409
US edges closer to popular vote deciding winner of presidential elections (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
81 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Virginia signs national popular vote bill into law, joining interstate compact with 17 other states and District of Columbia

A national majority vote for president is one step closer to reality after the Virginia governor, Abigail Spanberger, signed the national popular vote bill into law, joining an interstate compact with 17 other states and the District of Columbia.

Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state. The compact takes effect when states representing a majority of electoral votes – 270 of 538 – pass the legislation and thus would determine the winner of the presidential contest. With Virginia, the compact now has 222 electors.

Every state that has so far enacted the compact has Democratic electoral majorities, including California, New York and Illinois. But legislation has been introduced in enough states to reach the 270-elector threshold, including swing states like Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

all 81 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 85 points 7 months ago (21 children)

Umm... hold on, did something good just happen?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago

    Per the description in the post.

    The compact takes effect when states representing a majority of electoral votes – 270 of 538 – pass the legislation and thus would determine the winner of the presidential contest. With Virginia, the compact now has 222 electors.

    In other words, they need additional states with a combined total of at least 48 electoral votes to pass the legislation in order for it to take effect. So they're closer, but nothing has happened quite yet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I’m not sure it’s actually a good thing for electors to go against their voters but it’s a workaround that may make things better by ensuring the winner is the actual overall popular vote winner

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    They already largely go against their voters in every election. FPTP means all electors from a state go to one candidate, I could be wrong but I don't believe one candidate has ever gotten remotely close getting 100% of a states vote.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    Also, we’re one country right? If we’re one country then everyone’s voice should matter. And currently, there’s not even a strong reason for some people to show up to the polls when their state already swings over 20+ points in one direction.

    People in both red, blue, and purple states would all be better represented from the popular vote being in place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    Not necessarily good or bad. There's nothing binding here, just based on good faith reporting. Best case scenario would be all blue states and a few less-red swing states signing on, effectively disenfranchising red states.

    Of course I'd bet any amount of money that SCOTUS would rule that a plan like this can't leave out any state's reported result. From there it's a simple step to say "Texas and Florida are reporting 99% votes for Trump", allowing their large populations to rig the results.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    Nobody gets disenfranchised. Rather this compact enables the radical idea of "one person, one vote".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    So they kinda do. Mainly because the constitution doesn't set up a one, person, one vote type of government. So by circumventing the constitution, it would be disenfranchising people from small states that are supposed to have a "louder" voice in a way. Now, the concept dates back from when states were far more autonomous, and the federal gov was not so strong. So I think we agree that it is outdated, and one person one vote would be better. But disenfranchised doesn't mean losing your vote, it means losing the power of your vote as granted by the current rules.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Sure but the constitution set up a far far more proportionally representative system than what we currently have. If the house was just uncapped this wouldn't be a problem, no I don't care how much of a problem uncapping the house be they can go fuck themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (8 children)

    It can't enable anything without federal oversight via a constitutional amendment. Voting is within the purview of each individual state, so the states in this compact have no oversight on their peers (let alone the powers to demand a recount or rerun the election).

    For example, let's say 20 states make up exactly 270 EC votes. The popular vote within those states (if allocated proportional to votes) ends up as 136/270 to candidate X. The other 30 states report universal support for candidate Y.

    By rights, Y should win with 402 EC votes and 74% of the popular vote. But if the compact chooses to ignore those states as fraudulent then candidate X wins with a mere 26%.

    Similar fuckery can happen with late reporting of votes or a state in the compact reneging on the agreement and voting against the rest. There's absolutely nothing binding about this, it's just a pinky promise among these states.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    You're a touch off. If the state passes a law backing the compact, it is now law in their state. The feds don't have much of a say unless they make a case for discrimination. It's true the other states have no power to enforce it, but they don't have to. Someone from an offending state can sue their state for ignoring a law they passed. And there would be no shortage of such someones.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    Unless they strongly protect the compact (such as putting it in the state constitution) they can just as easily repeal it. And honestly it would be downright negligent to not add an escape hatch.

    Someone from an offending state can sue their state for ignoring a law they passed.

