Back in July 2019, I wrote here on MattChat about the growing interest/momentum in eliminating the Electoral College here in the U.S. Read that post here:
https://matthonnold.blogspot.com/2019/07/march-to-eliminate-college.html
8 months later, that momentum just keeps getting more and more steam to it.
From a article in "The Atlantic" earlier in 2020:
The idea is to get the country closer to having a national popular election for president within the current constitutional framework and without the need for a constitutional amendment. Under this system, the Electoral College would still exist, and it would still pick the president. As a constitutional matter, Article II gives each state the power to select its Electoral College members—what the Constitution calls “electors”—by whatever means the state chooses. It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen. And there is no constitutional problem with a state using other states’ voting tallies, even if the states have different voting rules and ballot forms. As long as each state treats people within its own borders equally, there is no equal-protection issue.
In this way, the NPV retains the constitutional device of the Electoral College but also moves the country closer to a less convoluted national vote. As a policy matter, the NPV helps address the two biggest criticisms of the status quo. The first criticism is that the current system does not respect the one-voter, one-vote principle, because voters across the country don’t have an equal voice in selecting a president. The second is that the margin of victory or loss within a state is irrelevant, given nearly every state’s winner-take-all approach to allocating presidential electors, so presidential campaigns are not national at all. Instead, they are focused on a handful (anywhere from four to eight) of reasonably sized “swing” states where the median voter is in play.
(https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/national-popular-vote/604861/)
I think NPV is inevitable.
But, am I a fan? No. Small town and small state votes will become meaningless. Candidates will lean heavily towards the population centers -- in effect, creating even more of a divide here in the U.S. between rural and urban.
Grace & Peace & Love to you all -
Matt
https://matthonnold.blogspot.com/2019/07/march-to-eliminate-college.html
8 months later, that momentum just keeps getting more and more steam to it.
From a article in "The Atlantic" earlier in 2020:
The idea is to get the country closer to having a national popular election for president within the current constitutional framework and without the need for a constitutional amendment. Under this system, the Electoral College would still exist, and it would still pick the president. As a constitutional matter, Article II gives each state the power to select its Electoral College members—what the Constitution calls “electors”—by whatever means the state chooses. It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen. And there is no constitutional problem with a state using other states’ voting tallies, even if the states have different voting rules and ballot forms. As long as each state treats people within its own borders equally, there is no equal-protection issue.
In this way, the NPV retains the constitutional device of the Electoral College but also moves the country closer to a less convoluted national vote. As a policy matter, the NPV helps address the two biggest criticisms of the status quo. The first criticism is that the current system does not respect the one-voter, one-vote principle, because voters across the country don’t have an equal voice in selecting a president. The second is that the margin of victory or loss within a state is irrelevant, given nearly every state’s winner-take-all approach to allocating presidential electors, so presidential campaigns are not national at all. Instead, they are focused on a handful (anywhere from four to eight) of reasonably sized “swing” states where the median voter is in play.
(https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/national-popular-vote/604861/)
I think NPV is inevitable.
But, am I a fan? No. Small town and small state votes will become meaningless. Candidates will lean heavily towards the population centers -- in effect, creating even more of a divide here in the U.S. between rural and urban.
Grace & Peace & Love to you all -
Matt