![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I went ahead and posted this content:
What do you think of this approach, could it be legal? Captain Zyrain 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Issue | Criticism | Response |
---|---|---|
Compatibility with Instant Runoff Voting | The compact's compatibility with Instant Runoff Voting has not yet been assessed in a court of law. | One way in which states could attempt to implement a partial national instant runoff popular vote for President would be by allowing their own citizens to cast a ranked choice ballot, and then counting the votes for President from other states as being ranked choice ballots with only a first choice selected. (would need citation) |
Has there been any more talk about the NPV compact's compatibility with IRV? Interestingly, someone noted on the FairVote blog that the NPV compact is incompatible with approval voting. See [1] . Is that so? Couldn't we just count all the votes? Ron Duvall ( talk) 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Just did a major reorganization of the article and I think it seems better organized now. Most of the text is just moved around, but I also added a fair amount of content where it seemed to fit.
I'm new to this, so please go ahead and fix any problems. Thanks as always.
Szu 07:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the reorganization, it seems more logical to me. It would be nice to find a place for your map that you found that has spending from the 2004 election- maybe where we talk about reasons for change?
A minor point, you put in double bullets in one section, I'm going to fix that.-- Cms479 16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There should definitely be a section on this question in the article. When I saw the words "interstate compact" I immediately thought that this would be subject to Congressional approval. According to some of the commenters above, however, this is not the case. Please add some referenced material on this to the article. Cheers. Grover cleveland 05:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I admire the ingenuity of this proposal, but something about the "hacking" of the Constitution doesn't sit right with me. What kind of chance do you guys think this has of ultimate success? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.140.50 ( talk) 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't violate the letter of the Constitution, but there's certainly an element of deviousness to it. The Founders obviously didn't intend the Electoral College as practiced circa 2007 but more certainly they didn't intend that states find some way to circumvent the prescribed amendment process.
Another question I have. What of equal protection concerns using this system? I know that the Electoral Votes would still "officially" decide the election, but the de facto vote would be the nationwide popular vote, which raises the issue of different voter elegibility standards state-by-state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.171.155 ( talk) 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've pulled the following pieces from the Reasons for Change section, because they are sourced with FairVote, an advocacy organization, which is not considered a reliable source. In some other cases, I was able to find, in the time I had, original sources. I also left a bullet point sourced with NPV, which should likewise be replaced with an original source. I think that is also the same NYT editorial, but it should be replaced with direct quotes or more direct paraphrases. I'm pretty sure that the following can be put back with the proper sourcing. (One of the problems with sourcing documents from advocacy organizations like FairVote is that they may be framed with analysis that leads to desired interpretations; thus the reference becomes advocacy, in effect.)
Polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a popular vote, [1] for the following reasons:
- There is debate over whether the Electoral College favors small states or large states. Many argue that it favors small states, pointing out that such states have more electoral votes relative to their populations. Some scholars, however, believe that the potential of large states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more actual clout. [2]
-- Abd 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
In several states, there has been more than one attempt to get this passed, and some of them are still pending. Either we should put some states (New York, Illinois) in two tables, or we should label the tables "current attempts" and "failed attempts".
Another solution that is perhaps nicer is to have (besides the table with Maryland of course) a table "States where legislation is pending or may be introduced" (the year should probably be omitted at some point anyway) and "Failed attempts". The columns with "final outcome" could be removed, I think, since it follows from the table headings.
Finally, Massachussetts appears to be simply misplaced.
Thoughts? -- KarlFrei ( talk) 14:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good! -- KarlFrei ( talk) 10:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not noticing this debate -- yes, they have indeed "failed" for 2007, as the session is over for this year in many of those states. "Did not pass" would be fine, too. I'm afraid I don't have the info on which sessions are already over for 2007 at hand right now, though... — Nightstallion 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The editor who added the blurb about Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution conveniently overlooked Article 1, Section 10.
Since that argument will be twisted and shot down by the Wikipedia Wordsmiths, just read the this, after which there should be no doubt in your mind that the Electoral College is vital.
Those of us who live way out in the boonies, hundreds of miles off the beaten path, would prefer not to have our lives dictated to us by the likes of New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The EC was put in place to protect us, the minority voice. This whole subject only became popular because Gore lost in 2000. All arguments in favor of a direct popular vote come from the stung pride of the Democratic Party, and perhaps a few fringe groups like the Ku Klux Klan, who love the idea of direct democracy -- that's what a lynching is, after all. I'm disgusted with Bush too, but you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The answer is to educate the people so they vote on the issues rather than the soundbytes. Yes, there will be times when you will get "burned" by the system. But it can happen to either side. And it's not as if Gore won a majority; he took 48.38% of the popular vote to Bush's 47.87%. So they both got 48%, give or take. Not exactly a heart-stopping theft of office. Get over it, it's been nearly a decade.
Bottom line: Stop questioning the brilliance and foresight of the Founding Fathers. They were way, way smarter than you, on every conceivable level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 ( talk) 15:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't quite put my finger on it yet, but the article seems to read in a bit of a negative tone towards the subject matter of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Does anyone else get this feel? Lawrence Cohen 08:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The article in its entirely reads like an advertisement for the legislation. It needs a good shot of neutrality. Averyisland ( talk) 22:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
What color should Hawaii be now?
Szu ( talk) 03:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but NPV now has Hawaii in two colors on its map ( http://www.nationalpopularvote.com)... and when I found the status of Hawaii's HB234 ( http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=HB234) it says "Carried over to 2008 Regular Session"...???
Szu ( talk) 17:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I went back to the Hawaii legislature site and did a search for "electoral votes"... and it seems that NPVIC has now been reintroduced in both houses... (HB2728, SB2168, HB3013, SB2898...?)
( http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/search/billsearch.asp?query=electoral+votes&currpage=1)
So I will update the map. I don't know how the chart works, though... so if someone could add this in, that would be great...
Szu ( talk) 10:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the disputed text:
How is it a violation of NPOV to mention the fact that both parties are vulnerable to losing the election while winning the popular vote?
Thanks!
Szu ( talk) 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed this disagreement as well. Avery, the text you want to put "Advocates of direct election view this [the winner of the election not being the popular vote winner] as a drawback" is misleading. What reasonable person wouldn't view this as a drawback? Those who are in favor of the Electoral College may be willing to accept this as a flaw in a preferable system, but they too would have to admit its a drawback.-- Cms479 ( talk) 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the way I see it. There is no reason to add additional information regarding the 2000 election, same as there is no reason to add additional information regarding the other elections. They are all linked in the first sentence of the section. It is superfluous to write "This scenario can affect both major parties" because it provides a limited view of the entire process. It can affect all candidates and it is noted as such in the first sentence. The reference to the 2004 election is unnecessary. It's a hypothetical scenario, it did not happen, and there are already four instances of it happening in the past, which are noted in the first sentence. This is a cherry-picked fact and could be applied to any deficit in any state. On top of that, the "source" cited is an editorial. As an opinion article, it is irresponsible to use it to back up NPOV.