    I'd also expect a bunch of lawsuits the first time a candidate wins a state but the compact flips the result.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I don't expect there to be lawsuits from the compact "flipping results" as you put it, partly because that's entirely the wrong framing for how it works but mostly because all those lawsuits would be gotten out of the way when the laws first come into effect. The reason flipping a state's results is the wrong framing is simple, the compact only comes into effect when there are enough electoral college votes participating to be able decide the election on their own. At that point it is meaningless to say someone "won" any individual state, because the only number that matters is the national vote.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    I think maybe you misunderstood the compact.

    I'm your example, the states who signed the compact would all put their votes to candidate Y, assuming they had more popular votes in all states.

    It's not "join us or be punished", it's "we will implement the will of the majority, not matter what".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    So, as in my original comment, you would expect the blue states to graciously allow Texas + Florida + a few other deep red states to unilaterally declare the winner by leveraging the compact's EC votes? When push comes to shove this compact will either be kingmakers or fall apart.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The 17th Amendement requires the direct election of Senators. Blue state accept red states' votes for those.

    If you're going to make an argument based on bad faith of states, then the US basically ceases to exist as a republic, regardless of whether you have the compact.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    What about recent American politics gives you the impression that states will act in good faith? Hell, look back even farther at the slave state collusion for Mexican territory, secession, Reconstruction fuckery, Jim crow, etc...

    The only limit to states acting in bad faith has historically been the federal government. When states start fucking around too much, laws like the Voting Rights Act get drawn up to claw more power away from them.

    IMO the state-federation experiment has all but failed and the majority of good faith states need a proper convention to build a modern government. Choosing now of all times to put your faith in those anti-democratic, Christo-fascist slave states is the dumbest option possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    States are permitted to enter into compacts with each other without Congressional approval. Democrats everywhere are rediscovering federalism and all its wonders. One thing I'd like my state to do is open a public bank, like North Dakota did. They opened it in 1919, and it was one of the few banks that weathered the Great Recession of 2008 without needing a bailout while Wall Street was on fire. A few years prior, North Dakota was facing a $48M budget crisis. The BND kicked in $25M, reducing the need for layoffs and spending cuts. It does everything a private bank does, but its profits go into North Dakota's general fund, instead of lining the pockets of investors.

    Want to know the real kicker? It's basically a socialist enterprise, in the reddest of red states. Republicans fucking hate the Bank of North Dakota, but it's proven too successful and too popular to kill. It would be political suicide for them to even try.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    The only way red states would be disenfranchised in any way would be if presidential candidates decided it wasn't worth spending money on them to earn their outsized voting power. Under this scheme everyone gets an equal say in who becomes president, unlike now where your vote in Wyoming counts for about triple your vote in Indiana because Wyoming has the bare minimum of three electoral college seats and only the population to deserve one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 35 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    1990s problems require 1990s solutions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Like, whatever

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    I hope it accounts for what happens if those States’ votes equal/exceed 270 at one time but then electoral fuckery occurs and they drop below that number due to their bullshit census tallies. Because we all know Repubs will pull it in a heartbeat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, the only way the compact survives is if it would not have affected the outcome of an election. If it will have an effect, every red state in the compact will have legislation on the governor's desk by election day, calling for the immediate withdrawal from the compact, before the EC meets. That legislation will be wildly popular among the voters of those states.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Take a guess at how many red states have signed onto the compact at this point. It's zero, exactly zero red states have signed on to this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 15 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Am I reading this correctly, 17 States have already banded together to end first-past-the-post voting for POTUS?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 32 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    It does not end first past the post voting. If it went into effect it would essentially mean that the popular vote would determine the outcome of the presidential election, by forcing the electoral college results to match. The popular vote would still be first past the post.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    This only affects Maine and Nebraska who split electoral college votes though yes? It ensures the popular vote takes all, but that already happens almost everywhere?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 19 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    If this passes, my bet is on the two party system becoming a distant memory very quickly.

    This is what we need.

    Come on America, despite the horrors we see now this is our chance to make things right and show the world that we actually intend to become the country we’ve always pretended to be. Let’s show the world how to rise up, break free of our shackles, and create a society that takes care of each other and our planet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago

    The cause behind the two party stranglehold is the first past the post system, not the electoral college or voting districts or anything like that (Duverger's law). Choosing the president by popular vote will be great, but it won't solve that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago*

    I don’t think the popular vote compact would diminish the two parties.

