The Interstate Compact to by-pass the Electoral College

[hedgehog]

Briefly, this would be a contract between states. The compact would go into effect only when enough states have signed on to make it effective. The state would promise to have their electors vote for whoever wins the Presidential Race in the popular vote regardless of the outcome in that particular state. It is a way of ensuring that the Electoral College reflects the popular vote.

One reason to support this:

Washington, D.C.: population: 550,521; Electoral Votes: 0

Wyoming: Population, 509,294; Electoral Votes: 3

[youngblue]

1. DC gets 3 electoral votes

The 23rd amendment became effective in 1961 and gives DC the same number of electoral votes as the smallest state.

There's alot of reasons to support this but claiming that DC doesn't get electoral votes isn't one of them.

[hedgehog]

3. Sorry - you're right

I was thinking of D.C.'s non-voting Representative.

[Solo_in_MD]

2. This isn't workable for any number of reasons

why not amend the Consitution directly to eliminate the EC and go to popular vote

[hedgehog]

5. The compact is a way to allow the majority of voters to obtain a

popular vote without the interference from smaller states holding up any amendments. The disparity in size between small population states and large population states has grown considerably since Colonial times. As a result, residents from smaller states can have an inordinate influence on a presidential election. Residents from Eastern states can control the election results through the Electoral College before Californians even get a chance to vote. We really should amend the way Senatorial votes are apportioned as well, but I don't think that will ever happen.

[Solo_in_MD]

6. Not sure its enforceable or would survive court challenge. The honest

way to address this is consititutional change, be it amendments or a convention.

Also IIRC nothing in the law requires electors to vote what the results in their state decided (Unfaithful electors).

[dtotire]

8. In Addition

If the Constitution is amended to require a popular vote, there should also be a provision to require a runoff election if there are three or more candidates and noone receives a majority. See what is happening in Mexico where the two leading candidates received slightly over 35% of votes cast.

[hedgehog]

9. The problem in Mexico is that a lot of people think the vote was fixed.

Ensuring an honest and accurate vote count should be part of this compact.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. Interesting reference document from the FEC

Lists the history of the college and major arguments in favor of and against the electoral college system
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

FYI:The author was an FEC employee

[dtotire]

7. Popular Vote

Right on.

[RB TexLa]

4. Just take 1 EV from the top 6 in population and assign those to the winner

of the popular vote.

Personally I like the system just like it is, but that would be the simplest way to assure a non win by non popular vote winner.

[longship]

10. I prefer Maine's solution.

I don't like the electoral college, but neither am I entirely onboard for popular vote Presidential elections.

Maine proportions their electoral votes by district. IMHO, that is a pretty damned good compromise and is doable without amending the Constitution.

I am against the OP recommendations because then every President would win with 100% of the electoral votes. Claims of "mandate" would be ubiquitous. Furthermore, this would further water down the chances of third party candidates of obtaining any recognition.

Maine's solution is the better one because it preserves the balance of the popular vote, albeit on a state-by-state basis. Note, that this solves many of the electoral problems without straining the system.

[hedgehog]

12. That would work only if the districts were fairly drawn.

How well do you think it would work in Tom Delay's Texas?

[longship]

15. Well, this year it might work pretty damned well. ;-)

TX-22 is likely to put a Dem into Congress.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. The EC, like the senate, should be abolished.

Both give way too much power to the more conservative, thinly populated, states.

[RB TexLa]

14. Like Rhode Island and Vermont?

:shrug:

[hedgehog]

16. Take a look:

Wyoming - 501,242people/3 votes California - 35,484,453/55
Washington, D.C. - 563,384/3 Texas - 22,118,509/34
Vermont - 619,107/3 New York 19,190,115/31
North Dakota - 633,837/3 Florida - 17,019,068/27
Alaska - 648,818/3 Illinois - 12,653,544/21
South Dakota - 764,309 /3 Pennsylvania - 12,365,455/21
Delaware - 817,491/3 Ohio - 11,435,798/20
Montana - 917,621 /3 Michigan - 10,079,985/17
Rhode Island - 1,076,164/ 4 Georgia - 8,684,715/15

Total: 6,541,973 people Total: 149,031,642people
28 votes 241 votes
230,000people/vote 620,000 people/vote


All things being equal, it would take two people from the top nine states to cancel out a vote from the bottom nine states as it stands today.

As far as the Senate goes, 6 million people have 16 Senate Seats vs. 149 million people with 18. Not exactly 1 man, 1 vote , is it? How likely do you think the small states are to ratify the Constitution to eliminate this imbalance?