"Advocates of direct election view this [the winner of the election not being the popular vote winner] as a drawback" could be worded better, I'll admit, but it is a true statement. The Electoral College is designed to accommodate this "flaw" and was done so to prevent a few heavily populated states from silencing smaller states by winning every single election. Nowhere did I say that this view is exclusively held by those in favor of direct election. Averyisland ( talk) 21:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with including this text. I agree that it can help to clarify that this is not an issue which can only affect one party, and it is nice to have some recent examples. -- KarlFrei ( talk) 14:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
We've spent entirely too much time arguing about one sentence. You are not making strong or rational arguments to back up your points. This isn't something I'm passionate about, I'm trying to explain that the Electoral College does not take political parties into consideration and that this article is giving a tremendous amount of attention to otherwise insignificant legislation. In fact, the article looks as if it was written to help promote the legislation. I was simply trying to fix one part of it. I'm going to propose the following:
Okay, a POV tag was placed. I looked over the discussion above, which involved the editor who placed the tag, and I did not see a POV dispute that was explicit, sufficiently that a neutral editor could resolve it. Help me out. Will the parties involved in this dispute lay out their cases explicitly and, hopefully, concisely? Please focus on text in the article which is allegedly POV. I believe that there was text in the article that was taken out as allegedly POV. So, considering the editor who did this as the "complainant," will he make the complaint explicit? I would ask that other editors who oppose the position of the complainant not respond with explanation first. If we can become explicit enough, and still can't resolve it, then RFC can be used, etc. -- Abd ( talk) 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The only big POV issue I can see in the article is the pairs of quotes, which seem to give a distinct advantage to the pro side of the debate, since it always gets the last word. Therefore I suggest we replace the quote pairs with these paragraphs, which alternate who gets the last word:
Supporters of the compact argue that most of the smallest states are largely ignored under the current system because they are not swing states. Critics counter that smaller states also have fewer popular votes, which may lead candidates to ignore them and focus instead on areas with large populations. Compact supporters argue that under a popular vote, candidates would continue to campaign in small, medium and large towns, just as they currently do within competitive swing states such as Florida and Ohio. Critics contend that the large numbers of popular votes in urban areas would draw candidates away from rural issues and needs. [4] [5]
Critics of the compact have suggested that a direct national election would raise concerns about election fraud. Pete du Pont states that in 2000, "Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country's 175,000 precincts. 'Finding' three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing..." However, National Popular Vote has argued that a direct election would reduce the incentive for fraud. They claim that the large nationwide pool of 122 million votes would make a close outcome much less likely than it is under the current system, in which an extremely small number of votes in any one of the separate statewide tallies may determine the national winner. [6] [7]
Although direct election is already the method by which Americans elect their members of Congress, state leaders and local officials, critics such as du Pont have argued that a direct popular vote in presidential contests could lead to a change in the current two party system. They contend that the difficulty of winning electoral votes under the current system may discourage third party and single-issue candidates from running, and therefore switching to a popular vote may encourage more third party and single-issue candidates to enter the race. [8] [9]
Two governors who have vetoed NPVIC legislation, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Linda Lingle of Hawaii, have stated that they object to the compact because it would mean that their states' electoral votes may be awarded to a candidate who did not win statewide. Supporters of the compact have countered that under the popular vote system, the awarding of electoral votes would be practically irrelevant; that giving the state's electoral votes to the national winner would be a mere symbolic formality with no political meaning, because the popular vote would have already decided the outcome. [10] [11] [12]
Any thoughts?
Szu (
talk) 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've posted it. It may not be perfect, but I think it's more balanced than the quote pairs. If anyone has other POV issues, feel free to post here or in the thread above. Szu ( talk) 01:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have language to put in here, but it *is* a commonly-raised issue, and I'd be surprised if there isn't anything that can be found for it. That is, I've seen the constitutionality argument many times, which is a rough indication of notability. Because we are talking about opinions, standards for sourcing get, in my opinion, a little easier. But it's entirely possible that none can be found. However, we should try. Even if someone promoting that opinion doesn't show up. (And the other side might be fairly easy, I think that constitutional lawyers have weighed in .... let's hope so!) -- Abd ( talk) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
What may kind of kill this argument is that when I searched for "National Popular Vote" unconstitutional, I found arguments against it that acknowledged it was constitutional:
However, see this: Robert Prather (blog)
This is the strongest constitutionality argument I've seen. However, note that he says that it "might" be unconstitutional. This specific argument should be addressed in the article. My understanding of it is that this doesn't apply, because this is not a compact in the meaning of that section. It comes into effect when ratified, but there is no enforcement mechanism, nothing other than a coincidence of legislation, and a process whereby *each state* decides how to proceed. No state could use sue another state for "non-performance" under the Compact. My opinion. Now, where is a source for this? I think I've seen it, some place where this specific issue was examined.
There seems to be an opinion that the power behind NPV is "disgruntled Democrats." Of course, the electoral college/all-or-nothing problem bites both ways. Some seem to have short memories.
Here is another blog:
J.J. Jackson (blog) The author gives definitions for Treaty and Alliance and Confederation and Compact, but seems to have overlooked that words have a range of meaning, and that meanings overlap does not make every usage of one word equivalent to every usage of every other word. The Compact is misnamed, is the fact. It isn't a Compact except that it has an effect similar to one. If my state decides to choose electoral votes based on how a certain number of other states choose theirs, and if there is conditional legislation in a series of states that implements a plan based on conditions in other states, so that I can know, if I'm the elections official for my state, what other states are going to do based on deadlines in the legislation and what we do, I make my decision, subject to the laws of my state and my interpretation of the laws of other states. If I err, it's a matter for my own state's courts. (This is a reason why true compacts would have to be approved; whose courts would have jurisdiction. Here, only my state's court would have jurisdiction. If a state failed to perform -- and the state supreme court in that state failed to rectify it -- I'd have no recourse. This, indeed, could be a flaw in the Compact, but it is not a constitutional issue (and I don't recall how, specifically, this is addressed, if at all.) Essentially, this author claims that because a compact is an treaty, and this legislation is called a compact, it must be a treaty. Really bad logic. But it's going to convince a lot of people who don't think accurately!
Here is an article Peter Shane (blog), in which an apparently noted professor says he has "doubts" about the constitutionality of the Compact, but isn't particularly detailed as to why. He cites his own prior articles, but those were not on this particular point, I think. (He favors the general idea, by the way, and seems to hope he is wrong.) -- Abd ( talk) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution states that
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."
Since the state legislatures, not the state governments including the governor, determine how electors are assigned, governors may be unable to veto the Compact, which would mean that California and Hawai'i have entered it. On a side note, this also probably means that popular referendums cannot approve it or otherwise change the way electors are selected. SteveSims ( talk) 03:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would think that Governors have to sign the bills to enter the compact, which is more than just determining how electors are assigned. There is nothing to prevent each state from assigning its electors to the winner of the popular vote - no interstate compact is necessary. Perhaps that could be achieved without the governor's approval. However, to achieve certain rules, such as that states will do this only when a majority of the College is signed on, can't withdraw a week before the election, etc., takes an interstate compact. Rrlemur ( talk) 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)rrlemur
I'm new, but I have a particular interest in this issue, and I wanted to offer some thoughts that could improve this article. I realize that I'm new, but please consider these options that would drastically cut down this article's size.
