The national popular vote is one of my favorite inventions for how to get the extremely outdated electoral college removed from voting. Especially in states like California and Texas which...
The national popular vote is one of my favorite inventions for how to get the extremely outdated electoral college removed from voting. Especially in states like California and Texas which regularly go one direction, I've heard many people complain that their vote "isn't important" because they hold the opposite view of the state they reside in. It's also just plain unfair that a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote anywhere else.
In a recent dinner with my parents I told them about this and they were just as surprised and delighted as I was that it was a thing. Unfortunately, I've been aware of it for quite some time now and also know how slowly it's moving. Here's to hoping this creates a news cycle which might incentivize other states to start moving a little faster on making this a reality.
This article is the first time I've ever heard of this. I like these sorts of populist schemes that work inside the current system. They can be implemented immediately and gain the benefit of...
This article is the first time I've ever heard of this. I like these sorts of populist schemes that work inside the current system. They can be implemented immediately and gain the benefit of visibility and proof-of-concept.
I've heard of similar ideas for electronic direct democracy inside a representative democracy via some phone app. The representative promises to vote however the constituents tell them to. Assuming they keep their word, the result is effectively direct democracy without any legislation required. I found a couple examples of where this was proposed but i don't know if anyone has successfully implemented it yet. Some of the examples were sort of dubious (a libertarian running in a historically progressive district, included some clauses about overriding the results if there was a small enough gap).
While I like the idea, yikes. There are far too many people with far too much money for them to not find a way to exploit or hack this and cheat the voting.
I've heard of similar ideas for electronic direct democracy inside a representative democracy via some phone app
While I like the idea, yikes.
There are far too many people with far too much money for them to not find a way to exploit or hack this and cheat the voting.
Even if it were secure such that each person got to choose their vote and their vote got counted, voting by a phone app (or similar enough method) would allow for very easy ways to buy verifiable...
Even if it were secure such that each person got to choose their vote and their vote got counted, voting by a phone app (or similar enough method) would allow for very easy ways to buy verifiable votes on a large scale. All someone has to do is release another app that monitors your phone as you vote (or maybe even just check a screenshot of a receipt the voting app provides) and sends you money right then and there.
Yes, in the example I'm thinking of, the candidate did a reddit AMA that wasn't very well received. The most damning issue was that he claimed (but couldn't demonstrate) that his system could...
Yes, in the example I'm thinking of, the candidate did a reddit AMA that wasn't very well received. The most damning issue was that he claimed (but couldn't demonstrate) that his system could verify that votes were valid but that it was also anonymous. In that instance, the whole thing just smelled like a gimmick to swing an electorate with this concept and then vote however he wanted.
I know there are issues with electronic voting in general. If those problems could be addressed, they could provide radically new modes of governance and (hopefully) increased participation. I watched a computerphile video a while back that sort of argued that electronic voting would never be viable, I'm not that pessimistic but my present stance is based entirely in emotion.
I don't see why direct democracy needs to be electronic, it just needs to be easier to vote. In Switzerland I believe the majority of people just receive their ballot in the mail, that seems a lot...
I don't see why direct democracy needs to be electronic, it just needs to be easier to vote. In Switzerland I believe the majority of people just receive their ballot in the mail, that seems a lot more secure and would be easy to implement.
has the effect of massively boosting turnout immediately too. as i recall, all-mail states like colorado and oregon usually see figures of 60-70% turnout in both presidential years and midterm...
has the effect of massively boosting turnout immediately too. as i recall, all-mail states like colorado and oregon usually see figures of 60-70% turnout in both presidential years and midterm years in comparison to the 40-60% turnout and wild fluctuations between midterms and presidential elections non-mail states generally have.
I think we're likely to see Texas become a battleground state in our lifetime. It has all the makings of a bellwether state in the new economy. Missouri used to be the classic bellwether because...
Especially in states like California and Texas which regularly go one direction
I think we're likely to see Texas become a battleground state in our lifetime. It has all the makings of a bellwether state in the new economy.
Missouri used to be the classic bellwether because the states demographics aligned roughly with the country's demographics in terms of urban/rural, white/non-white, etc. The economy and racial makeup of the country has changed though, and I think Texas is more emblematic of how things will be in the future. I'd include North Carolina as a bellwether state candidate as well, provided their Neo-Jim Crow legislators manage to not undo popular representative government in that state the next time they win an election.
I haven't, and I thought that I paid attention. I must be paying attention to the wrong sources. If you recall, which sites are/have been talking about this proposal?
I've been aware of it for quite some time now
I haven't, and I thought that I paid attention. I must be paying attention to the wrong sources. If you recall, which sites are/have been talking about this proposal?
colorado is looking to be the first state of 2019 to pass a bill in support of the NPVIC, which is likely to be one of the interesting off-year plotlines alongside the possible ratification of the...
colorado is looking to be the first state of 2019 to pass a bill in support of the NPVIC, which is likely to be one of the interesting off-year plotlines alongside the possible ratification of the ERA (and, most likely, the legal clusterfuck that would follow). states supporting the the NPVIC combine for 172 electoral votes as of now, and colorado would bring this total up to 181.
it's likely that colorado will not be the only state to pass a bill in favor of the NPVIC this year, though: besides colorado, bills are pending in arizona, indiana, minnesota, mississippi, new hampshire, new mexico, oregon, south carolina, and virginia (76 electoral votes worth of states). new mexico's bill seems likely to pass this year at the minimum, and oregon and virginia are probably locks to also pass their respective bills at some point in either this session or the next one given their political make up. new hampshire, which has a democratic legislature but a republican governor, could also take it up this year and pass it under the right circumstances. as for the other bills, it's not clear, but there's definitely going to be some more movement toward 270 this year after a period of relative dormancy. we'll see how that goes.
I'm not clear on how this will work in practice - is the idea that, once the threshold is passed, the electoral college votes for the states in question would all go to the national majority...
I'm not clear on how this will work in practice - is the idea that, once the threshold is passed, the electoral college votes for the states in question would all go to the national majority holder, regardless of the votes within those given states?
more or less, yes. to quote nationalpopularvote.com here: it's essentially a weird hack of a way to get a popular vote system without having to amend the constitution.
The National Popular Vote interstate compact would not take effect until enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). Under the compact, the national popular vote winner would be the candidate who received the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) on Election Day. When the Electoral College meets in mid-December, the national popular vote winner would receive all of the electoral votes of the enacting states.
it's essentially a weird hack of a way to get a popular vote system without having to amend the constitution.
Only political ones: it would require ratification by a number of republican-dominated state legislatures to reach the required 270 vote threshold. Even though I'm sure Texas Republicans and the...
Only political ones: it would require ratification by a number of republican-dominated state legislatures to reach the required 270 vote threshold. Even though I'm sure Texas Republicans and the like would love to stick it to the swing states, fact remains that the last time a Republican gained the presidency by getting voted in was 1988, and I'm quite sure they're not interested in losing the advantage the electoral college gives them.
Still, it's going to be a lot easier to flip a few state legislatures than it is to go on the full 38 state slog for an honest to god constitutional amendment.
2004 is the fuzzy one of the bunch to be honest, because while bush won the popular vote it was contingent on him losing the popular vote in 2000, which would have rendered him presumably unable...
2004 is the fuzzy one of the bunch to be honest, because while bush won the popular vote it was contingent on him losing the popular vote in 2000, which would have rendered him presumably unable to win in 2004.
Only ones I can think of would be theoretical edge cases. For instance, suppose a guy wins the popular vote running on a platform of depopulating Montana and turning it into a nature preserve. The...
Only ones I can think of would be theoretical edge cases. For instance, suppose a guy wins the popular vote running on a platform of depopulating Montana and turning it into a nature preserve. The people of Montana would, presumably, have a pretty strong opinion on this and shackling their electors to having to vote with the rest of the country on a "Fuck Montana" platform seems kind of disrespectful of their states' rights.
On the other hand, the way the Electoral College is structured now basically disenfranchises anyone who lives in an urban area and isn't rich enough to be a big-money political donor. So it's not like the present reality is any more just or equitable than the hypothetical situation above.
Worse than that really, it disenfranchises basically all of the three in four Americans of all political stripes who live outside of the swing states. Rural Wyoming voters might have much more...
On the other hand, the way the Electoral College is structured now basically disenfranchises anyone who lives in an urban area and isn't rich enough to be a big-money political donor. So it's not like the present reality is any more just or equitable than the hypothetical situation above.
Worse than that really, it disenfranchises basically all of the three in four Americans of all political stripes who live outside of the swing states. Rural Wyoming voters might have much more individual voting power than urban California voters, but as blocs, both have no power when it comes to presidential races, since it's essentially predetermined which parties the states will go for, and dissenters are denied a voice.
In theory maybe. In practice the interests of rural Wyoming voters are vastly overrepresented in our political system, both due to the Electoral College and the absurd malapportionment of the Senate.
In theory maybe. In practice the interests of rural Wyoming voters are vastly overrepresented in our political system, both due to the Electoral College and the absurd malapportionment of the Senate.
decent chance it passes this year or early next year, because democrats are a virtual lock to win majorities in virginia's house and senate this year, and they'd be exceedingly likely to...
decent chance it passes this year or early next year, because democrats are a virtual lock to win majorities in virginia's house and senate this year, and they'd be exceedingly likely to reintroduce it and pass it accordingly. another path is through arizona, where a fight to ratify the ERA has been brewing for most of this month and democrats would only need to convince a few republicans to support a ratification effort.
Problem: the ERA had a sunlight provision so that the window for its passage ended on either March 22, 1979, to June 30, 1982. The reason that there is a question as to the date is that some...
Problem: the ERA had a sunlight provision so that the window for its passage ended on either March 22, 1979, to June 30, 1982. The reason that there is a question as to the date is that some states argued that Congress lacked the power to unilaterally extend the deadline. Congress won't do that while the GOP holds the Senate.
According to the Wikipedia article, Colorado has gone through this process three times already (2006, 2007, and 2009). Each time, it reached the same point it has now---passed in one chamber---and...
colorado is looking to be the first state of 2019 to pass a bill in support of the NPVIC,
According to the Wikipedia article, Colorado has gone through this process three times already (2006, 2007, and 2009). Each time, it reached the same point it has now---passed in one chamber---and then died without a vote in the other. If anything, it appears to have passed even more narrowly this time that previous times. Have there been significant changes in chamber composition or political motivation in the state that might make passing more likely this time?
the democrats actually control both chambers, for one thing
According to the Wikipedia article, Colorado has gone through this process three times already (2006, 2007, and 2009). Each time, it reached the same point it has now---passed in one chamber---and then died without a vote in the other. If anything, it appears to have passed even more narrowly this time that previous times. Have there been significant changes in chamber composition or political motivation in the state that might make passing more likely this time?
the democrats actually control both chambers, for one thing
update: this bill has passed the Colorado house committee it was assigned to, all but guaranteeing its passage in the near future since democrats have a trifecta.
update: this bill has passed the Colorado house committee it was assigned to, all but guaranteeing its passage in the near future since democrats have a trifecta.
The national popular vote is one of my favorite inventions for how to get the extremely outdated electoral college removed from voting. Especially in states like California and Texas which regularly go one direction, I've heard many people complain that their vote "isn't important" because they hold the opposite view of the state they reside in. It's also just plain unfair that a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote anywhere else.
In a recent dinner with my parents I told them about this and they were just as surprised and delighted as I was that it was a thing. Unfortunately, I've been aware of it for quite some time now and also know how slowly it's moving. Here's to hoping this creates a news cycle which might incentivize other states to start moving a little faster on making this a reality.
This article is the first time I've ever heard of this. I like these sorts of populist schemes that work inside the current system. They can be implemented immediately and gain the benefit of visibility and proof-of-concept.
I've heard of similar ideas for electronic direct democracy inside a representative democracy via some phone app. The representative promises to vote however the constituents tell them to. Assuming they keep their word, the result is effectively direct democracy without any legislation required. I found a couple examples of where this was proposed but i don't know if anyone has successfully implemented it yet. Some of the examples were sort of dubious (a libertarian running in a historically progressive district, included some clauses about overriding the results if there was a small enough gap).
While I like the idea, yikes.
There are far too many people with far too much money for them to not find a way to exploit or hack this and cheat the voting.
Even if it were secure such that each person got to choose their vote and their vote got counted, voting by a phone app (or similar enough method) would allow for very easy ways to buy verifiable votes on a large scale. All someone has to do is release another app that monitors your phone as you vote (or maybe even just check a screenshot of a receipt the voting app provides) and sends you money right then and there.
Yes, in the example I'm thinking of, the candidate did a reddit AMA that wasn't very well received. The most damning issue was that he claimed (but couldn't demonstrate) that his system could verify that votes were valid but that it was also anonymous. In that instance, the whole thing just smelled like a gimmick to swing an electorate with this concept and then vote however he wanted.
I know there are issues with electronic voting in general. If those problems could be addressed, they could provide radically new modes of governance and (hopefully) increased participation. I watched a computerphile video a while back that sort of argued that electronic voting would never be viable, I'm not that pessimistic but my present stance is based entirely in emotion.
I don't see why direct democracy needs to be electronic, it just needs to be easier to vote. In Switzerland I believe the majority of people just receive their ballot in the mail, that seems a lot more secure and would be easy to implement.
has the effect of massively boosting turnout immediately too. as i recall, all-mail states like colorado and oregon usually see figures of 60-70% turnout in both presidential years and midterm years in comparison to the 40-60% turnout and wild fluctuations between midterms and presidential elections non-mail states generally have.
I think we're likely to see Texas become a battleground state in our lifetime. It has all the makings of a bellwether state in the new economy.
Missouri used to be the classic bellwether because the states demographics aligned roughly with the country's demographics in terms of urban/rural, white/non-white, etc. The economy and racial makeup of the country has changed though, and I think Texas is more emblematic of how things will be in the future. I'd include North Carolina as a bellwether state candidate as well, provided their Neo-Jim Crow legislators manage to not undo popular representative government in that state the next time they win an election.
I haven't, and I thought that I paid attention. I must be paying attention to the wrong sources. If you recall, which sites are/have been talking about this proposal?
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
colorado is looking to be the first state of 2019 to pass a bill in support of the NPVIC, which is likely to be one of the interesting off-year plotlines alongside the possible ratification of the ERA (and, most likely, the legal clusterfuck that would follow). states supporting the the NPVIC combine for 172 electoral votes as of now, and colorado would bring this total up to 181.
it's likely that colorado will not be the only state to pass a bill in favor of the NPVIC this year, though: besides colorado, bills are pending in arizona, indiana, minnesota, mississippi, new hampshire, new mexico, oregon, south carolina, and virginia (76 electoral votes worth of states). new mexico's bill seems likely to pass this year at the minimum, and oregon and virginia are probably locks to also pass their respective bills at some point in either this session or the next one given their political make up. new hampshire, which has a democratic legislature but a republican governor, could also take it up this year and pass it under the right circumstances. as for the other bills, it's not clear, but there's definitely going to be some more movement toward 270 this year after a period of relative dormancy. we'll see how that goes.
I'm not clear on how this will work in practice - is the idea that, once the threshold is passed, the electoral college votes for the states in question would all go to the national majority holder, regardless of the votes within those given states?
more or less, yes. to quote nationalpopularvote.com here:
it's essentially a weird hack of a way to get a popular vote system without having to amend the constitution.
At first glance this sounds like a winner. Any obvious downsides?
Only political ones: it would require ratification by a number of republican-dominated state legislatures to reach the required 270 vote threshold. Even though I'm sure Texas Republicans and the like would love to stick it to the swing states, fact remains that the last time a Republican gained the presidency by getting voted in was 1988, and I'm quite sure they're not interested in losing the advantage the electoral college gives them.
Still, it's going to be a lot easier to flip a few state legislatures than it is to go on the full 38 state slog for an honest to god constitutional amendment.
2004 is the fuzzy one of the bunch to be honest, because while bush won the popular vote it was contingent on him losing the popular vote in 2000, which would have rendered him presumably unable to win in 2004.
That's why I said gained the presidency.
If you think the electoral college should still exist in this day and age or you hail from a state that is a swing vote you stand to lose some power.
Only ones I can think of would be theoretical edge cases. For instance, suppose a guy wins the popular vote running on a platform of depopulating Montana and turning it into a nature preserve. The people of Montana would, presumably, have a pretty strong opinion on this and shackling their electors to having to vote with the rest of the country on a "Fuck Montana" platform seems kind of disrespectful of their states' rights.
On the other hand, the way the Electoral College is structured now basically disenfranchises anyone who lives in an urban area and isn't rich enough to be a big-money political donor. So it's not like the present reality is any more just or equitable than the hypothetical situation above.
Worse than that really, it disenfranchises basically all of the three in four Americans of all political stripes who live outside of the swing states. Rural Wyoming voters might have much more individual voting power than urban California voters, but as blocs, both have no power when it comes to presidential races, since it's essentially predetermined which parties the states will go for, and dissenters are denied a voice.
In theory maybe. In practice the interests of rural Wyoming voters are vastly overrepresented in our political system, both due to the Electoral College and the absurd malapportionment of the Senate.
What's this about the ratification of the ERA? I had no idea that was on the table again.
decent chance it passes this year or early next year, because democrats are a virtual lock to win majorities in virginia's house and senate this year, and they'd be exceedingly likely to reintroduce it and pass it accordingly. another path is through arizona, where a fight to ratify the ERA has been brewing for most of this month and democrats would only need to convince a few republicans to support a ratification effort.
Problem: the ERA had a sunlight provision so that the window for its passage ended on either March 22, 1979, to June 30, 1982. The reason that there is a question as to the date is that some states argued that Congress lacked the power to unilaterally extend the deadline. Congress won't do that while the GOP holds the Senate.
According to the Wikipedia article, Colorado has gone through this process three times already (2006, 2007, and 2009). Each time, it reached the same point it has now---passed in one chamber---and then died without a vote in the other. If anything, it appears to have passed even more narrowly this time that previous times. Have there been significant changes in chamber composition or political motivation in the state that might make passing more likely this time?
the democrats actually control both chambers, for one thing
update: this bill has passed the Colorado house committee it was assigned to, all but guaranteeing its passage in the near future since democrats have a trifecta.