United States National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[UltimatePaladin]

I was browsing around YouTube, and I ended up watching this video about a proposal to try and move the United States to a popular vote.


TL;DR: It's an agreement between states to try and implement a de facto popular vote using the rules of the Electoral College. Essentially, how it works is that, by law, a state may distribute it's electoral votes however it may wish (this is why Nebraska and Maine can split electoral votes.) This agreement makes it so that member states pass their votes for the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide. However, it doesn't go into effect until the agreement has enough states to have a majority.

However... I'm not entirely sure that it will work. The National Popular Vote has its own website, where it has more information and arguments in favor of it. Among the information are states that have voted to support it (where green means they agreed to it, and gray means they did not. Other colors equate to varying degrees of support or legal recognition.)

Spoiler: States, Support, and Electoral Votes

State	Votes	Political Affiliation (Last 5 Presidental Elections)
California	55	Democrat
Colorado	9	3/5 Democrat
Connecticut	7	Democrat
District of Colombia	3	Democrat
Delaware	3	Democrat
Hawaii	4	Democrat
Illinois	20	Democrat
Massachusetts	11	Democrat
Maryland	10	Democrat
New Jersey	14	Democrat
New Mexico	5	4/5 Democrat
New York	29	Democrat
Oregon	7	Democrat
Rhode Island	4	Democrat
Vermont	3	Democrat
Washington	12	Democrat

Currently, 196/270 for agreement to Activate.

So, I guess that's my first hurdle with the proposal. Most of the states that are agreeing to it would vote together anyway. The only states that might be affected are New Mexico and Colorado, assuming that they vote in opposition to the other members (and the proposal reaches enough electoral votes to get to that point.)

This leads to my second hurdle: acting against the wishes of your constituents. Hypothetically, let's say that enough states join to activate the agreement (74 more electoral votes.) For this, I'll be using the states that are the closest to joining.

Spoiler: Hypothetical States

State	Votes	Status	Political Affiliation (Last 5 Presidental Elections)
Arkansas	6	Approved by House	Republican
Arizona	11	Approved by House	Republican
Maine	4	Approved by Senate	Democrat
Michigan	16	Approved by House	4/5 Democrat
Minnesota	10	Approved by House	Democrat
Missouri	10	Approved by House	Republican
North Carolina	15	Approved by Senate	4/5 Republican
Nevada	6	Approved by Both - Vetoed by Governor	3/5 Democrat
Oklahoma	7	Approved by Senate	Republican

This would result in 281/270 votes total, enough to activate the agreement.

My question is this: what happens when the citizens of a state vote differently than the citizens of the nation? Because for the states this bill is political suicide. For example, say that you are the Governor of Oklahoma and this agreement is in place. Your citizens vote in favor of a Republican candidate with a sizable majority (assume 60%, based on precedent.) However, the national polls indicate that the Democratic candidate has 50% of the Popular Vote, versus the 48% the Republican candidate had. By the rules, your state would be obligated to support the other candidate - in opposition to your own citizens' desires.

I don't see there's any way that doesn't end with government officials getting tossed out of office come next election. Because, while the state followed the national vote, it did so against the wishes of the state's citizenry. Who elects the state government (including Governors, Senators, and Representatives.) The popular vote of the nation (other state's citizens,) isn't going to help there. It seems to be counter to a state's interest that they adopt this proposal.

Really, it just looks fragile. All it takes is a few states getting angry that their candidate didn't win (with additional frustration if their electoral votes might have won it for them,) them withdrawing, and the agreement is toast.

Thoughts?

 

[Terthna]

This is nothing more than an attempt by the Democrats to change the rules by which they lost the last presidential election, and they will abandon it the moment popular vote decides in favor of a Republican. When that happens, don't even bother trying to remind them of this agreement; they will simply pretend it never happened, as they do with everything that later proves inconvenient to their narratives.

 

[UltimatePaladin]

I mean, the big thing is that you (as a state) could be explicitly acting against the wants of your electorate if you agree to it. I can't just see that ending well for anyone involved.

 

[Edgeplay_cgo]

The Electoral College is one of the fundamental compromises that allowed for the adoption of The Constitution. Arguably, violating The Compact invalidates The Union. This would lead to a new Civil War. Looking at the Red-Blue Map, this would result in the destruction of our major urban centers. They would be trivially easy to cut off from food, water, and electricity.

 

[S'task]

This is also on VERY dubious Constitutional grounds. While yes, States can determine how they allocate their votes however they want, the interstate compact portion may actually need to be approved by the Federal government (which it would never do). This also may straight up violate the, albeit bullshit, principle of "one man, one vote" in that the electors are not actually representing their constituents, but are instead being determined by the entire United States.

