10 + 15 ....+ 21 ?

// Published January 14, 2008
Gov. Corzine signed the National Popular Vote (NPV) bill into law last week, ushering New Jersey into the interstate compact to change the way the president is elected, nine months after Maryland enacted the same law.

The NPV compact will require an Electoral College majority of 270 electors to take effect. In addition to Maryland's 10 votes and the Garden State's 15, all eyes now turn to Illinois, where the bill was sent to the governor for signing last week as well.

Will America soon be 46 electors closer to more democratic presidential elections? Stay tuned!

Comment on 10 + 15 ....+ 21 ?

Current Discussion

  • A site listing some pros/cons of the electoral college vs NPV: http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

    Posted by AllAboutVoting, 01/28/2008 (2 years ago)

  • As a supporter of a national popular vote (but not necessarily of the NPV compact - I can imagine too many ways it can go wrong), I can address Kramer's concern. NPV-specific: The selection of presidents by states rather than by people is an artifact of our electoral college system. There is no good reason why, in my view, a voter in one state should have more voting power than another voter in a different state with regard to this decision. One artifact of this system is that there are a few 'battleground states' which get attention while voters in other states are ignored. You suggest that NPV would lead to an increased risk of tyranny. Please justify this. (Note that improved single winner elections that tend to elect compromise candidates [such as approval voting] tend to ameliorate that concern.) Other systematic changes: Kramer brings up a few systems which are 'more democratic' but which he implies to be poor choices: 1. unicameral legislature. I am against this. I think that a legitimate balance of power is created by having a bicameral legislature. That said, I would prefer for members of the House to be selected in a better way then a bunch of single winner elections determined by (frequently gerrymandered) geographical districts. 2. amending the constitution. I have no objections to amending the constitution if the amendment is one that I perceive to be an improvement. 3 national plebiscite. For what? A periodic vote for president - sure, that is NPV. Issue specific changes? I'd resist this. I favor representative democracy where the representatives represent their constituency as accurately as possible (which is why I think the way we select representatives in the House is lousy).

    Posted by AllAboutVoting, 01/28/2008 (2 years ago)

  • Will America soon be 46 electors closer to more democratic presidential elections? One can only hope not. Perhaps the folks promoting this idea would explain why "more democratic" is ispo facto better. Should we move to a "more democratic" unicameral legislature (i.e., abolish the Senate?) How about amending the Constitution? Should we do it by National plebiscite? If the "more democratic" argument is dismissed as the unsupported noise it is, we are left here with no reason at all to want a National Popular Vote. There may be other reasons, but the only ones I know of are bogus or insufficient to justify the risk of tyranny. I'll leave it to others to make them, though, if they can. Hopefully, the argument will consist of more than its conclusion.

    Posted by Lawrence Kramer, 01/28/2008 (2 years ago)