    As far as I understand it the compact says all the states in the compact will pledge their electoral college electors to the popular vote winner.

    The popular vote winner is still just the candidate with the most votes nationally so all the incentives and structures that lead to two parties are still at play.

    Third parties are suppressed in a winner take all system largely due to the spoiler effect, a smaller third party pulls votes from a larger party.

    Voters would still be incentivized to vote for one of the two major parties witb the same logic as today, a vote for a third party has little chance of winning and so it largely has the effect of denying a vote to the major party you would most align with.

    To be clear, I think the way we’ve arranged democracy in America is quite stupid and mathematically guarantees a duopoly of parties both of which become enmeshed with and captured by the donor class. A popular vote compact is better than the goofy electoral college, I just don’t think it really does anything to break the grip of the two party system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    It wouldn't change any of the gerrymandering in the house, and the senate is gerrymandered by its very nature at the country level, why would it change the two party system?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Your point is valid, my hope is that a popular choice would have a wide ranging effect to de-incentivize the current two party system beyond the presidential elections. It could also help push similar legislation beyond presidential elections.

    Again, this is my hope -

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    It could also help push similar legislation beyond presidential elections.

    That's actually pretty fair. Hey, we didn't destroy the country... maybe we can try other changes to fix other areas.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    My vote doesn’t matter as I’m from a state that has been democratic since I was born.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    If this was ever going to pass, it would be during this time.

    I’d love it so much if this were the case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    Maybe one day they'll be a democracy, but I don't think the ruling class will allow it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 7 months ago (17 children)

    This compact is extremely unlikely to ever be enforceable. The ensuing court cases would make 2000 seem minor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    The Constitution gives the power to the states to appoint and direct their electors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Interstate compacts require congressional approval. This one doesn't have that. There's also a good argument that a state giving all it's votes to someone the state didn't vote for in the majority violates the rights of it's citizens to a republican form of government.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    States determine their election laws. Including how they apportion electoral college electors. I'm not sure what the counter-argument to that is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Not a legal argument but there is at least one state that already floated the idea of undermining the whole thing by refusing to publish their vote totals until all the electors are gathered to vote thereby preventing the popular vote from being determined ahead of time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Then couldn't they just ignore that state in the tally? It's just a quick way to disenfranchise your own state.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago

    A red state refuses to publish their voter tally.

    Every blue state in the compact chooses to ignore that state.

    Since they can't know the true popular vote count, every red state in the compact has cover to refuse to cast blue EC votes as required by the compact.

    If you and your state overwhelmingly votes for candidate A, yet your state's EC votes are cast for Trump's third term, you (or people like you) are going to demand your state withdraw from the compact.

    If the compact ever actually affects an election, it will be scrapped in a hot minute.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (8 children)

    yup. once it reaches the threshold, the congressional and legal battles that follow will likely keep it from ever actually taking effect without a constitutional amendment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

    Article II, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution: 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

    It seems pretty cut and dry to me. It gives absolutely no guard rails, limits, directives, or even suggestions as to how those states' legislatures may appoint Electors. They can do it "in such manner as [they] may direct". The states have the latitude to decide how to assign and direct their Electors however they see fit.

    It's already enough latitude that different states at different times have decided A) to give an elector to the winner of each district and two to the winner of that statewide winner, B) to give them all to the statewide winner, C) to have the legislature decide without a popular vote, and D) to hold a state vote and then ignore it anyway and let the legislature decide instead. And 13 states, still, fully allow individual "faithless" Electors to vote against their assigned/pledged candidate, and only 14 states will actually void and replace the electors who misplaced their vote (the other states where it is disallowed just give them a fine or criminally charge them but still let their vote stand)...

    If that's the kind of latitude that is already settled law, then it would be absolutely insane to draw the line at assigning Electors on the will of the whole nation, i.e. of the entire body of people who has a pony in this race, and based on a compact that the states representing the majority of Americans agreed upon. It doesn't disenfranchise anyone, the current system does that.

