USA's Electoral College isn't likely to ever be replaced by a national popularity election.

Electoral College is part of our constitutional compromise; it will not likely be replaced with other than some compensating provisions for the lesser populated states while such states remain to be no less than a third of USA's states.
Respectfully, Supposn

"Ever" is a mighty long time.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is moving along at a reasonable pace to potentially replace the Electoral College in the next maybe 100 years. And I picked 100 years just for the heck of it because about 110 years ago United States senators were not directly elected by voters. So saying something isn't likely to "ever" change is a bit silly. There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution. I could match your perdicting the future by saying the NPVIC reaches 270 electoral college states and then it essential prompts the idea of making the crap super official with an amendment and nothing at all is given as compensation to the smaller states.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ectoral%20vote.

Senators are elected by each state's legislature. It's in the Constitution and will never change.

Ladybruin, I posted "unlikely to ever" be replaced without some other compensating provisions for the lesser populated states …; I didn't post “never”.
If as few as 1/3 of our states are among our nation's lesser populated states, I don't believe those lesser populated states' governments, or their senators, or their voters would support a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, (NPVIC) enabling constitutional amendment, unless their states are sufficiently compensated for their loss of political leverage.

Lacking a constitutional amendment, the 17 nations that signed on to the NPVIC could this year begin exercising their substantial political power. (We never can be certain of our power's extents, until we actually have the need exercise those powers).
Without a constitutional amendment, what happens when one or more of the states chooses to resign from the NPVIC? Respectfully, Supposn

Vermont, Rhode island and Maine are very small, and they endorsed the NPVIC.

If this was a long bet, then I would certainly take the your side but specify “ in any of our lifetimes, meaning not within 100 years or so

Supposn, have you every considered taking part in some of the existing threads, rather than starting a thread every month or two with whatever random thought you have that day? Like in this case, your OP sounds like it could be an interesting contribution to an existing thread on the topic if there was one, but as a standalone thread it strikes me as rather lacking, sort of like an answer to a question nobody asked. But maybe it's just me.

Well, it is pretty clear support of the NPVIC is something Democrats and Democrat states have favored, as they perceive it will benefit them, in the short and long run. So a few low population dark blue states endorsing the NPVIC should be expected.

It is possible Trump's rising popularity among working class Latinos and Black males will pour some cold water on this assumption. For good or bad, Trump and more generally the Republican Party appeal to low information potential voters, irrespective of race. So Democrats should be very careful assuming low information non white people will continue to vote Democrat indefinitely.

Dunyain, Referring to the link, ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nati...rstate_Compact ) provided by Ladybruin's post, NPVIC has substantial bipartisan support. Respectfully, Supposn

I have a compromise that makes it more democratic while also not making it a pure national popular vote.

Current system is each states gets votes equal to the representatives in the House and Senate, and the winner of each state gets all of that state's votes, except for a few states.


My system: Each state gets votes equal to the representatives in the House/Senate. 2 of those votes represent the Senate and are both given to the winner of the state. The remaining votes for a state are split proportionally based on the results of that state's popular vote, rounding as necessary.

This way, all voters can feel like their vote will have an impact even in a state that is majority Red or Blue. But it also doesn't make small states feel like they have no impact. The other option is 2 votes for each state's winner and then 1 vote for each congressional district won. But then you still have the issue of someone in a blue district of a blue state who might feel their vote doesn't matter. I want the minority party in each state to feel like they have something to actually go vote for and that even their 30% of votes will impact the election.


Thoughts???

This is a transcript of a post within another online political forum: Rich2018, you want to eliminate the Electoral College and the president be always elected by the national popularity election.

If some states should attempt to starting enactment of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, (NPVIC) provisions, I don't believe it will continue to be sustainable. Assuming our congress never terminates the pact, and our federal courts find no faults with the pact, eventually one or more member states will resign for reasonable or unreasonable cause from the pact which will then start unraveling.
What you prefer, requires a constitutional amendment; that's why the NPVIC is being attempted.

Why would the smaller states agree to an amendment substantially reducing their greater per-capita representation when electing a president or passing legislation within the House of Representatives? Obtaining the smaller states' support for the constitutional amendment will require their being politically compensated. How much compensation would the smaller states require, depends upon the amendment's extent of reducing their state's greater per-capita powers of representation.

So let us assume the amendment only eliminates the Electoral College, and the smaller states retain their greater per-capita representation within the House of Representatives. In that case, compensating the less populated states is more manageable.
Additionally, I'm reasonably confident passage of such an amendment would also require henceforth all those applying to register as voters in future federal elections will have to prove their USA citizenship.

If all of that is manageable and doable, doesn't it make you wonder why USA's states and Congress have been unable to manage and do it? Respectfully, Supposn

With the Electoral College, Trump is on the phone with Georgia officials, "fellas, I need 11,000 votes."

With the NPVIC, who is Trump going to call and try to ask for more than 7,000,000 votes?

LadyBruin, what Trump paid for Stormy Daniel's non-disclosure is chump change. Trump won't just pay for people working phone banks. He'll pay for people to lead armed mobs attacking election boards everywhere.

One of my children, last week pointed out if the president is elected by the national popular vote, a state's winner can no longer be announced when the total uncounted mail votes do not exceed the apparent winner's plurality at the moment. We'll have to wait until all USA states' deadlines have passed for receiving postal mail votes, and all those votes have been opened, examined, and counted.

Trump didn't have confidence in any state's popular vote, (if he wasn't the winner in that state). If presidential elections are determined by the national popular election (rather than the Electoral College), the next Trump-like candidate will be dependent upon and questioning the count of ever vote, in every poll station, in the entire USA.
Respectfully, Supposn