The bill is HB 524.
http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_HB_524
Not sure how to do it myself.
RRichie ( talk) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Illinois has just passed this so I decided to read the new law. I don't understand how a member state is going to certify the election totals of a non-member state. While each member state is suppose to certify their results to other member states at least six days prior to the day the electors are to cast their votes, what about the non-member states? If they don't certify to the member states, are their votes just lost? What if there is a challenge in a member or non-member state and the state official can't certify? If the election is close, will this hold up the whole process? While this idea sounds good on paper, in practical terms it seems to shift the political battle from 50 battlegrounds to 175,000 battlegrounds (precincts) thereby greatly increasing the probability for challenges in close elections. Currently, if a candidate is leading in a state by 50,000 votes and the other candidate believes there is fraud in a number of precincts, there is no need for a challenge unless the total change possible exceeds 50,000 votes. In most cases, it won't matter so the challenge is never made. But under the new proposed system, it won't matter what is happening in your state and while those votes might not change the outcome in your state under the current system, it might assist in changing the outcome nationwide under the new one. Had this been in place in 2000, it wouldn't have solved anything. Gore had one massive challenge in Florida because it was the only state where challenges could have mattered statewide and that state's electoral votes also happened to be pivotal. But under this new system, Bush could have had 3,000 challenges going nationwide to make up his popular vote deficit. That could have led to Gore making 2,000 challenges to make up the difference Bush gained with his challenges. There's no end to the challenges in close popular vote elections. So the new adage will become - when in doubt, challenge. We could have tens of thousands of challenges each election and wind up looking like some third world country who can't figure out who won their election. ASanders 96.230.138.189 ( talk) 16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.138.189 ( talk) 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The legislation and NPV's site each address the classification of DC as a "state" for the purposes of this compact. I don't know why someone removed it. Merevaudevillian ( talk) 15:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
has reportedly closed its session for this year: http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/04/30/iowa-legislative-session-ends-with-no-action-on-various-election-law-bills/ — Nightstallion 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
How is this poll relevant? The NPV is a way of implementing the direct election of the President, but some people may not support the NPV if they believe it's unconstitutional, if they would prefer a constitutional amendment, etc. How is the abstract idea of "do you support direct election" relevant (or, more importantly, beneficial) to a discussion about the NPV in particular? While I appreciate the sentiment of showing popular support, the NPV and abstract "direct election" are two different things. Merevaudevillian ( talk) 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been puzzling for a while over what the colors on the maps mean. I compared the page to how it renders in Safari and the problem was obvious: the colors to the key don't display in Firefox on the mac:
Safari: http://slim.deasil.com/~swain/screencaps/safarikey.png
Firefox: http://slim.deasil.com/~swain/screencaps/firefoxkey.png swain ( talk) 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be worth it to make this table sortable by state name, electoral votes, and current status. This is beyond my knowledge in wikipedia, so could someone take care of this who thinks it's worthwhile? Much appreciated.-- Cms479 ( talk) 20:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we writing off Vermont prematurely? They passed the bill with a 2/3 margin in the state senate. I think its reasonable to expect that they will overturn the veto. Greg Comlish ( talk) 05:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I can understand why Szu would see "slate" as confusing and perhaps it's not needed in the intro. But one area of confusion for some folks is based on not understanding how electors works. They think each state has only one set of electors, and those are electors are instructed by the vote in their state (or whatever rules governs them) to vote a certain way. But of course in reality each candidate has a slate of electors made up of party loyalists and that candidate's electors will vote when that candidate wins that state's electoral votes. This is why there are so few faithless electors now and why that will continue with the NPV compact.
One of the questions that comes up in people's minds about the compact is: "Won't a state's electors have trouble casting a vote for a candidate who didn't win their state." That of course isn't an issue, as it's that candidate's electors casting the votes, and as loyalists for that candidate's party, ones who will do it enthusiastically.
So, with all that in mind, that can explain the value of using "slate" -- or at least being very clear about that later.
RRichie ( talk) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Averyisland wants to emphasize the fact that Al Gore did not win an absolute majority of the vote in 2000:
I think it's simpler to say:
Besides the fact that most people don't know the word "plurality," the only difference between the two versions is that "plurality" explicitly emphasizes the fact that an outright majority was not won. I don't think we should emphasize that fact, because it may mislead people into thinking that such a thing wouldn't have happened if Al Gore had won an outright majority. The truth is that the exact same thing can happen even with an outright majority, as was the case with Tilden in 1876.
Avery, if you'd like to pursue this change, please discuss it here rather than waging an edit war in the article. Thanks!
Szu ( talk) 15:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This seems silly, but I'm slightly inclined to support "plurality" for the reasons stated: "most votes" has a slight implication for "majority." I checked some non-controversial elections (e.g., pre-2000) and saw that "plurality" has been used in 1996 and 1968, and other articles specifically emphasize when an electoral vote winner has received less than 50 percent of the popular vote. I think the use of "plurality" in non-controversial contexts (like 1996 and 1968) suggest its appropriateness here. Merevaudevillian ( talk) 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Szu, Use of the word plurality made the article more accurate, as I explained in my edit notes. Abd seems to get it. I have nothing new to add to this argument and it appears that far too much effort has been spent debating it in my absence. However, I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. -- Averyisland
An edit war began when a seemingly harmless edit by Averyisland was reverted. [4]. The change was:
Now, I appreciate that the point being made doesn't need "plurality" and that the problem can occur with "majority." But "the most popular votes" means, exactly, "a plurality." Technically. If "majority" is part of the point, then a reference should be made to an election where a majority was involved, as in 1876. So why the concern over this difference in language? Well, I suspect, without pinning this on any editor, there is a political point to be made, and "most popular votes" can sound like "majority," and thus underscores a point that is often made about Bush, I've seen it in a bumper sticker in 2004: "Re-defeat Bush." "Plurality" doesn't sound so strong; and suppose we had a rational electoral college, with proportional assignment in states. Winning by a plurality might indeed not mean winning the election, and quite properly so, when the other electors decide to vote for one of the front-runners. Given that the change made by AveryIsland was correct, and is less likely to imply a majority (we'd have written "majority" if that was the case), "plurality" is more accurate, less likely to introduce some coatrack slant. I have accordingly "voted" that way by reverting the edits back to Averyisland's version.
Folks, *do not edit war* without discussing in Talk. This applies to all parties. Don't demand that others bring things up in Talk if you don't. An exception would be if the matter had already been extensively discussed. Was it? -- Abd ( talk) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed "most votes" and "plurality" and simply used the phrase popular vote winner. Greg Comlish ( talk) 02:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I cannot pass the article as this time. Here are some things for you to work on before renominating the article:
Good luck. Nikki 311 03:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This I found in comments in Ballot Access News: "You cannot have a national election without first establishing common voting requirements. Felon voting? Registration dates? Early ballot access?" [5] Perhaps we should include this in the article (if it can be properly sourced), since it is claimed to be the reason that the Washington House did not take up this bill. -- KarlFrei ( talk) 08:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The article states that "states wishing to join or withdraw from the compact after that date would not be able to do so until after the election." If a member state were to pass a bill negating the NPVIC after July 20th, what enforcement mechanism would prevent them from apportioning their delegates however they choose? — Swpb t & c 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I assume they would be sued in some federal court? Surely there have been lawsuits between states before. The law negating NPVIC could not be legal for a state that has joined the compact. (Also, there must be other interstate compacts, right?) -- KarlFrei ( talk) 07:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This is perhaps off topic, but is it so clear that the Republicans stand to lose from this compact? They have won the popular vote in the most recent presidential election, and in many elections before that... Sure, things don't look so good for them right now, but who knows what will happen in four or eight years? -- KarlFrei ( talk) 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Does a state have to report the vote? Or can they just report the winner? In the primaries the real popular vote was unknown because some states did not report the vote just the winner. So lets say that a state that was in strong opposition to this compact just gave the vote total of the winning candidate, and did not state the popular vote of the losing candidate. Is that possible and how would that affect the compact?
Currently, the "red" set of colors indicate bills which did not pass into law in a given year — but they do not differentiate between states where the bill was killed that year, and states where the bill remained pending after the end of the calendar year (as in states with a 2007-2008 legislative session). My original impression from the map was that the bill was killed in a lot of states in 2007, but a look through the state-by-state status chart shows that 12 of these states carried bills over from 2007 to 2008, and 9 of those bills are still pending today (NJ and IL passed, VT vetoed).
My suggestion is to use the green set of colors for all 12 of these states on the 2007 map (and in future years). The green colors would then represent "pending at the end of the year" (except in the current year, where they would still mean "pending currently"), and the reds would then exclusively mean "killed during that year". It will then become clear at a glance how many states actually killed the bill in a given year. You could always add a third set of colors (yellows?) to indicate bills that remained pending at the end of the year, but my solution would hopefully be visually simpler. — Swpb t & c 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Status of NPVIC legislation | December 31, 2006 | December 31, 2007 | Current status |
File:NPVMapKey2.png |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Participating states | 0 | 1 (MD) | 4 (MD, NJ, IL, HI) |
Electoral votes | 0 (of 270 needed) | 10 (of 270 needed) | 50 (of 270 needed) |
I really like the "Dec. 31, 200X" approach - it presents each map as a snapshot in time, which makes the "pending" label more intuitive. And you've avoided using a label like "killed" or "died", which would probably be too vernacular-sounding. In this setup, one can infer from "did not pass" that the bill died or was vetoed. I think this is an excellent way to present the same map with more information but without sacrificing readability. Kudos! — Swpb t & c 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Status of NPVIC legislation | December 31, 2006 | December 31, 2007 | December 31, 2008 | Current status |
File:NPVMapKey2.png |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Participating states | 0 | 1 (MD) | 4 (+NJ, IL, HI) | 4 |
Electoral votes | 0 (of 270 needed) | 10 (of 270 needed) | 50 (of 270 needed) | 50 (of 270 needed) |
At some point we will have to ask whether we really want such a detailed history, with a map for every year. We could also show only maps for even years (since no legislative session appears to continue after an even year). However, two years from now, when most of the legislative sessions will again have concluded, the ultimate result of this compact will probably be clear. States will not continue to debate this legislation every single year (or session), I think. -- KarlFrei ( talk) 08:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
For the caption of the diagram, can someone in the know please clarify whether this means electoral college votes or popular votes? I couldn't find it anywhere. Thanks. -- Padraic 14:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. The way this section is written seems to name drop more than describe what the conflict there actual is. And just because a few experts say something is constitutional doesn't make it so ( Milgram experiment, anyone?). The USSC has ruled on this in the past in other instances, but those compacts never had such far-reaching consequences as this would. They are likely to be inclinced to rule against it, especially with the collectively conservative stance of the Court. Again, Congress could give thumbs up and then that's that... Foofighter20x ( talk) 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Thank you very much for reviewing (and passing :-) ) this article. Regarding the issue you point out, the status is actually pending for states where the bill might still be passed. The status is red if the legislative session is closed, meaning that the bill definitely cannot be passed anymore (unless it is reintroduced in the next session, of course). -- KarlFrei ( talk) 21:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The North Carolina bill is dead for the year, as the session has ended. RRichie ( talk) 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I know those interested in this legislation are in favor of its passage. So, just out of curiosity, I'm compelled to ask this question: is anyone watching the states who have already passed the compact for any legislative action which might repeal it? It seems such action toward the negative should also be included on the state-by-state status table, if occuring. Foofighter20x ( talk) 09:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
A lack of board members who fit your definition of "conservative" does not make FairVote "left-wing." Has FairVote endorsed "left-wing" candidates or political parties? Has FairVote stated "left-wing" positions on a range of political issues? If so then you might have a case.
Szu ( talk) 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
A disproportionate number of liberal (democratic) figures and organizations support FairVote's initiatives compared to relatively few conservative (republican) groups. Especially when it comes to NPV, Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation, which are a lot more popular in socialist Europe than in the USA. I think one could legitimately call FairVote a leftist or left-leaning organization. However, it's probably irrelevant to the context of the article. Remember, everybody's got an agenda, even " nonpartisan" groups. Averyisland ( talk) 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The bill history for H4952 in Massachusetts has as its last line simply "07/31/08 H Enacted". As far as I know, "to enact" has only one meaning, namely, that this bill is now law. However, this contradicts this news report. Does anyone know what really happened? -- KarlFrei ( talk) 09:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
RRichie ( talk) 11:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
In the background section, there are only arguments for the electoral college, none against it. To me, it seems that it is biased against the Compact.-- Lionheart Omega ( talk) 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you please point out specifically what you're talking about? The 'background' section presents each item as if it is a problem with the electoral college. If anything, it's heavily biased towards this silly legislation. Averyisland ( talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The compact specifies that it shall take effect only if it is law in states controlling a majority of electoral votes on July 20 of a presidential election year. States wishing to join or withdraw from the compact after that date would not be able to do so until after the election. The compact would terminate in the event of the abolishment of the Electoral College.
Question: Suppose that this compact goes into effect. States representing the necessary 270 electoral votes agree to it. However, in a future census, they lose representatives, dropping to 268 total electoral votes. Would this then cause the compact to cease being in effect? (Granted, this is a rather unlikely scenario, most likely, if it does pass, it would end up adopted by a sizeable majority of, or even all of, the states) Nik42 ( talk) 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
A friend has brought up two issues with this article that I thought I'd bring to your collective attention.
1. "The compact is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to allocate its own electoral votes" However, the Constitution says "Each State shall appoint", not "allocate".