    I'm sure that it will be challenged. But there is absolutely no legal justification to overturn it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (5 children)

    The compact presumes that the individual states officially publish their popular vote count prior to the EC vote count. An unaffiliated state (or multiple states) can unilaterally declare that they will not officially publish their popular vote count until after the EC meets. The members of the compact cannot provably know the popular vote count; they cannot provably know that they will be casting their votes for the winner of the national popular vote, as required by the compact.

    That theoretical possibility is sufficient justification to overturn the whole compact.

    Further, if there is every a scenario where the compact actually changes the outcome of an election, any state that would be forced to switch its EC vote will see their populace pushing for immediate withdrawal from the compact, before the EC can even meet. They will have legislation drawn up and ready to sign on election day, releasing their electors from the requirements of the compact.

    As a theoretical exercise, the compact is interesting. As a practical alternative to the EC, it utterly fails.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    In such cases as the popular vote cannot be determined, or should enough members withdraw such that the majority of Electors no longer fall under the compact, the states can just fall back to their previous methods for determining their elector distribution. That's already established in the compact for the latter case, if I recall, though I don't know that they've a specific provision for another state not publishing their popular vote count. But regardless, worst case scenario, it can just default back to how it already is now.

    That would cause the compact to be ineffective, certainly, but still not constitutionally unsound or illegal.

    But even that isn't really a true limitation. If they wanted to, they could also just decide to only consider the officially published vote counts of all the states that choose to report it to keep any rogue states from holding the compact hostage. Or they could even just only count the votes of those states in the compact if they so collectively chose, to. I doubt they would, but they could. Again, they have unbound latitude here. Hell, if they were so inclined they could collectively decide to elect the president with the first name in alphabetical order. What's to stop them?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    I don't think the compact allows for only counting votes from participating states, but otherwise yeah.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    It doesnt now. Nothing stops them from agreeing to change the compact though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Making that change would be at least as difficult as getting it passed in the first place has been, probably harder, since for that to happen each state would need to pass a new law amending it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago*

    I wasn't suggesting that changing it so would be easy or simple. The point of the thread thus far was discussing the legality and effectiveness of such a compact.

    Someone suggested that as it is now it would be challenged and overturned by the courts. I argued that it is well within the bounds of the language in the constitution and legal precedent.

    And someone else suggested that would all but be overturned if any state withheld their voting numbers or if any state in the compact withdrew. I was agreeing that it could be stymied by such things under the current terms of the compact, but also pointing out that the compact can be changed by those in it to make it more resilient/impervious to external sabotage and to mitigate the risks of a schism while still remaining in constitutional bounds.

    The difficulty of that change is not nothing, for sure, but still far easier than a constitutional amendment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    The electors in most states are not bound by law to vote according to the results of the elections as is already. The electors could just do this without legislation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] -2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Doesn't really fix anything as long as it's a binary option, where all power goes to the winner.
    To improve democracy in USA, USA needs a parliamentary system, that allows representation by many parties, and a majority in that system decides who forms the government, and also has the power to overturn the government.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [+] -15 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    As interesting as this sounds - I honestly can't see it working.

    Can you imagine how Californians would react if the state gave its votes to Trump after he won the popular vote?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    It's just a good thing trump can't run again and he's besmudged MAGA movemenr for the most part. They're very unpopular at the moment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Amendment 15 VERY CLEARLY says he can't be President. VERY clearly. And the Supreme Court literally created a bullshit ruling pretending it doesn't.

    It's not even up for debate. That's what it LITERALLY says:

    https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    So...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • 2 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post
    [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    I don't see this coming to fruition anytime soon (if ever).

    Non-fptp voting for presidetial elections is also very unlikely.

    Which is unfortunate (for both things).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    It is moving slow, but the progress is substantial.

    The compact takes effect when states representing a majority of electoral votes – 270 of 538 – pass the legislation and thus would determine the winner of the presidential contest. With Virginia, the compact now has 222 electors.

    The Wikipedia article shows that it is currently being considered by legislatures in states having an additional 45 electors. It's a lot closer than I would have guessed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent