I too think the founders were thoughtful in how they created the laws of rule. I think we see the ramifications of voters not being limited to educated homeowners.
We have a terribly uneducated voting block which has wrecked havoc in my opinion…
That being said, one thing they did not do which has bothered me and I think was shortsighted was the lack of term limits for congress. One has to look no further than Nancy Pelosi to see the corruption. How these people stay in office for life for their own benefit. How much was AOC worth before her time in government and how much is she worth now? There are nefarious things at play.
Back to the Electoral College, Sarah is quite right about how telling it is that only “blue” elites support this. I agree that they keep changing the rules, and it is not democracy.
It is so creepy how they have played the 1984 playbook with double speak about democracy and other topics
I think that it’s telling that the states who have signed this are mostly (if not all) blue states. Changing the system because you’re afraid that the outcome won’t be the one you wanted is not democracy.
Isn't it equally telling that Republicans want to maintain the electoral college since it benefits them? Is it more democratic to change a system that doesn't reflect the will of the people, or to stubbornly maintain a system that benefits you even the votes of the people show differently? I would argue the height of democracy is to ensure that the will of the people is heard, and the popular vote reflects the will of the people.
I agree with your assessment, Rachel. The only current part of the EC process that I don’t like is the “winner-take-all” selection of electors. I think that the electors representing each district should vote for the candidate that won in their district and the electors that represent the state should vote for the candidate that won the state. This is closer to the popular winner idea but still gives the votes/voters in each state a say that isn’t overruled by the national popular vote. There are good and valid reasons the Founders didn’t go with a national popular vote in the first place.
Perhaps if all the states split electors that would be better than flopping all the way over to all electors going to the popular vote? As someone who lives in a state whose electors always go opposite my vote it feels like my vote doesn’t count.
I am hesitant to change a system that has worked since the founding of our country. Just because it doesn’t “fit” the opinions of the states doesn’t mean it needs to be abolished.
The list of states that have signed on to this is not surprising as they tend to be more democratic leaning, and I believe they are afraid of a Trump victory.
And many of the states who haven't signed on are more Republican leaning, and could be afraid of a Democratic victory if they change the system. It goes both ways.
I don’t understand this part. Can someone explain it to me? It seems to me if the state goes by popular vote the electors vote will be for the states choice.
: Critics argue that the NPVIC undermines state sovereignty by potentially forcing states to award their electoral votes contrary to their own voters' will
To me, the pros of a national popular vote far outweigh any potential cons. Voter fraud is so rare as to be non-existent in the US, and we have many protections in place to prevent it at any scale that could impact a national election. It seems entirely fair to me that the candidate that gets the most votes wins. I think it's key to note that the founders were creating this system to preserve states equality where the highest population was Virginia with approximately 538,00 people and Tennessee with approximately 10,000. Today, that differential is California's 38,000,000 residents compared to Wyoming's 584,000. A difference of ~525,000 compared to a difference of ~37.5 million. To put this in perspective, there is 1 electoral vote for every 194,685 Wyoming citizens and one for every 721,577 Californian citizens. Should the vote of someone from Wyoming count *7x more* than someone from California? I don't think so.
I think it's entirely fair to reconsider a system that was built in a very different country than the one we inhabit today. I would much rather see candidates campaigning nationally and focusing on national issues than the continued focus on Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona. Imagine a Democratic candidate campaigning in the deep south, listening to the concerns of the people there because they know their votes would matter. A Republican going to San Francisco to learn about how they could implement policies that improve cities. I'm from rural America, a red district, and I think it's strange what an outsized impact rural America has on the Presidential election. Only about 14% of Americans live in rural areas - issues impacting rural Americans are important, but we have to recognize that most of our population lives in suburbs and cities. It doesn't seem fair that people who happen to live in more populated areas get a vote that counts just a little bit less.
I too think the founders were thoughtful in how they created the laws of rule. I think we see the ramifications of voters not being limited to educated homeowners.
We have a terribly uneducated voting block which has wrecked havoc in my opinion…
That being said, one thing they did not do which has bothered me and I think was shortsighted was the lack of term limits for congress. One has to look no further than Nancy Pelosi to see the corruption. How these people stay in office for life for their own benefit. How much was AOC worth before her time in government and how much is she worth now? There are nefarious things at play.
Back to the Electoral College, Sarah is quite right about how telling it is that only “blue” elites support this. I agree that they keep changing the rules, and it is not democracy.
It is so creepy how they have played the 1984 playbook with double speak about democracy and other topics
I think that it’s telling that the states who have signed this are mostly (if not all) blue states. Changing the system because you’re afraid that the outcome won’t be the one you wanted is not democracy.
Isn't it equally telling that Republicans want to maintain the electoral college since it benefits them? Is it more democratic to change a system that doesn't reflect the will of the people, or to stubbornly maintain a system that benefits you even the votes of the people show differently? I would argue the height of democracy is to ensure that the will of the people is heard, and the popular vote reflects the will of the people.
My thoughts exactly - the list of states for it says a lot
I agree with your assessment, Rachel. The only current part of the EC process that I don’t like is the “winner-take-all” selection of electors. I think that the electors representing each district should vote for the candidate that won in their district and the electors that represent the state should vote for the candidate that won the state. This is closer to the popular winner idea but still gives the votes/voters in each state a say that isn’t overruled by the national popular vote. There are good and valid reasons the Founders didn’t go with a national popular vote in the first place.
Perhaps if all the states split electors that would be better than flopping all the way over to all electors going to the popular vote? As someone who lives in a state whose electors always go opposite my vote it feels like my vote doesn’t count.
I am hesitant to change a system that has worked since the founding of our country. Just because it doesn’t “fit” the opinions of the states doesn’t mean it needs to be abolished.
The list of states that have signed on to this is not surprising as they tend to be more democratic leaning, and I believe they are afraid of a Trump victory.
And many of the states who haven't signed on are more Republican leaning, and could be afraid of a Democratic victory if they change the system. It goes both ways.
I don’t understand this part. Can someone explain it to me? It seems to me if the state goes by popular vote the electors vote will be for the states choice.
: Critics argue that the NPVIC undermines state sovereignty by potentially forcing states to award their electoral votes contrary to their own voters' will
To me, the pros of a national popular vote far outweigh any potential cons. Voter fraud is so rare as to be non-existent in the US, and we have many protections in place to prevent it at any scale that could impact a national election. It seems entirely fair to me that the candidate that gets the most votes wins. I think it's key to note that the founders were creating this system to preserve states equality where the highest population was Virginia with approximately 538,00 people and Tennessee with approximately 10,000. Today, that differential is California's 38,000,000 residents compared to Wyoming's 584,000. A difference of ~525,000 compared to a difference of ~37.5 million. To put this in perspective, there is 1 electoral vote for every 194,685 Wyoming citizens and one for every 721,577 Californian citizens. Should the vote of someone from Wyoming count *7x more* than someone from California? I don't think so.
I think it's entirely fair to reconsider a system that was built in a very different country than the one we inhabit today. I would much rather see candidates campaigning nationally and focusing on national issues than the continued focus on Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona. Imagine a Democratic candidate campaigning in the deep south, listening to the concerns of the people there because they know their votes would matter. A Republican going to San Francisco to learn about how they could implement policies that improve cities. I'm from rural America, a red district, and I think it's strange what an outsized impact rural America has on the Presidential election. Only about 14% of Americans live in rural areas - issues impacting rural Americans are important, but we have to recognize that most of our population lives in suburbs and cities. It doesn't seem fair that people who happen to live in more populated areas get a vote that counts just a little bit less.
Wow. This was such a simple, but comprehensive, breakdown. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all of this!
As said by others who commented, it speaks loudly to the potential agenda when looking at which states are pushing for this change.
And speaks loudly who exactly is pushing to keep the system the same. Goes both ways on pushing an agenda.