2. The ruling in U.S. Steel Corp. V. Multistate Tax Commission is misconstrued. The longer passage is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States." Considering this language, I think it's less clear that the courts would uphold the compact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanK ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
A participant on Dailykos (not a reliable source, I know) has mentioned that this compact may violate the 14th amendment in that any state joining the compact disenfranchises its own population (!). I put this here to give general notice; if it appears in some reliable place, we can put it in the article. -- KarlFrei ( talk) 12:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell the difference in subject between this article and the Amar Plan. The latter just seems to be much shorter. I suggest that it be merged into this article. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 06:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Michigan House Passes It —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.18.215 ( talk) 22:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I went ahead and posted this content:
What do you think of this approach, could it be legal? Captain Zyrain 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Issue | Criticism | Response |
---|---|---|
Compatibility with Instant Runoff Voting | The compact's compatibility with Instant Runoff Voting has not yet been assessed in a court of law. | One way in which states could attempt to implement a partial national instant runoff popular vote for President would be by allowing their own citizens to cast a ranked choice ballot, and then counting the votes for President from other states as being ranked choice ballots with only a first choice selected. (would need citation) |
Has there been any more talk about the NPV compact's compatibility with IRV? Interestingly, someone noted on the FairVote blog that the NPV compact is incompatible with approval voting. See [1] . Is that so? Couldn't we just count all the votes? Ron Duvall ( talk) 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Just did a major reorganization of the article and I think it seems better organized now. Most of the text is just moved around, but I also added a fair amount of content where it seemed to fit.
I'm new to this, so please go ahead and fix any problems. Thanks as always.
Szu 07:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the reorganization, it seems more logical to me. It would be nice to find a place for your map that you found that has spending from the 2004 election- maybe where we talk about reasons for change?
A minor point, you put in double bullets in one section, I'm going to fix that.-- Cms479 16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There should definitely be a section on this question in the article. When I saw the words "interstate compact" I immediately thought that this would be subject to Congressional approval. According to some of the commenters above, however, this is not the case. Please add some referenced material on this to the article. Cheers. Grover cleveland 05:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I admire the ingenuity of this proposal, but something about the "hacking" of the Constitution doesn't sit right with me. What kind of chance do you guys think this has of ultimate success? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.140.50 ( talk) 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't violate the letter of the Constitution, but there's certainly an element of deviousness to it. The Founders obviously didn't intend the Electoral College as practiced circa 2007 but more certainly they didn't intend that states find some way to circumvent the prescribed amendment process.
Another question I have. What of equal protection concerns using this system? I know that the Electoral Votes would still "officially" decide the election, but the de facto vote would be the nationwide popular vote, which raises the issue of different voter elegibility standards state-by-state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.171.155 ( talk) 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've pulled the following pieces from the Reasons for Change section, because they are sourced with FairVote, an advocacy organization, which is not considered a reliable source. In some other cases, I was able to find, in the time I had, original sources. I also left a bullet point sourced with NPV, which should likewise be replaced with an original source. I think that is also the same NYT editorial, but it should be replaced with direct quotes or more direct paraphrases. I'm pretty sure that the following can be put back with the proper sourcing. (One of the problems with sourcing documents from advocacy organizations like FairVote is that they may be framed with analysis that leads to desired interpretations; thus the reference becomes advocacy, in effect.)
Polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a popular vote, [1] for the following reasons:
- There is debate over whether the Electoral College favors small states or large states. Many argue that it favors small states, pointing out that such states have more electoral votes relative to their populations. Some scholars, however, believe that the potential of large states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more actual clout. [2]
-- Abd 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
In several states, there has been more than one attempt to get this passed, and some of them are still pending. Either we should put some states (New York, Illinois) in two tables, or we should label the tables "current attempts" and "failed attempts".
Another solution that is perhaps nicer is to have (besides the table with Maryland of course) a table "States where legislation is pending or may be introduced" (the year should probably be omitted at some point anyway) and "Failed attempts". The columns with "final outcome" could be removed, I think, since it follows from the table headings.
Finally, Massachussetts appears to be simply misplaced.
Thoughts? -- KarlFrei ( talk) 14:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good! -- KarlFrei ( talk) 10:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not noticing this debate -- yes, they have indeed "failed" for 2007, as the session is over for this year in many of those states. "Did not pass" would be fine, too. I'm afraid I don't have the info on which sessions are already over for 2007 at hand right now, though... — Nightstallion 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The editor who added the blurb about Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution conveniently overlooked Article 1, Section 10.
Since that argument will be twisted and shot down by the Wikipedia Wordsmiths, just read the this, after which there should be no doubt in your mind that the Electoral College is vital.
Those of us who live way out in the boonies, hundreds of miles off the beaten path, would prefer not to have our lives dictated to us by the likes of New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The EC was put in place to protect us, the minority voice. This whole subject only became popular because Gore lost in 2000. All arguments in favor of a direct popular vote come from the stung pride of the Democratic Party, and perhaps a few fringe groups like the Ku Klux Klan, who love the idea of direct democracy -- that's what a lynching is, after all. I'm disgusted with Bush too, but you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The answer is to educate the people so they vote on the issues rather than the soundbytes. Yes, there will be times when you will get "burned" by the system. But it can happen to either side. And it's not as if Gore won a majority; he took 48.38% of the popular vote to Bush's 47.87%. So they both got 48%, give or take. Not exactly a heart-stopping theft of office. Get over it, it's been nearly a decade.
Bottom line: Stop questioning the brilliance and foresight of the Founding Fathers. They were way, way smarter than you, on every conceivable level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 ( talk) 15:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't quite put my finger on it yet, but the article seems to read in a bit of a negative tone towards the subject matter of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Does anyone else get this feel? Lawrence Cohen 08:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The article in its entirely reads like an advertisement for the legislation. It needs a good shot of neutrality. Averyisland ( talk) 22:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
What color should Hawaii be now?
Szu ( talk) 03:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but NPV now has Hawaii in two colors on its map ( http://www.nationalpopularvote.com)... and when I found the status of Hawaii's HB234 ( http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=HB234) it says "Carried over to 2008 Regular Session"...???
Szu ( talk) 17:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I went back to the Hawaii legislature site and did a search for "electoral votes"... and it seems that NPVIC has now been reintroduced in both houses... (HB2728, SB2168, HB3013, SB2898...?)
( http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/search/billsearch.asp?query=electoral+votes&currpage=1)
So I will update the map. I don't know how the chart works, though... so if someone could add this in, that would be great...
Szu ( talk) 10:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the disputed text:
How is it a violation of NPOV to mention the fact that both parties are vulnerable to losing the election while winning the popular vote?
Thanks!
Szu ( talk) 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed this disagreement as well. Avery, the text you want to put "Advocates of direct election view this [the winner of the election not being the popular vote winner] as a drawback" is misleading. What reasonable person wouldn't view this as a drawback? Those who are in favor of the Electoral College may be willing to accept this as a flaw in a preferable system, but they too would have to admit its a drawback.-- Cms479 ( talk) 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the way I see it. There is no reason to add additional information regarding the 2000 election, same as there is no reason to add additional information regarding the other elections. They are all linked in the first sentence of the section. It is superfluous to write "This scenario can affect both major parties" because it provides a limited view of the entire process. It can affect all candidates and it is noted as such in the first sentence. The reference to the 2004 election is unnecessary. It's a hypothetical scenario, it did not happen, and there are already four instances of it happening in the past, which are noted in the first sentence. This is a cherry-picked fact and could be applied to any deficit in any state. On top of that, the "source" cited is an editorial. As an opinion article, it is irresponsible to use it to back up NPOV.
"Advocates of direct election view this [the winner of the election not being the popular vote winner] as a drawback" could be worded better, I'll admit, but it is a true statement. The Electoral College is designed to accommodate this "flaw" and was done so to prevent a few heavily populated states from silencing smaller states by winning every single election. Nowhere did I say that this view is exclusively held by those in favor of direct election. Averyisland ( talk) 21:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with including this text. I agree that it can help to clarify that this is not an issue which can only affect one party, and it is nice to have some recent examples. -- KarlFrei ( talk) 14:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
We've spent entirely too much time arguing about one sentence. You are not making strong or rational arguments to back up your points. This isn't something I'm passionate about, I'm trying to explain that the Electoral College does not take political parties into consideration and that this article is giving a tremendous amount of attention to otherwise insignificant legislation. In fact, the article looks as if it was written to help promote the legislation. I was simply trying to fix one part of it. I'm going to propose the following:
Okay, a POV tag was placed. I looked over the discussion above, which involved the editor who placed the tag, and I did not see a POV dispute that was explicit, sufficiently that a neutral editor could resolve it. Help me out. Will the parties involved in this dispute lay out their cases explicitly and, hopefully, concisely? Please focus on text in the article which is allegedly POV. I believe that there was text in the article that was taken out as allegedly POV. So, considering the editor who did this as the "complainant," will he make the complaint explicit? I would ask that other editors who oppose the position of the complainant not respond with explanation first. If we can become explicit enough, and still can't resolve it, then RFC can be used, etc. -- Abd ( talk) 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The only big POV issue I can see in the article is the pairs of quotes, which seem to give a distinct advantage to the pro side of the debate, since it always gets the last word. Therefore I suggest we replace the quote pairs with these paragraphs, which alternate who gets the last word:
Supporters of the compact argue that most of the smallest states are largely ignored under the current system because they are not swing states. Critics counter that smaller states also have fewer popular votes, which may lead candidates to ignore them and focus instead on areas with large populations. Compact supporters argue that under a popular vote, candidates would continue to campaign in small, medium and large towns, just as they currently do within competitive swing states such as Florida and Ohio. Critics contend that the large numbers of popular votes in urban areas would draw candidates away from rural issues and needs. [4] [5]
Critics of the compact have suggested that a direct national election would raise concerns about election fraud. Pete du Pont states that in 2000, "Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country's 175,000 precincts. 'Finding' three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing..." However, National Popular Vote has argued that a direct election would reduce the incentive for fraud. They claim that the large nationwide pool of 122 million votes would make a close outcome much less likely than it is under the current system, in which an extremely small number of votes in any one of the separate statewide tallies may determine the national winner. [6] [7]
Although direct election is already the method by which Americans elect their members of Congress, state leaders and local officials, critics such as du Pont have argued that a direct popular vote in presidential contests could lead to a change in the current two party system. They contend that the difficulty of winning electoral votes under the current system may discourage third party and single-issue candidates from running, and therefore switching to a popular vote may encourage more third party and single-issue candidates to enter the race. [8] [9]
Two governors who have vetoed NPVIC legislation, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Linda Lingle of Hawaii, have stated that they object to the compact because it would mean that their states' electoral votes may be awarded to a candidate who did not win statewide. Supporters of the compact have countered that under the popular vote system, the awarding of electoral votes would be practically irrelevant; that giving the state's electoral votes to the national winner would be a mere symbolic formality with no political meaning, because the popular vote would have already decided the outcome. [10] [11] [12]
Any thoughts?
Szu (
talk) 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've posted it. It may not be perfect, but I think it's more balanced than the quote pairs. If anyone has other POV issues, feel free to post here or in the thread above. Szu ( talk) 01:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have language to put in here, but it *is* a commonly-raised issue, and I'd be surprised if there isn't anything that can be found for it. That is, I've seen the constitutionality argument many times, which is a rough indication of notability. Because we are talking about opinions, standards for sourcing get, in my opinion, a little easier. But it's entirely possible that none can be found. However, we should try. Even if someone promoting that opinion doesn't show up. (And the other side might be fairly easy, I think that constitutional lawyers have weighed in .... let's hope so!) -- Abd ( talk) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
What may kind of kill this argument is that when I searched for "National Popular Vote" unconstitutional, I found arguments against it that acknowledged it was constitutional:
However, see this: Robert Prather (blog)
This is the strongest constitutionality argument I've seen. However, note that he says that it "might" be unconstitutional. This specific argument should be addressed in the article. My understanding of it is that this doesn't apply, because this is not a compact in the meaning of that section. It comes into effect when ratified, but there is no enforcement mechanism, nothing other than a coincidence of legislation, and a process whereby *each state* decides how to proceed. No state could use sue another state for "non-performance" under the Compact. My opinion. Now, where is a source for this? I think I've seen it, some place where this specific issue was examined.
There seems to be an opinion that the power behind NPV is "disgruntled Democrats." Of course, the electoral college/all-or-nothing problem bites both ways. Some seem to have short memories.
Here is another blog:
J.J. Jackson (blog) The author gives definitions for Treaty and Alliance and Confederation and Compact, but seems to have overlooked that words have a range of meaning, and that meanings overlap does not make every usage of one word equivalent to every usage of every other word. The Compact is misnamed, is the fact. It isn't a Compact except that it has an effect similar to one. If my state decides to choose electoral votes based on how a certain number of other states choose theirs, and if there is conditional legislation in a series of states that implements a plan based on conditions in other states, so that I can know, if I'm the elections official for my state, what other states are going to do based on deadlines in the legislation and what we do, I make my decision, subject to the laws of my state and my interpretation of the laws of other states. If I err, it's a matter for my own state's courts. (This is a reason why true compacts would have to be approved; whose courts would have jurisdiction. Here, only my state's court would have jurisdiction. If a state failed to perform -- and the state supreme court in that state failed to rectify it -- I'd have no recourse. This, indeed, could be a flaw in the Compact, but it is not a constitutional issue (and I don't recall how, specifically, this is addressed, if at all.) Essentially, this author claims that because a compact is an treaty, and this legislation is called a compact, it must be a treaty. Really bad logic. But it's going to convince a lot of people who don't think accurately!
Here is an article Peter Shane (blog), in which an apparently noted professor says he has "doubts" about the constitutionality of the Compact, but isn't particularly detailed as to why. He cites his own prior articles, but those were not on this particular point, I think. (He favors the general idea, by the way, and seems to hope he is wrong.) -- Abd ( talk) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution states that
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."
Since the state legislatures, not the state governments including the governor, determine how electors are assigned, governors may be unable to veto the Compact, which would mean that California and Hawai'i have entered it. On a side note, this also probably means that popular referendums cannot approve it or otherwise change the way electors are selected. SteveSims ( talk) 03:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would think that Governors have to sign the bills to enter the compact, which is more than just determining how electors are assigned. There is nothing to prevent each state from assigning its electors to the winner of the popular vote - no interstate compact is necessary. Perhaps that could be achieved without the governor's approval. However, to achieve certain rules, such as that states will do this only when a majority of the College is signed on, can't withdraw a week before the election, etc., takes an interstate compact. Rrlemur ( talk) 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)rrlemur
I'm new, but I have a particular interest in this issue, and I wanted to offer some thoughts that could improve this article. I realize that I'm new, but please consider these options that would drastically cut down this article's size.
The bill is HB 524.
http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_HB_524
Not sure how to do it myself.
RRichie ( talk) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Illinois has just passed this so I decided to read the new law. I don't understand how a member state is going to certify the election totals of a non-member state. While each member state is suppose to certify their results to other member states at least six days prior to the day the electors are to cast their votes, what about the non-member states? If they don't certify to the member states, are their votes just lost? What if there is a challenge in a member or non-member state and the state official can't certify? If the election is close, will this hold up the whole process? While this idea sounds good on paper, in practical terms it seems to shift the political battle from 50 battlegrounds to 175,000 battlegrounds (precincts) thereby greatly increasing the probability for challenges in close elections. Currently, if a candidate is leading in a state by 50,000 votes and the other candidate believes there is fraud in a number of precincts, there is no need for a challenge unless the total change possible exceeds 50,000 votes. In most cases, it won't matter so the challenge is never made. But under the new proposed system, it won't matter what is happening in your state and while those votes might not change the outcome in your state under the current system, it might assist in changing the outcome nationwide under the new one. Had this been in place in 2000, it wouldn't have solved anything. Gore had one massive challenge in Florida because it was the only state where challenges could have mattered statewide and that state's electoral votes also happened to be pivotal. But under this new system, Bush could have had 3,000 challenges going nationwide to make up his popular vote deficit. That could have led to Gore making 2,000 challenges to make up the difference Bush gained with his challenges. There's no end to the challenges in close popular vote elections. So the new adage will become - when in doubt, challenge. We could have tens of thousands of challenges each election and wind up looking like some third world country who can't figure out who won their election. ASanders 96.230.138.189 ( talk) 16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.138.189 ( talk) 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The legislation and NPV's site each address the classification of DC as a "state" for the purposes of this compact. I don't know why someone removed it. Merevaudevillian ( talk) 15:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
has reportedly closed its session for this year: http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/04/30/iowa-legislative-session-ends-with-no-action-on-various-election-law-bills/ — Nightstallion 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
How is this poll relevant? The NPV is a way of implementing the direct election of the President, but some people may not support the NPV if they believe it's unconstitutional, if they would prefer a constitutional amendment, etc. How is the abstract idea of "do you support direct election" relevant (or, more importantly, beneficial) to a discussion about the NPV in particular? While I appreciate the sentiment of showing popular support, the NPV and abstract "direct election" are two different things. Merevaudevillian ( talk) 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been puzzling for a while over what the colors on the maps mean. I compared the page to how it renders in Safari and the problem was obvious: the colors to the key don't display in Firefox on the mac:
Safari: http://slim.deasil.com/~swain/screencaps/safarikey.png
Firefox: http://slim.deasil.com/~swain/screencaps/firefoxkey.png swain ( talk) 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be worth it to make this table sortable by state name, electoral votes, and current status. This is beyond my knowledge in wikipedia, so could someone take care of this who thinks it's worthwhile? Much appreciated.-- Cms479 ( talk) 20:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we writing off Vermont prematurely? They passed the bill with a 2/3 margin in the state senate. I think its reasonable to expect that they will overturn the veto. Greg Comlish ( talk) 05:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I can understand why Szu would see "slate" as confusing and perhaps it's not needed in the intro. But one area of confusion for some folks is based on not understanding how electors works. They think each state has only one set of electors, and those are electors are instructed by the vote in their state (or whatever rules governs them) to vote a certain way. But of course in reality each candidate has a slate of electors made up of party loyalists and that candidate's electors will vote when that candidate wins that state's electoral votes. This is why there are so few faithless electors now and why that will continue with the NPV compact.
One of the questions that comes up in people's minds about the compact is: "Won't a state's electors have trouble casting a vote for a candidate who didn't win their state." That of course isn't an issue, as it's that candidate's electors casting the votes, and as loyalists for that candidate's party, ones who will do it enthusiastically.
So, with all that in mind, that can explain the value of using "slate" -- or at least being very clear about that later.
RRichie ( talk) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Averyisland wants to emphasize the fact that Al Gore did not win an absolute majority of the vote in 2000:
I think it's simpler to say:
Besides the fact that most people don't know the word "plurality," the only difference between the two versions is that "plurality" explicitly emphasizes the fact that an outright majority was not won. I don't think we should emphasize that fact, because it may mislead people into thinking that such a thing wouldn't have happened if Al Gore had won an outright majority. The truth is that the exact same thing can happen even with an outright majority, as was the case with Tilden in 1876.
Avery, if you'd like to pursue this change, please discuss it here rather than waging an edit war in the article. Thanks!
Szu ( talk) 15:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This seems silly, but I'm slightly inclined to support "plurality" for the reasons stated: "most votes" has a slight implication for "majority." I checked some non-controversial elections (e.g., pre-2000) and saw that "plurality" has been used in 1996 and 1968, and other articles specifically emphasize when an electoral vote winner has received less than 50 percent of the popular vote. I think the use of "plurality" in non-controversial contexts (like 1996 and 1968) suggest its appropriateness here. Merevaudevillian ( talk) 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Szu, Use of the word plurality made the article more accurate, as I explained in my edit notes. Abd seems to get it. I have nothing new to add to this argument and it appears that far too much effort has been spent debating it in my absence. However, I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. -- Averyisland
An edit war began when a seemingly harmless edit by Averyisland was reverted. [4]. The change was:
Now, I appreciate that the point being made doesn't need "plurality" and that the problem can occur with "majority." But "the most popular votes" means, exactly, "a plurality." Technically. If "majority" is part of the point, then a reference should be made to an election where a majority was involved, as in 1876. So why the concern over this difference in language? Well, I suspect, without pinning this on any editor, there is a political point to be made, and "most popular votes" can sound like "majority," and thus underscores a point that is often made about Bush, I've seen it in a bumper sticker in 2004: "Re-defeat Bush." "Plurality" doesn't sound so strong; and suppose we had a rational electoral college, with proportional assignment in states. Winning by a plurality might indeed not mean winning the election, and quite properly so, when the other electors decide to vote for one of the front-runners. Given that the change made by AveryIsland was correct, and is less likely to imply a majority (we'd have written "majority" if that was the case), "plurality" is more accurate, less likely to introduce some coatrack slant. I have accordingly "voted" that way by reverting the edits back to Averyisland's version.
Folks, *do not edit war* without discussing in Talk. This applies to all parties. Don't demand that others bring things up in Talk if you don't. An exception would be if the matter had already been extensively discussed. Was it? -- Abd ( talk) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed "most votes" and "plurality" and simply used the phrase popular vote winner. Greg Comlish ( talk) 02:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I cannot pass the article as this time. Here are some things for you to work on before renominating the article:
Good luck. Nikki 311 03:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This I found in comments in Ballot Access News: "You cannot have a national election without first establishing common voting requirements. Felon voting? Registration dates? Early ballot access?" [5] Perhaps we should include this in the article (if it can be properly sourced), since it is claimed to be the reason that the Washington House did not take up this bill. -- KarlFrei ( talk) 08:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The article states that "states wishing to join or withdraw from the compact after that date would not be able to do so until after the election." If a member state were to pass a bill negating the NPVIC after July 20th, what enforcement mechanism would prevent them from apportioning their delegates however they choose? — Swpb t & c 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I assume they would be sued in some federal court? Surely there have been lawsuits between states before. The law negating NPVIC could not be legal for a state that has joined the compact. (Also, there must be other interstate compacts, right?) -- KarlFrei ( talk) 07:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This is perhaps off topic, but is it so clear that the Republicans stand to lose from this compact? They have won the popular vote in the most recent presidential election, and in many elections before that... Sure, things don't look so good for them right now, but who knows what will happen in four or eight years? -- KarlFrei ( talk) 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Does a state have to report the vote? Or can they just report the winner? In the primaries the real popular vote was unknown because some states did not report the vote just the winner. So lets say that a state that was in strong opposition to this compact just gave the vote total of the winning candidate, and did not state the popular vote of the losing candidate. Is that possible and how would that affect the compact?
Currently, the "red" set of colors indicate bills which did not pass into law in a given year — but they do not differentiate between states where the bill was killed that year, and states where the bill remained pending after the end of the calendar year (as in states with a 2007-2008 legislative session). My original impression from the map was that the bill was killed in a lot of states in 2007, but a look through the state-by-state status chart shows that 12 of these states carried bills over from 2007 to 2008, and 9 of those bills are still pending today (NJ and IL passed, VT vetoed).
My suggestion is to use the green set of colors for all 12 of these states on the 2007 map (and in future years). The green colors would then represent "pending at the end of the year" (except in the current year, where they would still mean "pending currently"), and the reds would then exclusively mean "killed during that year". It will then become clear at a glance how many states actually killed the bill in a given year. You could always add a third set of colors (yellows?) to indicate bills that remained pending at the end of the year, but my solution would hopefully be visually simpler. — Swpb t & c 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Status of NPVIC legislation | December 31, 2006 | December 31, 2007 | Current status |
File:NPVMapKey2.png |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Participating states | 0 | 1 (MD) | 4 (MD, NJ, IL, HI) |
Electoral votes | 0 (of 270 needed) | 10 (of 270 needed) | 50 (of 270 needed) |
I really like the "Dec. 31, 200X" approach - it presents each map as a snapshot in time, which makes the "pending" label more intuitive. And you've avoided using a label like "killed" or "died", which would probably be too vernacular-sounding. In this setup, one can infer from "did not pass" that the bill died or was vetoed. I think this is an excellent way to present the same map with more information but without sacrificing readability. Kudos! — Swpb t & c 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Status of NPVIC legislation | December 31, 2006 | December 31, 2007 | December 31, 2008 | Current status |
File:NPVMapKey2.png |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Participating states | 0 | 1 (MD) | 4 (+NJ, IL, HI) | 4 |
Electoral votes | 0 (of 270 needed) | 10 (of 270 needed) | 50 (of 270 needed) | 50 (of 270 needed) |
At some point we will have to ask whether we really want such a detailed history, with a map for every year. We could also show only maps for even years (since no legislative session appears to continue after an even year). However, two years from now, when most of the legislative sessions will again have concluded, the ultimate result of this compact will probably be clear. States will not continue to debate this legislation every single year (or session), I think. -- KarlFrei ( talk) 08:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
For the caption of the diagram, can someone in the know please clarify whether this means electoral college votes or popular votes? I couldn't find it anywhere. Thanks. -- Padraic 14:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. The way this section is written seems to name drop more than describe what the conflict there actual is. And just because a few experts say something is constitutional doesn't make it so ( Milgram experiment, anyone?). The USSC has ruled on this in the past in other instances, but those compacts never had such far-reaching consequences as this would. They are likely to be inclinced to rule against it, especially with the collectively conservative stance of the Court. Again, Congress could give thumbs up and then that's that... Foofighter20x ( talk) 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Thank you very much for reviewing (and passing :-) ) this article. Regarding the issue you point out, the status is actually pending for states where the bill might still be passed. The status is red if the legislative session is closed, meaning that the bill definitely cannot be passed anymore (unless it is reintroduced in the next session, of course). -- KarlFrei ( talk) 21:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The North Carolina bill is dead for the year, as the session has ended. RRichie ( talk) 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I know those interested in this legislation are in favor of its passage. So, just out of curiosity, I'm compelled to ask this question: is anyone watching the states who have already passed the compact for any legislative action which might repeal it? It seems such action toward the negative should also be included on the state-by-state status table, if occuring. Foofighter20x ( talk) 09:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
A lack of board members who fit your definition of "conservative" does not make FairVote "left-wing." Has FairVote endorsed "left-wing" candidates or political parties? Has FairVote stated "left-wing" positions on a range of political issues? If so then you might have a case.
Szu ( talk) 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
A disproportionate number of liberal (democratic) figures and organizations support FairVote's initiatives compared to relatively few conservative (republican) groups. Especially when it comes to NPV, Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation, which are a lot more popular in socialist Europe than in the USA. I think one could legitimately call FairVote a leftist or left-leaning organization. However, it's probably irrelevant to the context of the article. Remember, everybody's got an agenda, even " nonpartisan" groups. Averyisland ( talk) 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The bill history for H4952 in Massachusetts has as its last line simply "07/31/08 H Enacted". As far as I know, "to enact" has only one meaning, namely, that this bill is now law. However, this contradicts this news report. Does anyone know what really happened? -- KarlFrei ( talk) 09:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
RRichie ( talk) 11:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
In the background section, there are only arguments for the electoral college, none against it. To me, it seems that it is biased against the Compact.-- Lionheart Omega ( talk) 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you please point out specifically what you're talking about? The 'background' section presents each item as if it is a problem with the electoral college. If anything, it's heavily biased towards this silly legislation. Averyisland ( talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The compact specifies that it shall take effect only if it is law in states controlling a majority of electoral votes on July 20 of a presidential election year. States wishing to join or withdraw from the compact after that date would not be able to do so until after the election. The compact would terminate in the event of the abolishment of the Electoral College.
Question: Suppose that this compact goes into effect. States representing the necessary 270 electoral votes agree to it. However, in a future census, they lose representatives, dropping to 268 total electoral votes. Would this then cause the compact to cease being in effect? (Granted, this is a rather unlikely scenario, most likely, if it does pass, it would end up adopted by a sizeable majority of, or even all of, the states) Nik42 ( talk) 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
A friend has brought up two issues with this article that I thought I'd bring to your collective attention.
1. "The compact is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to allocate its own electoral votes" However, the Constitution says "Each State shall appoint", not "allocate".
2. The ruling in U.S. Steel Corp. V. Multistate Tax Commission is misconstrued. The longer passage is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States." Considering this language, I think it's less clear that the courts would uphold the compact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanK ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
A participant on Dailykos (not a reliable source, I know) has mentioned that this compact may violate the 14th amendment in that any state joining the compact disenfranchises its own population (!). I put this here to give general notice; if it appears in some reliable place, we can put it in the article. -- KarlFrei ( talk) 12:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell the difference in subject between this article and the Amar Plan. The latter just seems to be much shorter. I suggest that it be merged into this article. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 06:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Michigan House Passes It —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.18.215 ( talk) 22:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |