Politics & News > North America

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Maine joins the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

As everyone knows, the United States doesn't choose its president by popular vote, but by electoral votes based on the winner in each state. To win, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes. This is baked into the Constitution and switching to a popular vote would require an amendment.

However, the Constitution also allows each state to allocate its electoral votes any way it wishes. Originally, the state legislatures decided this, however, currently it's based on whichever candidate gets the most votes in the state. There is a proposal, called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where states that sign on would award their electoral votes based on whichever candidate won the most votes nationwide, regardless of which candidate won in that particular state. This would prevent the situations in 2000 and 2016 where the loser of the popular vote won the election by having more electoral votes.

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

With Maine joining, the NPVIC currently has 209 electoral votes. It doesn't kick in until it hits 270, so at the moment it has no bearing on the upcoming election. Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, and Virginia have pending legislation to join the NPVIC; if they do, that will bring the total to 254 electoral votes. Needless to say, the NPVIC is favored by Democrats as they are more likely to benefit, since the last two elections where the winner lost the popular vote but was elected anyway were won by Republicans. So the most likely state that might adopt it and bring it over the top would be Pennsylvania, which could have a Democratic trifecta next year.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4596054-maine-joins-effort-to-elect-president-by-popular-vote-with-new-law/

One advantage of a national popular vote would be that every vote would count. Under the current system, a Democrat in a red state, or a Republican in a blue state, might as well not vote at all because their state's electoral votes will go to the other party based on the state's majority. There are only around half a dozen true swing states without a clear majority for either party. With a national popular vote, a Republican's vote in California, or a Democrat's vote in Wyoming, would be added to the national total and could actually have an effect. This would prevent bizarre results like the one in 2000 where around 500 voters in Florida decided the election.

One disadvantage would be that since every vote counts, candidates would have to campaign everywhere, making them even more expensive. With only a few swing states, they can concentrate on those and ignore the solid red or blue states. Living in Georgia, I expect to see a lot more campaigning this year than I would have if I were still living in California or Oregon. That wouldn't be the case with a national popular vote.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

22Michelle · 61-69, T

I'm always amused that the idea of an amendment to the Constitution is seen as being such a bigbthjng. Let's face ig therd havecbeen many amencnents over the years, including amendments to amendments. The idea ghat a document drafted around 250 years ago is fit for purpose in the 21st century is just laughable. I'm not saying this because it's any better here in the UK. It seems both the UK and the USA have electoral systems that are designed to dissuade people from voting and result in unpopular Government's. In 2019 43% of votes cast gave the Conservatives a Parliamentary majority of 80 seats allowing them to push through an unpopular and controversial Brexit.

1-25 of 51

IronHamster · 56-60, M

@22Michelle When Kennedy ran against Nixon, there were irregularities throwing the election to Kennedy. Now, after WWII, we took a military agency and made them an alphabet agency called the CIA, which has been responsible for about eighty governments being overthrown over the years. It's no stretch of the imagination to.assume that, since they have the tools to do that anywhere, that it doesn't happen in the US. So, why do we vote, other than to pretend that we don't have a corrupt system?

22Michelle · 61-69, T

@IronHamster I'm not going to entertain the looney tunes in your head.

IronHamster · 56-60, M

@22Michelle As a man who doesn't even know what bathroom to use, I am sure you have a surplus of looney everything.

22Michelle · 61-69, T

@IronHamster I have no problems with bathrooms as I'm not prond to imaginary problems, nor am I a bigot. I will never understand what it is about bathrooms and clothes that frightens people like you so much?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

badminton · 61-69, MVIP

@22Michelle The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights established certain basic principles; freedom of religion; freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceful assembly to state griviences, and others.

The government is based on a system of checks and balances, three seperate, co-equal branches, each acting as a check on the others. It is a good system and has served us well for 250 years.

In my view the electoral college is the single biggest mistake in the constitution. However, even there, a provision was included for the states to give all their votes to the winner of the popular vote.

22Michelle · 61-69, T

@badminton The three separate branches was a good idea in principle, but fails because of politucal parties, which the drafters of tte Constitution didn't foresee. The other issue, which the UK system shares, is that both rely on the people being honourable, doing the right thing for the country.

badminton · 61-69, MVIP

@22Michelle That is true to some degree. I beĺieve the main problem of the U.S. system is campaign finance corruption; i.e. corporations bribe our pols with campaign donations for TV ads, which cost millions $$$. Campaign finance reform laws are needed to correct that.

In the U.K. Labor and Conservative have party platforms, so it's less about the individual candidates and more about the party. Whereas, in the U.S. it's more about the individual candidates.

22Michelle · 61-69, T

@badminton That is indeed correct, but that's a consequence of the rise of political parties and not very honourable people. Both not covered in the Constitution.

badminton · 61-69, MVIP

@22Michelle How do we make our politicians honorable? A difficult task. In the U.S. campaign finance reform is the single most pressing issue IMO.

22Michelle · 61-69, T

@badminton Same issue here in the UK. First off is to get rid of the assumption that politicians will be honest. The technology is there to check if a politician is telling the truth, but it's not being used, and the sanctions for lying to The House and / or the public are not strong enough.

badminton · 61-69, MVIP

@22Michelle That's an interesting idea, using tech to track a politician's record.

FYI I admire the U.K. Labor Party. For all their faults, it was the work of the Labor Party over more than a century that has significantly improved the lives of British working-class people. The U.K.s Conservative Party is more progressive than the U.S. Republican party, which has given itself over to the far-right in every area, economic, military, domestic policy.

22Michelle · 61-69, T

@badminton The UK Conservative party has been moving farther and farther right since fomenting the Brexit coup. We can only hope that shouid Labouf win the upcoming GE, which the Conservatives are delaying to the last possible date, they'll move back to the left. Of late they were also drifting right.

IronHamster · 56-60, M

@badminton The right is unquestionably the best option for the country.

badminton · 61-69, MVIP

@IronHamster If you are a billionaire or a major share holder in a big corporation. For the other 99% of us the Republicans are a disaster. Their goal is maximim profits for the wealthly at the expense of the rest of us. Voting for the Rs means growing inequality of wealth.

Also, Inexcusably the R party have sided with the treasonous Trump and his brown shirts against democracy and the constitution.

I will be voting for President Biden.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

22Michelle · 61-69, T

@IronHamster George Soros a Nazi??? Go on, prove that allegation?

LeopoldBloom · M

@IronHamster The proof that George Soros (who is Jewish) isn't a Nazi is that you hate him. If he was a Nazi, you'd want him to run for president.

LeopoldBloom · M

@22Michelle These smoothbrains think that because Soros at age 12 was asked by the Nazis who were occupying Hungary at the time, to deliver summons to Jewish people, he must have been a Nazi. In fact, Soros asked his father what he should do, and was told to flee the country, which he did.

By this reasoning, [@PaperHamster] is a Democrat.

IronHamster · 56-60, M

@22Michelle You are kidding, right? George Soros has talked about his first financial experiences in Hungary, working with the Nazis to collect and organize the wealth of the Jews they gassed. He called it, "the greatest time of my life."

22Michelle · 61-69, T

@IronHamster A quote about when he was 14 and was able to witness his father's heroism in helping and rescuing other Jews. You really need to look beyond some headline or some bigot's opinion.

IronHamster · 56-60, M

@22Michelle No. He wasn't rescuing anything but money for the Third Reich.

At 14, he fully knew what he was doing, as a man past his Bar Mitzvah.

22Michelle · 61-69, T

@IronHamster And that claim he worked fod the Nazis has been debunked many times. If you have credible evidence he did, that hasn't already been debunked, feel free to put it up, otherwise........

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

1-25 of 51