[tuebor]

Should Michigan join the movement for a National Popular Vote?

This reform would mean that in a presidential election, Michigan would give all of its electoral college votes to whichever candidate received the most votes nationwide. So far, 11 states have enacted this reform.

Here's a more detailed explanation, taken from the website linked above:

Under the current system of electing the President, a candidate may win a majority of the Electoral College without having a majority of the nationwide popular vote. The National Popular Vote bill would reform the Electoral College by guaranteeing the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The bill would enact the proposed interstate compact entitled the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote." The compact would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the membership of the Electoral College (that is 270 of 538 electoral votes). Under the compact, all of the members of the Electoral College from all states belonging to the compact would be from the same political party as the winner of nationwide popular vote. Thus, the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) will be guaranteed a majority of the Electoral College, and hence the Presidency. Because the compact guarantees a majority of the Electoral College to the winner of most popular votes nationwide, the compact has the additional benefit of eliminating the possibility that a presidential election might be thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote).

[chh]

So it doesn't matter what you vote, because Michigan could just forfeit all it's votes to the opposite party you voted for? What's the point of this?

[tuebor]

^That could happen under the current system, too. The point is to guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes is the one who wins the election.

[animatedmartian]

So essentially, the only states whose votes would make a difference would be the top 8 most populous states. Once a candidate wins California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and Michigan, the other 42 states wouldn't need to vote.

Under the current system, if those same states all fell to one party, that wouldn't guarantee a victory. The rest of the 42 states still have a weight on the vote. In fact, there is still a chance for 9 additional states to swing the vote.

It's easy to say it's unlikely that would happen, but only because that's why we don't go by national popular vote. A populist vote favors states that can increase their population while depopulating the rest of the country.

[detwahDJ]

The present electoral college is flawed, not representative of a majority Americans, and plenty of things need to change, including rules for redistricting, dirty tricks, hackable voting machines, voter suppression, election fraud, lobbying, and campaign finance reform. I think the popular vote concept is a good one, but big money and lobbying now determines the menu of "acceptable" candidates whom we voters are left to select from.

[tuebor]

animatedmartian: Not exactly. I'm guessing that a candidate could win 51% of the votes in each of the most populous states and still lose if the other candidate won by large enough margins in enough of the other states. I'm guessing because I haven't checked the population of these states. Would a simple majority in those eight states necessarily constitute a simple majority of the nationwide vote? Even if it would, that's a very diverse collection of states. Winning those 8 states would require a candidate who appealed to a very broad coalition of interests.

I think an urban vs. rural split or a split along class lines might be more likely than a split between more populous and less populous states, which may still be an argument against this reform.

One defender of the electoral college -- I forget where I read this -- suggested an analogy to the World Series: the winner is the team that wins the most games, not the team that scores the most runs over the entire series.

I'm having trouble weighing the pros and cons and thinking through the most likely consequences of this reform in my own mind, which is why I'm asking the question.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by tuebor

animatedmartian: Not exactly. I'm guessing that a candidate could win 51% of the votes in each of the most populous states and still lose if the other candidate won by large enough margins in enough of the other states. I'm guessing because I haven't checked the population of these states. Would a simple majority in those eight states necessarily constitute a simple majority of the nationwide vote? Even if it would, that's a very diverse collection of states. Winning those 8 states would require a candidate who appealed to a very broad coalition of interests.

I think an urban vs. rural split or a split along class lines might be more likely than a split between more populous and less populous states, which may still be an argument against this reform.

One defender of the electoral college -- I forget where I read this -- suggested an analogy to the World Series: the winner is the team that wins the most games, not the team that scores the most runs over the entire series.

I'm having trouble weighing the pros and cons and thinking through the most likely consequences of this reform in my own mind, which is why I'm asking the question.

The "reforms" proposed are just another way to allow gerrymandering & take it to another level.

"Blue" states will "split" their delegates, and "red" states will be "winner take all"..

Thereby allowing the party of "no" to control far more territory than they earned..

A good article on the subject below..

Now they’re trying to steal 2016: The demented GOP schemes to rewire the Electoral College and elect a Tea Party president - Salon.com

[tuebor]

^That's a different proposal (please read the first post). The GOP's attempt to selectively disenfranchise voters borders on treason, IMO. It is blatantly corrupt and subversive of our form of government.

I would much rather see the national popular vote program succeed than this latest GOP scheme.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by tuebor

^That's a different proposal (please read the first post). The GOP's attempt to selectively disenfranchise voters borders on treason, IMO. It is blatantly corrupt and subversive of our form of government.

I would much rather see the national popular vote program succeed than this latest GOP scheme.

Different proposal, same outcome. Even if you're in a "compact" with other states, a state like Florida can have a "hanging chad" problem - and one of their options was to toss the election and have their legislature select a winner. do you "fall in line" because of your "compact"? - you might have to. What if other states in the compact are voted on diebold-esque machines and are suspected of being compromised?

Any changes to the college are going to benefit *someone*, and now that corporations are "people", and money = "speech", we're well on our way to getting the best government money can buy. The Waltons, the Bloombergs, the Koch's & the Ballmer's appreciate the unprecedented right to "speech" they now have.

[tuebor]

^That doesn't follow. There's no reason to think it would work that way. You'll still don't seem to understand the proposal. The winner of the NATIONWIDE popular vote would get all the electoral votes of all the members of the compact. Florida could not do what you suggest if they were in the compact, because their legislature would have already voted to assign their electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, and even if they tried to pull something, it would at worst affect the vote count in only one state. This reform would make a "hanging chad" fiasco LESS likely.

Yes, money and corporate influence are serious problems--and this proposal would combat them. It is a democratic reform, not an oligarchic one. The question is whether it would go too far in that direction and lead to some sort of "tyranny of the majority" situation.