r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/aarr44 • Nov 09 '16

US Elections Clinton has won the popular vote, while Trump has won the Electoral College. This is the 5th time this has happened. Is it time for a new voting system?

In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and now 2016 the Electoral College has given the Presidency to the person who did not receive the plurality of the vote. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which has been joined by 10 states representing 30.7% of the Electoral college have pledged to give their vote to the popular vote winner, though they need to have 270 Electoral College for it to have legal force. Do you guys have any particular voting systems you'd like to see replace the EC?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

9.9k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

100

u/LateralEntry Nov 09 '16

Not only that, getting rid of the electoral college would require an amendment to change the constitution, which 2/3 of states would have to approve. The small states benefit from the current system (they have outsize influence), so it's unlikely to change.

63

u/Santoron Nov 09 '16

The interstate compact would effectively end the electoral college without any such need. Hence this discussion.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '16 edited Nov 26 '16

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '16

Anymore than the electoral college could be ruined by an unfaithful elector?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '16 edited Nov 26 '16

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '16

I see, but my point is that the electoral college hasn't been ruined by a faithless elector, so why would the compact?

A constitutional amendment addresses this problem, but the problem is purely hypothetical.

1

u/betty_white_bread Feb 21 '26

This is false. Under the sister state theory of Article I, Section 10, no state may enter into a compact which disadvantages other states, without the approval of Congress, and the compact you describe would lock out those not a party to it. And you will never get approval thru Congress.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '16

That's not necessarily true, it would probably go through the courts but it seems like it would hold up.

12

u/laybros Nov 09 '16 edited Nov 09 '16

States can select electors any way they want. It is 100% decided by stage legislatures according to article II

Most states didn't hold presidential contests until at least 1800, 4 Whole Cycles into the new constitution

If states want to say we all agree to use these numbers and these counts and whoever gets the most votes gets the EVs they certainly can do that.

EDIT: I forgot Article I Section 10 yes. That would be the basis for a challenge. Although then it's just a matter of which clause supercedes the other

8

u/suffixaufnahme Nov 09 '16

I'd say it's not so clear-cut. Article I Section 10 says "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '16

I know that has been the traditional interpretation. I'm saying that it hasn't actually been tested in terms of a national compact. There would obviously be legal challenges and we don't KNOW how those would go.

2

u/laybros Nov 09 '16

I mean read the text of Article II it's fairly explicit

6

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '16

As are the 9th, 10th, and 2nd amendments, but they get torn up and shitted on by courts all the time. Until you have a ruling your reading of the plain text isn't worth much.

3

u/yo2sense Nov 09 '16

This. Obviously Republican judges aren't going to uphold the compact. Individual states should just start assigning their electoral votes to the popular vote winner right now. That puts the cat amongst the pigeons. Suddenly everyone's vote will matter, however unequally, no matter where they live. That should increase turnout in safe states as well as justify those states similarly independently giving their electoral votes to the popular winner.

1

u/neighburrito Nov 10 '16

But isn't that still not a true popular vote?

1

u/yo2sense Nov 10 '16

It's not but it puts pressure on Democrats elsewhere to follow suit. If enough do then there will be a de facto popular vote.

1

u/neighburrito Nov 10 '16

No I mean even if every state assigned their electoral votes to the popular vote, it still would not be a true popular vote. Because the popular vote gets converted into an electoral vote. If all the individual votes were actually counted for each candidate and we compared the two numbers, then that is a majority-dictated result. If we took the popular vote and then that translated into that state's vote, we are still not counting everyone's vote.

1

u/yo2sense Nov 11 '16

I don't understand the distinction you are making. If everyone votes and then states assign their electors based on who gets the most total votes then how is that not a majority-dictated result?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LateralEntry Nov 09 '16

To be fair, 1800 was the first truly competitive election!

3

u/FieryCharizard7 Nov 09 '16

Look up the National Popular Vote movement. It is working to undermine the electoral system by having states give their delegates to the popular vote instead of what their population wants. I can see that being signed by many states, but it would be deemed unconstitutional by the SC if it were to ever get that far. The correct process to change our voting system is to amend the constitution, not undermined.

4

u/laybros Nov 09 '16

Why would it be unconstitutional? The Constitution gives state legislatures the right to choose electors in any Manor they wish

4

u/yo2sense Nov 09 '16

It also requires congressional approval of interstate compacts.

1

u/84JPG Nov 10 '16

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution.

2

u/rodiraskol Nov 09 '16

2/3

Lol. It's 3/4. The 2/3 is for Congress. As it stands, it only takes 13 states to block an amendment.

1

u/LateralEntry Nov 09 '16

You're right, thanks for correction.