New Mexico aboard the National Popular Vote train

[poweRob]

Colorado a couple months ago and now New Mexico. National Popular Vote is Picking up steam.

Bill backing presidential popular vote gets Gov. Lujan Grisham’s OK

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed legislation Wednesday that could, someday, potentially short-circuit the Electoral College. House Bill 55 allows New Mexico to join a compact of states that would allocate their electors in a presidential campaign to the candidate who wins the most votes nationally. The idea is to ensure a president cannot be elected with fewer votes than a competitor.

Donald Trump, for example, won fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election but won enough states to be elected president. “Now, every vote in every state will count in every presidential election,” Sen. Mimi Stewart, a Democrat from Albuquerque and co-sponsor of the bill, wrote on Twitter after the governor signed the bill.​

 

[ttwtt78640]

Colorado a couple months ago and now New Mexico. National Popular Vote is Picking up steam.

Bill backing presidential popular vote gets Gov. Lujan Grisham’s OK

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed legislation Wednesday that could, someday, potentially short-circuit the Electoral College. House Bill 55 allows New Mexico to join a compact of states that would allocate their electors in a presidential campaign to the candidate who wins the most votes nationally. The idea is to ensure a president cannot be elected with fewer votes than a competitor.

Donald Trump, for example, won fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election but won enough states to be elected president. “Now, every vote in every state will count in every presidential election,” Sen. Mimi Stewart, a Democrat from Albuquerque and co-sponsor of the bill, wrote on Twitter after the governor signed the bill.​

Hmm... if candidate A wins the state yet candidate B wins the nation (or states under the compact) then how does that make votes in that state count? I have no problem with states that split their EC votes based on the popular vote within that state (e.g. NE and ME) but ignoring the popular vote in that state and awarding that state's EC votes based on votes in other states is moronic.

 

[poweRob]

Hmm... if candidate A wins the state yet candidate B wins the nation (or states under the compact) then how does that make votes in that state count? I have no problem with states that split their EC votes based on the popular vote within that state (e.g. NE and ME) but ignoring the popular vote in that state and awarding that state's EC votes based on votes in other states is moronic.

If it gets enacted after enough states are on board, then everyone's vote counts. Republicans in California and Dems in Texas. Everyone of their votes literally get counted to the decision rather than thrown in the trash by t he EC.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If it gets enacted after enough states are on board, then everyone's vote counts. Republicans in California and Dems in Texas. Everyone of their votes literally get counted to the decision rather than thrown in the trash by t he EC.

The population of New Mexico is less than the population of Houston (or Chicago). How does it make sense to let voters in Houston (or Chicago) decide how New Mexico assigns their EC votes? Why shouldn't the candidate that wins the popular vote in New Mexico continue to get the EC votes of New Mexico?

 

[poweRob]

The population of New Mexico is less than the population of Houston (or Chicago). How does it make sense to let voters in Houston (or Chicago) decide how New Mexico assigns their EC votes? Why shouldn't the candidate that wins the popular vote in New Mexico continue to get the EC votes of New Mexico?

In a 51% to 49% race in NM, why should the EC throw half the state's votes in the trash?

 

[Lesh]

It’s legal and it’s happening. I just read that Ohio is on board as well

 

[Ikari]

Hmm... if candidate A wins the state yet candidate B wins the nation (or states under the compact) then how does that make votes in that state count? I have no problem with states that split their EC votes based on the popular vote within that state (e.g. NE and ME) but ignoring the popular vote in that state and awarding that state's EC votes based on votes in other states is moronic.

I agree, I really hate this bill and regret that Colorado is part of it. It essentially cedes Colorado's vote to LA and New York. I think Colorado's vote should be cast as Colorado sees it. If you want to argue splitting, then that's another argument, one that does drive a bit closer to "popular vote" sorts of things. But I don't want to pledge our EC to the popular vote winner because it's quite possible that Colorado won't vote for the candidate who gets the popular vote, and I still don't believe the popular candidate should get CO's EC votes if we didn't vote for them.

 

[Mongidig]

You guy's are just lighting the fire under Trump voters.

 

[trouble13]

Hmm... if candidate A wins the state yet candidate B wins the nation (or states under the compact) then how does that make votes in that state count? I have no problem with states that split their EC votes based on the popular vote within that state (e.g. NE and ME) but ignoring the popular vote in that state and awarding that state's EC votes based on votes in other states is moronic.

I agree with your observation but i dont think there is anything illegal about it. I do have perdiction though. The first time it does not work out in favor of the Democrat nominee they will all be screaming to change it back. It seems to be a pattern of behavior within the party.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

In a 51% to 49% race in NM, why should the EC throw half the state's votes in the trash?

Thats exactly what happens in virtually every state currently. Its almost nothing more than a symbolic vote for dem voters in deep red states and vice a versa for the Republican voters in deep blue states.

Perhaps if states abandoned the winner take all method the election results would be closer aligned to the national popular vote.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[washunut]

In a 51% to 49% race in NM, why should the EC throw half the state's votes in the trash?

Perhaps we should do the same thing with congress. Thus if a state is 60/40 for a party then 60% of congresspeople come that party's slate. In my state which is something like this one party gets 100% of congress.

 

[joko104]

Legally it won't work.

1. There is no method in existence in law to make a formal determination of how many votes were cast nationwide, meaning it would take a federal law that does not exist. Thus, there would be no president at all.

2. If any state refused to certify the election there would be no president. There is no basis for California to force Oklahoma to certify an election result.

3. Every state could sue other states over their election laws.

4. A state could counter by stating they would certify their election consistent with their region, not the nation. The Texas legislature could vote that their electors must vote based upon the election outcome of Texas combined with Oklahoma, Mississippi, Louisiana and Georgia. So even if Texas voted Democrat, it would be certified that the Republican won all electors.

5. Election fraud or a computer glitch in one state affects the entire nation - or even completely eliminated the election. There is huge incentive for election fraud in ways that do not exist now. There is no purpose for election fraud in California or Oklahoma, because it is known California will go Democrat and Oklahoma will go Republican. But under this system, election fraud in Oklahoma or California affects the entire election.

6. If this principle is allowable, a state could also vote that all votes in their state go to the winner of their state. Thus, if 52% of Texans voted Republican, the state would certify that 100% of the votes cast are counted as Republican. If individual states can each make their own unique rules, then they can make their own unique rules.

7. It would be legitimate for rural states to pursue leaving the United States having no say in the selection of the president and victimized by large urban states.

I do not think this would survive a Supreme Court ruling. The intention of the electoral college is very clear. It is to prevent exactly what Democrats are trying to do - have urban population centers control the election and completely erase states. Nor would only states have standing to challenge it legally, but any voter.

 

[trouble13]

There is another big problem with adopting national votes. It is going to make recounts infintely complex and perhaps impossible. They may have to litterslly abolish the ability to contest election results.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Idiometer]

Colorado a couple months ago and now New Mexico. National Popular Vote is Picking up steam.

Bill backing presidential popular vote gets Gov. Lujan Grisham’s OK

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed legislation Wednesday that could, someday, potentially short-circuit the Electoral College. House Bill 55 allows New Mexico to join a compact of states that would allocate their electors in a presidential campaign to the candidate who wins the most votes nationally. The idea is to ensure a president cannot be elected with fewer votes than a competitor.

Donald Trump, for example, won fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election but won enough states to be elected president. “Now, every vote in every state will count in every presidential election,” Sen. Mimi Stewart, a Democrat from Albuquerque and co-sponsor of the bill, wrote on Twitter after the governor signed the bill.​

That doesn't make sense. That's just disenfranchising New Mexico's voters if that national winning candidate isn't who they chose.

The electoral college needs to go, but not in some convoluted workaround on the constitution. An amendment is the only way. The president does not represent each state, he or she represents all Americans.

One person, one vote, majority wins. Period.

 

[Idiometer]

If it gets enacted after enough states are on board, then everyone's vote counts. Republicans in California and Dems in Texas. Everyone of their votes literally get counted to the decision rather than thrown in the trash by t he EC.

That isn't how you described it. "... allocate their electors in a presidential campaign to the candidate who wins the most votes nationally." That would mean that if the majority of voters in New Mexico vote for a Republican, but nationally, the Dem is ahead in the popular vote, then the majority of voters in New Mexico may as well have stayed home.

That is not what Colorado did. Their deal here is to split the states electoral votes between candidates, proportionally according to the popular vote in this state. The national popular vote is not part of that equation.

 

[Idiometer]

I agree, I really hate this bill and regret that Colorado is part of it. It essentially cedes Colorado's vote to LA and New York. I think Colorado's vote should be cast as Colorado sees it. If you want to argue splitting, then that's another argument, one that does drive a bit closer to "popular vote" sorts of things. But I don't want to pledge our EC to the popular vote winner because it's quite possible that Colorado won't vote for the candidate who gets the popular vote, and I still don't believe the popular candidate should get CO's EC votes if we didn't vote for them.

That isn't what Colorado did. See my reply to poweRob above.

 

[Idiometer]

Thats exactly what happens in virtually every state currently. Its almost nothing more than a symbolic vote for dem voters in deep red states and vice a versa for the Republican voters in deep blue states.

Perhaps if states abandoned the winner take all method the election results would be closer aligned to the national popular vote.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Perhaps if we amend the constitution and make it one person, one vote, majority wins, we'll have a fair election for a president who is supposed to represent us all.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Colorado a couple months ago and now New Mexico. National Popular Vote is Picking up steam.

Bill backing presidential popular vote gets Gov. Lujan Grisham’s OK

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed legislation Wednesday that could, someday, potentially short-circuit the Electoral College. House Bill 55 allows New Mexico to join a compact of states that would allocate their electors in a presidential campaign to the candidate who wins the most votes nationally. The idea is to ensure a president cannot be elected with fewer votes than a competitor.

Donald Trump, for example, won fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election but won enough states to be elected president. “Now, every vote in every state will count in every presidential election,” Sen. Mimi Stewart, a Democrat from Albuquerque and co-sponsor of the bill, wrote on Twitter after the governor signed the bill.​

I have a feeling that this will immediately die the minute a republican wins the popular vote, and all the blue states are forced to give their electors to the republicans.

 

[Idiometer]

Perhaps we should do the same thing with congress. Thus if a state is 60/40 for a party then 60% of congresspeople come that party's slate. In my state which is something like this one party gets 100% of congress.

How would that work in states with only one rep?

 

[Ikari]

That isn't what Colorado did. See my reply to poweRob above.

It is what Colorado did. If the bill gets the requisite number of states willing to join, then Colorado's EC goes to the popular vote winner. If CO voted for someone other than the popular vote winner, then our ECs are hijacked and given away to a candidate we did not vote for. Colorado's EC votes should be for Colorado voters, not LA, not New York, not Chicago.

The EC is there, in part, to ensure that a President is beholden to the many states, not just the major cities.

 

[DarkWizard12]

It’s legal and it’s happening. I just read that Ohio is on board as well

source? The Ohio legislature isn't even taking it up.

 

[poweRob]

Perhaps we should do the same thing with congress. Thus if a state is 60/40 for a party then 60% of congresspeople come that party's slate. In my state which is something like this one party gets 100% of congress.

I like proportional respresentation like that. But the down side is then you do away with districts and make every politician at large. While doing away with districts would do God's work in killing gerrymandering you, as a member of the public, would then not have a direct representative for your area. Upsides and downsides.

 

[Cardinal]

I agree, I really hate this bill and regret that Colorado is part of it. It essentially cedes Colorado's vote to LA and New York. I think Colorado's vote should be cast as Colorado sees it. If you want to argue splitting, then that's another argument, one that does drive a bit closer to "popular vote" sorts of things. But I don't want to pledge our EC to the popular vote winner because it's quite possible that Colorado won't vote for the candidate who gets the popular vote, and I still don't believe the popular candidate should get CO's EC votes if we didn't vote for them.

The notion of ceding votes to other states is a persistent holdover from the electoral college system. Under a popular vote, there are no states; just voters.

 

[poweRob]

source? The Ohio legislature isn't even taking it up.

Here's where Ohio is with it at this point.

*edit... Where every state is with it at this point.

 

[Ikari]

The notion of ceding votes to other states is a persistent holdover from the electoral college system. Under a popular vote, there are no states; just voters.

Yes, but there are actually 50 States in the the Republic, and the President is beholden to the Republic on whole, and thus the EC is there in part to ensure that the President appeals to the many states not just the major cities.