights?

That or they just aren't quite the experts on the constitution that they think they are.

---

Sackgurl posted...

in general the results in swing states trend to the right of the results nationally, you're ignoring this very important detail

democrats' advantages in total safe votes are significantly outstripped by republicans' advantages in swing states

for 2004 to go to the democrats would've required a much larger statistical anomaly than 2016 going to republicans did

which is the underlying point: democrats can consistently win the popular vote and lose the election, for republicans to do this would require a very unlikely outcome of states more conservative than the country trending opposite their voter demographics

You're missing the point.

Fact - John Kerry almost won in 2004 despite losing the popular vote. This has nothing to do with Trump winning in 2016 or Bush winning in 2000, and this isn't a contest about who was closer to winning/losing.

My opinion is that if this ever did pass, it would fall apart or at the very least be challenged greatly if a Democratic candidate ever did win under the old method but lost the election because of this new agreement.

---

Sackgurl posted...

i mean you're trying to make this argument based on a theoretical that was extremely unlikely in the face of it having actually happened in the other direction twice

that's someone else.

Sackgurl posted...

perhaps more significantly: blue states signing on to this sends the very clear message that we're okay with risking that outcome

if it happens, it would be because the compact forced republicans to abandon their white supremacist voters and court new voters nationwide, essentially massively shifting to the left

that's also a win for us

The problem is the way the government is set up gives a massive advantage to rural voters and thus conservatives.

Why would republicans give up the only thing keeping their minority in power?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senates-rural-skew-makes-it-very-hard-for-democrats-to-win-the-supreme-court/amp/
---

Does this count people who dont bother voting because it's landslide in their area?

---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

Does this count people who dont bother voting because it's landslide in their area?

seeing that it looks at the popular vote across the country, yes.

---

Sackgurl posted...

perhaps more significantly: blue states signing on to this sends the very clear message that we're okay with risking that outcome

This.

"We're strongly in favor of this thing, but only if Alabama does it too!!" is a pretty flaky version of "strongly".

Sackgurl posted...

perhaps more significantly: blue states signing on to this sends the very clear message that we're okay with risking that outcome

About this specifically, this is true but in relevant history only Republicans have won the presidential election despite losing the popular vote.

Without a doubt this agreement would be challenged if the reverse happened. Would it stand up to that challenge? Maybe, but there is absolutely no guarantee that it would.


---

monkmith posted...
seeing that it looks at the popular vote across the country, yes.

Werd

So if my state goes one way but the popular vote goes another, my state flips? I'm too lazy to read. If so, that feels weird not being represented if everyone doesnt agree to popular voting

---

CyricZ posted...

Ah another "totally not a recently banned user you guys".

Nightdrive07 posted...

I agree, not everyone should be allowed to vote, this is why the US is so out of hand.

Rathinor posted...

Nightdrive07: user is not currently an active member

Add to the very questionable post 18

You hate to see it happen.

(not. I mean really, removing peoples right to vote in 2020. These banned posters......)
---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

So if my state goes one way but the popular vote goes another, my state flips? I'm too lazy to read. If so, that feels weird not being represented if everyone doesnt agree to popular voting

Weird, but perfectly constitutional.
The popular vote for president doesn't even really matter. The actual vote is in the middle of December or so, when the electors submit their votes.

All the popular vote does is suggest to the state governments how the electors should be nudged to vote, and even that's not actually binding.

Damn_Underscore posted...

Fact - John Kerry almost won in 2004 despite losing the popular vote. This has nothing to do with Trump winning in 2016 or Bush winning in 2000, and this isn't a contest about who was closer to winning/losing.

this isn't a fact

losing a state more conservative than the national average by 2% when you lost the popular vote by 2% is not 'almost winning'

it's 'the expected outcome of a popular vote win for a republican candidate'

---

Nightdrive07 posted...

Doesn't matter, ask the average protestor what Article 2 is.

That's the one about guns, right?!
---

Sackgurl posted...

this isn't a fact

Yes it is

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2005/09/06/political-division-multipliers/

"President Bushs margin last year over Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, 2.4 percentage points, was the smallest of any victorious presidential incumbent in history. He won a very close election.

But in most of the country, the 2004 race wasnt even close to being close. A Pew Research Center analysis shows that in the majority of the nations 3,153 counties, the election was a landslide with either Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry winning by a margin of at least 20 percentage points."

You're trying to argue that 2004 wasn't a close election by saying "but other elections were closer!!" I'm not even sure what your point is because regardless of what happened before, it is obviously possible for a Republican to lose the election despite winning the popular vote. And that is literally all that matters here.

Also there was a ballot controversy in Ohio in 2004 that possibly lowered Kerry's vote total. https://www.toledoblade.com/local/politics/2004/11/04/Bush-claims-victory-as-Kerry-concedes-ballot-fight-in-Ohio/stories/200411040003

(read the first sentence before the paywall appears)

---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

monkmith posted...
seeing that it looks at the popular vote across the country, yes.

Werd

So if my state goes one way but the popular vote goes another, my state flips? I'm too lazy to read. If so, that feels weird not being represented if everyone doesnt agree to popular voting

basic breakdown of how it works.

• you vote for president, that's not changed at all.
• popular votes in your state are tallied just like normal.
• when all the popular votes across the 50 states are counted, that's when the compact comes into effect.
• states that signed the compact, assign their EC votes to whichever candidate won the country wide popular vote. so even if your state has 40% of the people voting democrat, and 60% voting republican, if a democrat won the national popular vote then they would get 100% of your states EC vote.

this has two bonuses. it takes power from the electoral college, who in most states will give 100% of a states votes to the candidate who get 50.1% of that states popular vote. and it encourages people in "landslide" states to vote, because even if their state will never shift color in the legislature their vote will still have an impact in the presidential election.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

presidential incumbent

yeah, most incumbents obliterated their opposition (or were obliterated, themselves)

also that pew article appears to not be counting carter vs ford, which was closer (by popular vote)

the popular vote was very close...for an incumbent election. not for any election--for elections in general, it was certainly above average, but nothing remotely extraordinary. as the pew study points out, few of the state races were notably close. Ohio was the closest, but it wasn't notably close either--2% isn't a super narrow result, surely not one that swung by the ballot controversy.

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

it is in no way proof that there's a structural advantage in the EC for democrats--just that the EC makes swing states orders of magnitude more influential than non-swing states, which we can all agree is dumb.

but the swing states consistently vote more conservatively than the nation. they have for 30 years.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

About this specifically, this is true but in relevant history only Republicans have won the presidential election despite losing the popular vote.

Given that the five or six times the electoral vote has disagreed with the popular vote has all been republican, what does California stand to even lose by doing it unilaterally?

Questionmarktarius posted...

Given that the five or six times the electoral vote has disagreed with the popular vote has all been republican, what does California stand to even lose by doing it unilaterally?

negotiating power in getting other states to join the compact

---

Sackgurl posted...

negotiating power in getting other states to join the compact

I can think of at least one region that'll never do it, at least until party "strategies" flip again.

Rathinor posted...

Do you actually see something like that EVER happening? Republicans are the minority party, only holding onto power through tricks.

Popular vote is the kind of thing that will get millions of Americans who have never voted before to go out and vote.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

I can think of at least one region that'll never do it, at least until party "strategies" flip again.

if the compact gets to 271 fuck 'em

PA would be needed for it to work realistically, and OH/SC will never pass it. NV's democrat governor just vetoed it, which was real stupid.

Main problem is with the GOP bloc as a perma-no, it'd need all of the shouldn't-be-but-are swing states on board--PA, MI, MN, NV, NH, VA.

---