Finally, from a philosophical position this is EXCEEDINGLY dangerous in that it continues to push the highly destructive and dangerous idea that the United States is a Democracy and that simple Democracy should be the primary arbiter of all decisions. Simple majority rule, which this is, is just another form of tyranny. Interestingly, those pushing for this 30 years ago would have been the first to decry the danger of pure democracy in deciding matters, and it is only after decades of propaganda in schools and media that they feel safe to shift gears to supporting unrestricted democracy since they think they will win and be able to crush their opponents. (Consider: how much of the population is LGBT? In the 1980s and even 90s, laws prohibiting same sex sexual activity were still WILDLY popular, until struck down by the decidedly ANTI-Democratic institution of the Supreme Court... but now, suddenly these same people are espousing the superiority of the pureness of democracy and democratic institutions and decrying anti-democratic safeguards in the US system...)

There's a reason the US is a Constitutional Federal Republic, and people REALLY need to remember the reasons why...

 

[UltimatePaladin]

This is also on VERY dubious Constitutional grounds. While yes, States can determine how they allocate their votes however they want, the interstate compact portion may actually need to be approved by the Federal government (which it would never do). This also may straight up violate the, albeit bullshit, principle of "one man, one vote" in that the electors are not actually representing their constituents, but are instead being determined by the entire United States.

Finally, from a philosophical position this is EXCEEDINGLY dangerous in that it continues to push the highly destructive and dangerous idea that the United States is a Democracy and that simple Democracy should be the primary arbiter of all decisions. Simple majority rule, which this is, is just another form of tyranny. Interestingly, those pushing for this 30 years ago would have been the first to decry the danger of pure democracy in deciding matters, and it is only after decades of propaganda in schools and media that they feel safe to shift gears to supporting unrestricted democracy since they think they will win and be able to crush their opponents. (Consider: how much of the population is LGBT? In the 1980s and even 90s, laws prohibiting same sex sexual activity were still WILDLY popular, until struck down by the decidedly ANTI-Democratic institution of the Supreme Court... but now, suddenly these same people are espousing the superiority of the pureness of democracy and democratic institutions and decrying anti-democratic safeguards in the US system...)

There's a reason the US is a Constitutional Federal Republic, and people REALLY need to remember the reasons why...

Looking up the wording on Interstate Compacts (with attention focused on the clause that encroaching "upon the full and free exercise of federal authority" requires Congressional approval,) it's possible that it might get passed. By the nature of the agreement (it needing 270 Electoral Votes to come into effect) that would translate to around half of the Senate and the House. Assuming that the President doesn't veto it (depends on whether or not they'd think it would benefit them,) it would then become legally binding.

Assuming that it was, though, the Compact runs into an issue: what happens when the state votes differently than the country as a whole? In the video I found, it doesn't really answer the question either. It brings it up briefly, in the context of Colorado ignoring its electorate to vote in favor of the popular vote (aptly calling it Political Suicide.) However, it seems to imply that as an individual state this would be suicide, but somehow multiple states doing so is acceptable? How?

Compounding this issue, states entering into the Compact only have to stay in if it's during the last six months of an election. Any time after that they can leave whenever they want. And should enough states leave, the agreement is effectively nullified.

This agreement shall take effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted this agreement in substantially the same form and the enactments by such states have taken effect in each state.

Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.

It doesn't have any power to make the agreement stick. If a state decides that they don't like it, they can just up and leave. The only way I can think of to make it work is to make states have to stay in the plan for a length of time, and that the system then has to be shown to work in favor of both parties. Which, if there's an election during that time where the popular and electoral votes aren't in alignment...

Of course, adding in such a clause would have guaranteed that no state would have even looked at it. As it stands, it's a nice-sounding agreement that appeals to the voter base of those who proposed it. Which, given how easy it is to pull out of the agreement, is probably what it was made for.

 

[Deleted member]

It is an attempt to abrogate the intended function of the constitution by quasi-legal means, noting that the US Government will have to approve the Interstate Compact for it to even be legal at all, since interstate compacts explicitly require the approval of Congress.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

It's a bunch of Democrats assuming a Republican will never win the popular vote.

Personally, I would find it very amusing for die-hard left wing states like California and Illinois forced to give their EVs to Trump or another Republican candidate.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

It's a bunch of Democrats assuming a Republican will never win the popular vote.

Personally, I would find it very amusing for die-hard left wing states like California and Illinois forced to give their EVs to Trump or another Republican candidate.

Or find that said die-hard left wing states are now dealing with a rising right wing that’s banded together and doesn’t care what the media says about them and may have once beaten up an actual NeoNazi for making them look bad and disagreeing on Libertarianism

 

[Darth Robbhi]

It's a useful reminder to consider every law through the lens of what your worst enemy would do with it.

Not my wisdom, got it from @Francis Urquhart.

 

[Cherico]

Its called a constitutional amendment, go through the proper channels.

 

[Lanmandragon]

The interstate compact is nothing more than a stealth attempt at tyranny of the majority. I for one WILL NOT ve ruled by the whims of communists in New York and California. It's really that simple there is no debate at all. If this happens I andlike me will fight and die to oppose it. America may fall but not whole I breathe.

 

[Bacle]

I will never support this, and hope is is killed before it takes power.

If it"s pushed through via quasi-legsl BS, it's going to be ACW 2.0. My loyalty is to the Constitution, not my local government.

 

[DarthOne]

I will never support this, and hope is is killed before it takes power.

If it"s pushed through via quasi-legsl BS, it's going to be ACW 2.0. My loyalty is to the Constitution, not my local government.

Same. I don’t care if I have to fight with a freaking flintlock; there’s no way I’m supporting this.

 

[Aaron Fox]

I will never support this, and hope is is killed before it takes power.

If it"s pushed through via quasi-legsl BS, it's going to be ACW 2.0. My loyalty is to the Constitution, not my local government.

Thing is, constitutional lawyers are pretty much towards the 'it will never pass constitutional muster' camp last I've checked. At least whenever a constitutional lawyer shows up in the article talking about the plausibility of it anyway.

The thing is, the only reason that the Electoral College is getting screwy is, well, the current representative limits. The EC is designed around a Senate+Represenative calculation and the 200k/rep ratio is, essentially, impossible (with current census numbers... that means if using the original ratio we'll get 1645.324585, but since a part of a person isn't counted we'll round down to 1645... the size of a decent-sized town) politically and logistically.

Using the Wyoming Rule (i.e. the least populous state as the divisor), the number would be 574.90538120587510766430052709646 (or rounded up to 575 due to the whole representative rule). Far more manageable but still in spirit with what the Constitution wanted. This would get rid of most of the problems with the EC. The only other problem is the Winner Take All system (alongside various laws against faithless electors) that the states put into the EC when the Constitution vaguely says that the electors are free to vote for anyone they want. Simply making it proportional (with rounding) would be far better.

 

[Bacle]

Thing is, constitutional lawyers are pretty much towards the 'it will never pass constitutional muster' camp last I've checked. At least whenever a constitutional lawyer shows up in the article talking about the plausibility of it anyway.

The thing is, the only reason that the Electoral College is getting screwy is, well, the current representative limits. The EC is designed around a Senate+Represenative calculation and the 200k/rep ratio is, essentially, impossible (with current census numbers... that means if using the original ratio we'll get 1645.324585, but since a part of a person isn't counted we'll round down to 1645... the size of a decent-sized town) politically and logistically.

Using the Wyoming Rule (i.e. the least populous state as the divisor), the number would be 574.90538120587510766430052709646 (or rounded up to 575 due to the whole representative rule). Far more manageable but still in spirit with what the Constitution wanted. This would get rid of most of the problems with the EC. The only other problem is the Winner Take All system (alongside various laws against faithless electors) that the states put into the EC when the Constitution vaguely says that the electors are free to vote for anyone they want. Simply making it proportional (with rounding) would be far better.

Updating the EC number, and maybe moving to being counted on the Congressional district level instead of state level, would be a move I could get behind. Better representation overall that way, and balances the urban and rural communities better than the current way, I suspect

The only issue I could forsee is the overlap between House and Senate districts causing some headaches for figuring out who won what in battleground areas.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Updating the EC number, and maybe moving to being counted on the Congressional district level instead of state level, would be a move I could get behind. Better representation overall that way, and balances the urban and rural communities better than the current way, I suspect

The only issue I could forsee is the overlap between House and Senate districts causing some headaches for figuring out who won what in battleground areas.

Hence why I believe the Wyoming Rule rule is probably the best bet, makes the districting less problematic.

 

[S'task]

Hence why I believe the Wyoming Rule rule is probably the best bet, makes the districting less problematic.

I actually think the Wyoming rule isn't good enough. I kinda feel that no State should have fewer representatives than Senators, so I'd got with a 1/2 Wyoming as the Representative breakdown point. 1150 Representatives might seem like a lot, but consider that, for instance, Germany's Bundestag has just over 700 members, the British House of commons has 650, the French national Assembly has 577. All these countries are SMALLER than the United States in both geography and population, so us having a LARGER House would make sense for representative purposes. This would also serve as a major check on the power of Representatives, as the more of them there are, the less individual power they have...

Of course, this is exactly WHY the size of the US House has remained unchanged. No member of the House wants to vote in a way that will reduce their personal power and privilege...

 

[DarthOne]

I actually think the Wyoming rule isn't good enough. I kinda feel that no State should have fewer representatives than Senators, so I'd got with a 1/2 Wyoming as the Representative breakdown point. 1150 Representatives might seem like a lot, but consider that, for instance, Germany's Bundestag has just over 700 members, the British House of commons has 650, the French national Assembly has 577. All these countries are SMALLER than the United States in both geography and population, so us having a LARGER House would make sense for representative purposes. This would also serve as a major check on the power of Representatives, as the more of them there are, the less individual power they have...

Of course, this is exactly WHY the size of the US House has remained unchanged. No member of the House wants to vote in a way that will reduce their personal power and privilege...

I can’t imagine many people with any sort of power would. Especially the petty tyrants.

 

[Edgeplay_cgo]

The only issue I could forsee is the overlap between House and Senate districts causing some headaches for figuring out who won what in battleground areas.

There are no Senatorial districts. Senators are elected at large.