The question is no longer if Democrats can pass a popular vote model for president, but whether they have the will or determination to do so. If those states opt to join the compact, it could go into effect as soon as the 2028 presidential election.
Spoiler: No.
Remember, if the headline asks a question, the answer is no.
Also known as Betteridge’s Law of Headlines for today’s lucky 10,000.
I can’t wait to learn about this all over again the next time this shows up.
It depends on what their donors want.
Hear that ratchet sound?
They should absolutely try, but let’s be clear - it would not work.
The moment they do it, it will trigger legal challenges from the red states, which will eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court, which, given its current conservative composition, would rule some bullshit like “The constitution intends for smaller states to have greater representation and this is an illegal end-run around that”, and then the compact is dead forever.
You only get one chance to get a ruling on its constitutionality, and you want to pull the trigger when your odds are best.
That’s blatantly not true. Precedent has gone out the window.
Even if the Compact were not allowed, those states could all individually appropriate their electors to the popular vote winner if they wanted to. Not that they will.
Without the legal structure of the compact, it would become a complete mess of every legislature fighting over electoral vote allocation methods every 4 years, and it would almost certainly be the case that that would not always be a democratically desirable allocation.
Even if the compact passed, the moment one of the legislatures flips, one of the states could pass legislation to suspend or remove themselves from the compact, and we’re right back to the electoral college.
I’d love to see popular vote as our selection method too - but the interstate compact is a fragile hail mary that, while we should pursue it, is likely not proportionally durable or useful enough to justify the amount of political capital and effort it would take to make reality.
I think this speaks to a problem Democrats have that Republicans don’t, which is we insist on each action being fully considered, planned and weighed against alternative uses of energy, whereas Republicans just do it.
The advantage they have is that, by just acting, they can do a lot more, which creates more and more work for us to fight. And what we forget is that, like how they cause problems for us in having to litigate and roll back what they do, what we do also causes problems for them that takes effort to fight.
So instead of pre-defeating it, I think a better conclusion is that we should do for laudable and progressive things what republicans do for morally, constitutionally and legally wrong things: just do as much as fast as we can, and let them worry about spending time and energy fighting it. Sure, we of course follow the law, but stop over-optimizing and planning.
So the reality is, they will have to triage too. And if NPV exists, with bipartisan buy-in (as it seems to poll usually) as the status quo for a few cycles, it may be very costly and probably not worth it for Republicans to fight it.
You know what? Solid point. As long as it doesn’t come at the EXPENSE of bigger fish, I’m all for it.
They won’t
I think the question comes down to who are the states not on board that can now come on board and would it benefit them?
And unfortunately, the states that could sign on that now have trifectas according to the article are all benefitting from the current system: Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan. Since they are swing states.
And several of them have presidential hopefuls that I am sure are trying to fundraise on the fact they can deliver those states. 2 of which are governors. So I think this is all a long way of getting to what the OP said…
TLDR: Most likely no, they will not sign on.
deleted by creator
Spoiler: No.
It’s absolutely wild how you keep throwing that shit out there with absolutely no logic and counter to everything that’s happens since neoliberals got the boot from running the DNC.
It’s like if AOC gets elected in 2028, and you tried to convince people that since she’s a president now, she’ll be the same as trump. Because he was also president.
Completely nonsensical and absent of logic, but you just keep repeating it over and over…
Who is “you” in your first sentence?
The person who wrote it…
If the NPVIC want to be taken seriously, they need to ignore Democrat majority states, and exclusively lobby the safe conservative states. As long it’s marketed as the Never Elect Another Republican Interstate Compact, and sold exclusively to states who think that’s a good idea, it paradoxically can only be used to do the exact opposite and elect a Republican who otherwise would have lost. Until the movement gets significant bipartisan support, I see fundamentally four cases:
- The compact does nothing because the majority threshold isn’t reached.
- The compact does nothing because the Democrat wins all the compact states and the national popular vote and the electoral vote is unchanged.
- The Democrat candidate wins an electoral majority from the compact states, but loses the popular vote. All the compact states vote for the Republican as the compact requires.
- Same as 3, but the compact states allege voting irregularities in Idaho and unanimously agree to not count those votes so that the compact states can vote Democrat like they would have done without the compact.
It will never be bipartisan because the Republicans benefit immensely from the EC. Before Trump 2 they had never won the popular vote in my lifetime.
Ok, well then there’s no point doing it at all. If the Democrats have 270 safe electoral votes, then they don’t need a compact, don’t want a compact, and won’t even feel obligated to hold themselves to its terms. They can just use their existing electoral college majority to elect the Democratic president they want, regardless of the NPV totals.
Why would smaller states, democrat or not, vote for this? It makes no sense for them.
How would it not make sense for them? The vote just counting directly makes sense for everyone.
Low population states have disproportionate power in the electrical college. Wyoming has half a million people but gets 3 electrical college votes (1 for house rep 2 for senators) 166666 people per elector. Texas has 40 (38+2) and 31 million people, or 775000 people per elector.
A vote in Wyoming is worth 5 in Texas.
Right…
But these small Dem states know that the EC is Republicans only path the the White House…
Getting rid of it benefits them personally because:
-
More Dem presidents mean more chances for them to be president or cabinet. It makes the party more powerful, which makes them more powerful.
-
At this point Republican presidents may arrest them for bullshit anyways, not to mention ICE random killings. It’s a real physical danger to everyone, especially since that whole “kidnap your 90 year old mom” shit.
Like…
Why are people caught up on that one tiny aspect of why they’d want the EC, instead of the shit ton of reasons why they’d want to stop the other party from every being president again?
Did someone internet famour say it? Or billionaire owned media?
1 op said Democrat or not
2 low population states are Republican more often than not (12/22 states/districts with 6 or fewer electoral college votes)
1 op said Democrat or not
Apparently you don’t know what “____ or not” means…
“2” doesn’t fucking matter, because we know why red states want the EC, which again, is why “dem or not” can be construed as just “dem”
“dem or not” can be MIS-construed as just “dem”
-
Why would Dems vote for something that helps everyone?
Because people picked progressives in primaries…
I’m not sure you understand how the electoral college works.
…
Alright, here it is, simple:
Some people put the interests of everyone over their personal interests.
If you absolutely need a selfish motivation:
Even Dems in smaller states realize the electoral college is the only way Republicans can become president, and Republican presidents are bad.
Are Democrats democrats? Or are they like communists from the Chinese Communist party?
