Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Compatibility with Instant Runoff Voting

I went ahead and posted this content:

The compact's compatibility with Instant Runoff Voting has not yet been assessed in a court of law. One way in which states could attempt to implement a partial national instant runoff popular vote for President would be by allowing their own citizens to cast a ranked choice ballot, and then counting the votes for President from other states as being ranked choice ballots with only a first choice selected.

What do you think of this approach, could it be legal? Captain Zyrain 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think it looks a little weird as a separate section. Can it become an item within the Criticism chart? For example:

Issue	Criticism	Response
Compatibility with Instant Runoff Voting	The compact's compatibility with Instant Runoff Voting has not yet been assessed in a court of law.	One way in which states could attempt to implement a partial national instant runoff popular vote for President would be by allowing their own citizens to cast a ranked choice ballot, and then counting the votes for President from other states as being ranked choice ballots with only a first choice selected. (would need citation)

Szu 10:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding Zyrain's observation that:

"The project's early momentum ... appeared to have mostly petered out by late 2007."

The reason for less activity in recent months is simply because most state legislatures have adjourned until next year. No?

Szu 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That was my read on the situation as well. Also, isn't his statement fairly subjective? Should we axe it? --Cms479 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Are there any objections to removing the statement? Szu 01:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and axe. We'll see where it stands a year from now. Captain Zyrain 19:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here are some interesting charts showing the state legislative sessions:

http://www.statenet.com/resources/pdf/2007_Legislative_Session_Calendar.pdf

http://www.statenet.com/resources/pdf/2008_Legislative_Session_Calendar.pdf

Szu 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any more talk about the NPV compact's compatibility with IRV? Interestingly, someone noted on the FairVote blog that the NPV compact is incompatible with approval voting. See [1] . Is that so? Couldn't we just count all the votes? Ron Duvall (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading a blog that suggested a "sequel" to the NPV compact: an "NPIRV" compact in which all the member states would agree to use IRV-compatible ballots and would do a national IRV calculation to determine the winner, who would then receive all their electoral votes. (Votes cast in states that did not use IRV-compatible ballots would be counted as ballots with only a first choice marked.)

I can't find it now though. I did a Google search for "NPIRV" but there's nothing, so they must have used a different name... Anyone know anything about this?

Szu (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Major reorganization

Just did a major reorganization of the article and I think it seems better organized now. Most of the text is just moved around, but I also added a fair amount of content where it seemed to fit.

I'm new to this, so please go ahead and fix any problems. Thanks as always.

Szu 07:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the reorganization, it seems more logical to me. It would be nice to find a place for your map that you found that has spending from the 2004 election- maybe where we talk about reasons for change?

A minor point, you put in double bullets in one section, I'm going to fix that.--Cms479 16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that!

I tried putting the map in that section, but it seemed to make the section too long, too detailed... After all, the "Reasons for change" section should be just a quick overview, not a detailed catalog of Electoral College criticism. So... I slipped the map into a few other articles where it seemed more central, such as swing state and United States Electoral College. I think it'll be a better fit there.

Szu 05:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Congressional consent required?

There should definitely be a section on this question in the article. When I saw the words "interstate compact" I immediately thought that this would be subject to Congressional approval. According to some of the commenters above, however, this is not the case. Please add some referenced material on this to the article. Cheers. Grover cleveland 05:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, congressional approval is not required, because states can apportion electoral votes however they chose, even if this would include some of them banding together to effectively make it a popular vote election for president. See, for example, Maine and Nebraska which vote for electors by district, not by a states as a whole.--Cms479 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this have much of a chance?

I admire the ingenuity of this proposal, but something about the "hacking" of the Constitution doesn't sit right with me. What kind of chance do you guys think this has of ultimate success? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.140.50 (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the compact is signed by the IL governor, and if it gets past gubernatorial opposition in CA and HI next year, then it would have 1/3 of the votes it needs. Adding, say, NY, NJ, MA & PA would make it almost 2/3.

I don't know if NPVIC qualifies as "hacking" the Constitution, since the current system of state-by-state voting is not mentioned anywhere in that document. All it says is that each state legislature has the right to decide how to appoint its own electors.

Szu 14:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't violate the letter of the Constitution, but there's certainly an element of deviousness to it. The Founders obviously didn't intend the Electoral College as practiced circa 2007 but more certainly they didn't intend that states find some way to circumvent the prescribed amendment process.

Another question I have. What of equal protection concerns using this system? I know that the Electoral Votes would still "officially" decide the election, but the de facto vote would be the nationwide popular vote, which raises the issue of different voter elegibility standards state-by-state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.171.155 (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a published source raising concerns about equal protection, please share it!

As for the founders' intent, it was for the states to decide how their electors are chosen. If this Wikipedia article makes NPVIC seem contrary to that intent in any way, then that's a flaw in the article. Perhaps it should be rewritten to say that although a constitutional amendment was often imagined to be the only way of instituting a national popular vote, NPVIC has made states realize that no such amendment is needed because they already have the right to decide how their electors are chosen.

Szu 04:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

removed material sourced with advocacy organization

I've pulled the following pieces from the Reasons for Change section, because they are sourced with FairVote, an advocacy organization, which is not considered a reliable source. In some other cases, I was able to find, in the time I had, original sources. I also left a bullet point sourced with NPV, which should likewise be replaced with an original source. I think that is also the same NYT editorial, but it should be replaced with direct quotes or more direct paraphrases. I'm pretty sure that the following can be put back with the proper sourcing. (One of the problems with sourcing documents from advocacy organizations like FairVote is that they may be framed with analysis that leads to desired interpretations; thus the reference becomes advocacy, in effect.)

Polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a popular vote, for the following reasons:

• There is debate over whether the Electoral College favors small states or large states. Many argue that it favors small states, pointing out that such states have more electoral votes relative to their populations. Some scholars, however, believe that the potential of large states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more actual clout.

--Abd 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Abd. I am adding sources that allow us to restore much of the original version:

• The Gallup source for the 1944 data will now be included.

• The argument about campaigns focusing on swing states can indeed be found in a number of published sources, not just a single New York Times editorial. I am adding some of these sources, so I think it's safe to revert back to "Many observers believe..."

• Ditto for the argument about voter turnout. It isn't just mentioned in a lone NYT editorial, but rather can be found in multiple published sources. I am now including some of these sources, so I think it is safe to say that "many argue" instead of just the NYT.

• I am now providing more sources to back up the contention that "there is debate over whether the Electoral College favors small states or large states."

Thanks again for helping out!

Szu 13:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Many remaining references are to the NPV site, which can't be used as a "reliable source" except for *arguments* originating there or as a report on the site itself. Thus, if some other source is cited on the NPV site and then used here on that basis, the text must say something like "According to National Popular Vote, So-and-so wrote that ...." This is obviously less desirable than directly reporting the source for what So-and-so allegedly wrote. Facts (other than the narrow exception mentioned) cannot be sourced except under narrow conditions that an advocacy site can't satisfy, generally. Arguments must be attributed, and the attribution must be reliable. I'm leaving those references alone for now, trusting that those more closely involved with this topic can and will find and edit the original sources in.

To be sure, original documents stored on an advocacy site are a grey area. If those documents are presented straight, with no editorial comment, allowing them for sites which are generally accurate in presenting such things and not suspected of altering documents *might* be allowed, but clearly presenting the original sources is preferable. The FairVote references were framed by FairVote, and these frames have been known to, shall we say, emphasize what favored the agenda of FairVote and not aspects that might be contrary to that agenda. --Abd 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, several more sources have now been replaced. The only remaining advocacy organization links should be:

• The FairVote study on presidential campaign visits and advertising, now clearly marked as the work of an advocacy organization.
• A copy of the LA Times endorsement, not available elsewhere. I have included an additional article referencing the endorsement.
• A copy of the Star-Tribune endorsement, not available elsewhere. I have included an additional article referencing the endorsement.
• Two of NPV's arguments in the "Responses" section, which are clearly marked in the text as arguments originating there.
• There are links to NPV in the legislative details section; I'm not going to mess with those.

Thanks again!

Szu 22:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The tables with states

In several states, there has been more than one attempt to get this passed, and some of them are still pending. Either we should put some states (New York, Illinois) in two tables, or we should label the tables "current attempts" and "failed attempts".

Another solution that is perhaps nicer is to have (besides the table with Maryland of course) a table "States where legislation is pending or may be introduced" (the year should probably be omitted at some point anyway) and "Failed attempts". The columns with "final outcome" could be removed, I think, since it follows from the table headings.

Finally, Massachussetts appears to be simply misplaced.

Thoughts? --KarlFrei (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think MA and IL are still pending in the 07-08 session (which is why I haven't changed the map) but for scheduling reasons they can't be passed this year, which is why Nightstallion moved them to the "did not pass as of 2007" table. ...?

I think I'd prefer a single table with all 50 states in alphabetical order. Then we wouldn't need to move states from one table to another, and it would be easier for people to find their own state and see all the info about past and present attempts in one place.

I understand that having separate tables makes it easier to see the current status of the legislation, but the maps already highlight that info. To make current status more visible within a unified table, perhaps we could change the "Outcome" column to "Status" which would allow us to add color-coded options of "pending" and "not introduced" in addition to "failed" and "passed"...?

Szu (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! --KarlFrei (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and combined the tables into one. I do not understand why many states have a "failed" status although a bill has only been introduced there. I guess this should be changed to "pending"? --KarlFrei (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, remember that each row in the table records an separate attempt to pass NPVIC in a certain year, such as 2006 or 2007. (See the "Year" column.) So the "Status" of those rows should be "failed" because although the bill was introduced in that year, it was never voted on, and so it died in that year. So that's why those attempts weren't listed as "pending"...

Of course, once the 2008 sessions start, we'll probably see a number of legislatures make another attempt to pass NPVIC. For each bill that is introduced, a new row with "2008" in the "Year" column will be created and its "Status" box should say "pending" until it's either dead or signed into law... Does that make sense?

A few people here have been maintaining the tables... but I'm not one of them. It would probably be good to hear their thoughts on this, if they're around...?

Szu (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that each row represents a separate attempt, but surely just because a bill has not yet been voted on does not mean that the attempt failed? They might still vote on it in January 2008 or whenever. It seems strange to make a new row just because the entire process was not concluded in one year. --KarlFrei (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if a bill is not passed by the end of the session, it is usually considered to have failed, and so lawmakers in the next session must start the process all over again with a new bill. Maybe it's a little misleading to say "failed" for all those attempts when another attempt could be made next year... Is there another phrase we can use that sounds less final than "failed"...? ("did not pass"...?)

Szu (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticing this debate -- yes, they have indeed "failed" for 2007, as the session is over for this year in many of those states. "Did not pass" would be fine, too. I'm afraid I don't have the info on which sessions are already over for 2007 at hand right now, though... —Nightstallion 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case I think a text like "did not pass" is much better. The text "failed" should actually be used for bills that were voted upon and rejected. --KarlFrei (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrases "no vote was held" or "was not voted on" might be even more accurate, especially if they're going to be contrasted with "failed" in the states where the bill was actually defeated in a vote.

BTW Nightstallion, here are a couple of PDFs that contain all the legislative session dates:

http://www.statenet.com/resources/pdf/2007_Legislative_Session_Calendar.pdf

http://www.statenet.com/resources/pdf/2008_Legislative_Session_Calendar.pdf

I'm not an expert on legislatures, so I don't know what they mean by the "Carryover" column. But it seems to imply that a large number of the legislatures have a "2007-08" session while the others consider each year to be a separate session. Does it mean that the legislation introduced in the "2007-08" states is still pending until the end of 2008?

Szu (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed -- someone should correct that, then... —Nightstallion 13:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I just did. —Nightstallion 13:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll update the map.

Szu (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Constitutionality

The editor who added the blurb about Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution conveniently overlooked Article 1, Section 10.

Since that argument will be twisted and shot down by the Wikipedia Wordsmiths, just read the this, after which there should be no doubt in your mind that the Electoral College is vital.

Those of us who live way out in the boonies, hundreds of miles off the beaten path, would prefer not to have our lives dictated to us by the likes of New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The EC was put in place to protect us, the minority voice. This whole subject only became popular because Gore lost in 2000. All arguments in favor of a direct popular vote come from the stung pride of the Democratic Party, and perhaps a few fringe groups like the Ku Klux Klan, who love the idea of direct democracy -- that's what a lynching is, after all. I'm disgusted with Bush too, but you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The answer is to educate the people so they vote on the issues rather than the soundbytes. Yes, there will be times when you will get "burned" by the system. But it can happen to either side. And it's not as if Gore won a majority; he took 48.38% of the popular vote to Bush's 47.87%. So they both got 48%, give or take. Not exactly a heart-stopping theft of office. Get over it, it's been nearly a decade.

Bottom line: Stop questioning the brilliance and foresight of the Founding Fathers. They were way, way smarter than you, on every conceivable level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinions, but this is not a forum for discussing NPVIC. This is a place to discuss the Wikipedia article, which is based on the consensus that NPVIC is a type of agreement that does not require Congressional consent. If you can find published sources that cast serious doubt on that consensus, please let us know!

Szu (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

I can't quite put my finger on it yet, but the article seems to read in a bit of a negative tone towards the subject matter of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Does anyone else get this feel? Lawrence Cohen 08:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at this article so many times now it's hard for me to tell. If you can find something specific, feel free to bring it up here or tweak it yourself. Szu (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it seemed POV in a positive direction (especially the section with the "Criticism" and "Response" pairs, with the second always getting the last word and the former never rebutting what the latter says). The whole format of that section seems dubious (see Wikipedia:Pro and con lists). I'm not as sure what should be there instead, but perhaps some links to articles like Voting system and Election administration in the context of this proposal. Unfortunately, I don't expect to have the time to implement any of these ideas or think about it more :-(. Kingdon (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article in its entirely reads like an advertisement for the legislation. It needs a good shot of neutrality. Averyisland (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It actually makes me feel better knowing that there are complaints from both sides.

I wasn't aware that the criticism/response format was discouraged, but now that you mention it I can understand how it's unfair to let the pro side get the last word on each point. What if each pair of quotes was replaced with a brief paragraph that would cover the same info, but balancing which side got the last word?

Szu (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii status?

What color should Hawaii be now?

Szu (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you've got it exactly right -- it's got a two year session, and in this session the bill has already failed, so it's red. —Nightstallion 09:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but NPV now has Hawaii in two colors on its map (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com)... and when I found the status of Hawaii's HB234 (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=HB234) it says "Carried over to 2008 Regular Session"...???

Szu (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the relevant bill was SB1956 -- which I can't find any longer on the official website...?! —Nightstallion 14:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I went back to the Hawaii legislature site and did a search for "electoral votes"... and it seems that NPVIC has now been reintroduced in both houses... (HB2728, SB2168, HB3013, SB2898...?)

(http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/search/billsearch.asp?query=electoral+votes&currpage=1)

So I will update the map. I don't know how the chart works, though... so if someone could add this in, that would be great...

Szu (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss this, Averyisland:

Here is the disputed text:

• The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency while losing the popular vote, as happened in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. This scenario can affect both major parties. In 2000, Al Gore lost the election despite winning the popular vote. Four years later George W. Bush would have faced the same situation himself, if John Kerry had received 60,000 more votes in Ohio.

How is it a violation of NPOV to mention the fact that both parties are vulnerable to losing the election while winning the popular vote?

Thanks!

Szu (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this disagreement as well. Avery, the text you want to put "Advocates of direct election view this [the winner of the election not being the popular vote winner] as a drawback" is misleading. What reasonable person wouldn't view this as a drawback? Those who are in favor of the Electoral College may be willing to accept this as a flaw in a preferable system, but they too would have to admit its a drawback.--Cms479 (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is POV to assume everyone views such a situation as a "drawback", or even a "flaw", and worse to say "What reasonable person wouldn't view this as a drawback?" Not everyone does, or there would be no objection here to the passage, and objecting doesn't mean that one is unreasonable either. - BillCJ (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Szu points out that the winner of the popular vote could lose the election, while Avery uses language that suggests that only those in favor of direct election would view this as a drawback, which is not the case. I suspect most people, even those in favor of the electoral college, would admit this is a flaw/drawback in the system. But this is not up for debate, my point is the same as yours, lets not use words like flaw or drawback, certainly not to suggest that only certain groups of people would use those words. And while my preceding comment is indeed POV, its not a part of the article. Lets focus on the two proposed wordings.--Cms479 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the way I see it. There is no reason to add additional information regarding the 2000 election, same as there is no reason to add additional information regarding the other elections. They are all linked in the first sentence of the section. It is superfluous to write "This scenario can affect both major parties" because it provides a limited view of the entire process. It can affect all candidates and it is noted as such in the first sentence. The reference to the 2004 election is unnecessary. It's a hypothetical scenario, it did not happen, and there are already four instances of it happening in the past, which are noted in the first sentence. This is a cherry-picked fact and could be applied to any deficit in any state. On top of that, the "source" cited is an editorial. As an opinion article, it is irresponsible to use it to back up NPOV.

"Advocates of direct election view this [the winner of the election not being the popular vote winner] as a drawback" could be worded better, I'll admit, but it is a true statement. The Electoral College is designed to accommodate this "flaw" and was done so to prevent a few heavily populated states from silencing smaller states by winning every single election. Nowhere did I say that this view is exclusively held by those in favor of direct election. Averyisland (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. And thanks also for pointing out the original wording, which I agree was somewhat biased.

However, I think the added info about the two most recent elections is worthy of inclusion. The reason why both are mentioned is that they serve as examples to illustrate the preceding sentence: that such a scenario can affect both major parties. I think it's valuable to mention that fact because after the intense drama of 2000, many readers may have the misunderstanding that it could only happen to Democrats such as Gore.

2004 is important as well because it was more of a near-miss than a hypothetical situation. If two airplanes almost hit each other, that's not hypothetical. It's a near collision, worthy of attention and investigation.

Mentioning the details of 2000 and 2004 also serves the added purpose of providing illustration to an otherwise colorless historical list. Makes it more interesting and readable, I think.

As for the citation, I agree it should be sourced somewhere else. But that's not a big deal for such an obvious fact; the problem can easily be fixed by finding the official election results and changing the citation.

Szu (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I doubt any reasonable person would be led to believe that only one party could be affected. The wording is plain, simple, and to the point. It is possible to win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. Parties are not taken into consideration. This additional information does not provide clarity or make the article any easier to understand.

Also, using the term "near-miss" as you do suggests that a catastrophic event was avoided. This is a pro-national popular vote viewpoint. I must reiterate that the Electoral College allows for this possibility and is not designed to prevent it. To say two airplanes "almost hit each other" is a fact. To say that "this is what would have happened if they did hit each other" is posing a what-if scenario. Besides, adding 60,000 votes to Kerry's total would not have made him the winner in Ohio. The "fact" is incorrect.

I maintain that details of the 2000 and 2004 elections are unnecessary and should be removed. On top of all this, It makes the article look as if it were written from an anti-Bush perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyisland (talk • contribs) 17:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the highly partisan nature of the 2000 experience, and the fact that Democrats are more likely to support a popular vote, I think that many people may falsely believe that the Gore scenario is something that can happen to Democrats only, or Democrats primarily.

Find a reliable source to back this view up.Averyisland (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion forum, not an article that needs to be sourced. If we need to source everything here, then you'd need find a reliable source to back up your claim that "no reasonable person would be led to believe that only one party could be affected." Szu (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As for "near-misses" I would not use such a biased term in the article itself, but here in the discussion I think it's fine. The article itself no longer implies that the 2000 scenario was good or bad. It just says that it happened, and it came very close to happening again four years later. I don't see how that's anti-Bush.

Putting additional emphasis on those elections, as opposed to the 3 others, makes the compact appear like a reaction to Bush's 2000 victory. If it is, which is entirely possible, it should be explicitly noted as such.Averyisland (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how merely mentioning the details of 2000 and 2004 is anti-Bush. Does anyone else see this? Szu (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Ohio numbers are 2,858,727 for Bush and 2,739,952 for Kerry. Move 60,000 voters from Bush to Kerry and you get 2,798,727 for Bush and 2,799,952 for Kerry. A Kerry win. The numbers are correct. And 60,000 out of nearly 6 million voters is such a small percentage that I think it's reasonable to say that it was a distinct possibility.

The statement as it is in the article states "if Kerry had received 60,000 more votes" which presupposes that these votes are taken away from Bush. The way it is written suggests that he would have won the state if 60,000 more people showed up to the polls and cast their votes for him. It is speculative, misleading, irrelevant and has no place in this article.Averyisland (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So we should change it to: "if Kerry had received 60,000 more votes from Bush"... I still think this is a legitimate near-miss and therefore worthy of inclusion. Szu (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to mention that the Electoral College allows for this kind of scenario. But that's already covered in first four words of the disputed text: "The Electoral College allows..."

This is the exact same point I used to back up my argument. The first sentence makes the superfluous information you insist on adding unnecessary.Averyisland (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence does not explicitly state that the Gore scenario can happen to either party, which I think is worth mentioning. Szu (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help us out here?

Szu (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire "Reasons for Change" section needs to be re-written anyway.Averyisland (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your passion about this paragraph, Avery, but honestly I don't understand it. The section in dispute merely states that the Gore scenario can happen to both major parties, and provides detail from two recent elections to back up that statement: Bush's win in 2000 and Kerry's near-win in 2004. I don't see anything controversial about it. I agree that the earlier version describing the phenomenon as a "drawback" had some biased words in it, but I think we've fixed those.

If anyone out there is still following this discussion, can we hear your thoughts and resolve this dispute? Please?  :-)

Thanks!

Szu (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with including this text. I agree that it can help to clarify that this is not an issue which can only affect one party, and it is nice to have some recent examples. --KarlFrei (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We've spent entirely too much time arguing about one sentence. You are not making strong or rational arguments to back up your points. This isn't something I'm passionate about, I'm trying to explain that the Electoral College does not take political parties into consideration and that this article is giving a tremendous amount of attention to otherwise insignificant legislation. In fact, the article looks as if it was written to help promote the legislation. I was simply trying to fix one part of it. I'm going to propose the following:

• 'Reasons for Change' suggests that a change is necessary. This should be retitled 'Background' or something along those lines.
• The current 'History' section should be integrated into 'Background'.
• Legislative history should remain separate, where it currently is.
• Support and Criticism really doesn't warrant its own section, as most of it is repetitive and the parts that are not could easily be integrated into the rest of the article where appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyisland (talk • contribs) 20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Avery. Interesting ideas. I can see how the name "Reasons for Change" might seem biased and I'd agree with renaming it "Background."

I can also see how "History" might work well as the second half of "Background." (i.e. After outlining the dissatisfaction with the Electoral College, we go right into "The idea of abolishing the Electoral College by constitutional amendment has existed for some time...")

However, I think "Support and criticism" (or "Debate"?) deserves its own separate section. I agree that the pairs of quotes may give an unfair advantage to the pro side since they get the last word each time, so I'd support replacing each pair with a balanced paragraph summarizing both the pro and con arguments.

Szu (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

POV tag on article

Okay, a POV tag was placed. I looked over the discussion above, which involved the editor who placed the tag, and I did not see a POV dispute that was explicit, sufficiently that a neutral editor could resolve it. Help me out. Will the parties involved in this dispute lay out their cases explicitly and, hopefully, concisely? Please focus on text in the article which is allegedly POV. I believe that there was text in the article that was taken out as allegedly POV. So, considering the editor who did this as the "complainant," will he make the complaint explicit? I would ask that other editors who oppose the position of the complainant not respond with explanation first. If we can become explicit enough, and still can't resolve it, then RFC can be used, etc. --Abd (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't speak to others' concerns but I'd tag it myself if it had not already been tagged. The largest problem with the compact is that it is unconstitutional. That this objection is not addressed at all is very much a POV problem. It's a blatant attempt at an end run around the Constitution and no Constitutional discussion ensues? You can find a semi-decent discussion of the constitutional issues here but read the comments for improvements, the original author missed a few clauses.

In other words, tagging words isn't the solution because the most egregious failing is what is not covered. TMLutas (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguments about constitutionality have previously been raised on this discussion page, but no one has found any actual published sources to back them up. If such sources exist, please use them to add a section on "Constitutionality" in Criticism and Support. Thanks! Szu (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and made some changes in an attempt to address any possible POV issues. Can the tag be removed, or are there other issues we need to discuss? Szu (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at the changes Szu made. That NPV is unconstitutional is a notable opinion, often expressed, so it should -- if proper source can be found, which might be simply attributed opinion by a notable critic -- be covered in the article. (I've been claiming in quite a few articles that attributed notable opinion does not have to meet WP:RS except as to the fact of the opinion and its proper attribution, and there are alternatives to peer-reviewed or edited and published sources. (A notable author's blog, for example, could be a source for the author's opinion). As to the substance, though, it's not a fact, it's an opinion. States have the right, under the Constitution, to choose their electors by *whatever* process, as long as it does not violate certain basic rights, so a first impression would be that this, being merely a way that a state chooses to determine its electors, would be constitutional. In the famous election case of 2000, you know, the one where the Supreme Court chose the President (so to speak), the grounds for interrupting state process, the only one that made any sense, was denial of equal rights. Some votes were being counted again, and not others, as I recall. NPV treats all voters in a state equally, so I don't think an objection on that ground would fly. And I essentially made up the argument that it would violate equal protection just to refute it. Most authorities seem to think NPV constitutional on its face. Whether or not it's a good idea is another matter. I think there are better and simpler ways to accomplish the purpose of better elections. But, hey, that's just my opinion. I'm not going to put it in the article unless some source appears! --Abd (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Abd said "That NPV is unconstitutional is a notable opinion, often expressed, so it should [be covered] -- if proper source can be found." Doesn't an opinion have to have been properly sourced somewhere before it becomes notable? I agree that unless a specific issue is under debate in this section, the tag should be removed, so I'm doing that. Mdiamante (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

POV - Replacing quote pairs with balanced paragraphs

The only big POV issue I can see in the article is the pairs of quotes, which seem to give a distinct advantage to the pro side of the debate, since it always gets the last word. Therefore I suggest we replace the quote pairs with these paragraphs, which alternate who gets the last word:

Small states and rural areas

Supporters of the compact argue that most of the smallest states are largely ignored under the current system because they are not swing states. Critics counter that smaller states also have fewer popular votes, which may lead candidates to ignore them and focus instead on areas with large populations. Compact supporters argue that under a popular vote, candidates would continue to campaign in small, medium and large towns, just as they currently do within competitive swing states such as Florida and Ohio. Critics contend that the large numbers of popular votes in urban areas would draw candidates away from rural issues and needs.

Close elections and voter fraud

Critics of the compact have suggested that a direct national election would raise concerns about election fraud. Pete du Pont states that in 2000, "Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country's 175,000 precincts. 'Finding' three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing..." However, National Popular Vote has argued that a direct election would reduce the incentive for fraud. They claim that the large nationwide pool of 122 million votes would make a close outcome much less likely than it is under the current system, in which an extremely small number of votes in any one of the separate statewide tallies may determine the national winner.

Nature of elections

Although direct election is already the method by which Americans elect their members of Congress, state leaders and local officials, critics such as du Pont have argued that a direct popular vote in presidential contests could lead to a change in the current two party system. They contend that the difficulty of winning electoral votes under the current system may discourage third party and single-issue candidates from running, and therefore switching to a popular vote may encourage more third party and single-issue candidates to enter the race.

Electoral votes awarded to national winner, not state winner

Two governors who have vetoed NPVIC legislation, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Linda Lingle of Hawaii, have stated that they object to the compact because it would mean that their states' electoral votes may be awarded to a candidate who did not win statewide. Supporters of the compact have countered that under the popular vote system, the awarding of electoral votes would be practically irrelevant; that giving the state's electoral votes to the national winner would be a mere symbolic formality with no political meaning, because the popular vote would have already decided the outcome.

Any thoughts? Szu (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. —Nightstallion 22:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've posted it. It may not be perfect, but I think it's more balanced than the quote pairs. If anyone has other POV issues, feel free to post here or in the thread above. Szu (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionality

I don't have language to put in here, but it *is* a commonly-raised issue, and I'd be surprised if there isn't anything that can be found for it. That is, I've seen the constitutionality argument many times, which is a rough indication of notability. Because we are talking about opinions, standards for sourcing get, in my opinion, a little easier. But it's entirely possible that none can be found. However, we should try. Even if someone promoting that opinion doesn't show up. (And the other side might be fairly easy, I think that constitutional lawyers have weighed in .... let's hope so!) --Abd (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What may kind of kill this argument is that when I searched for "National Popular Vote" unconstitutional, I found arguments against it that acknowledged it was constitutional:

James Joyner (blog)

Technically, there is nothing extra-constitutional about NPV. The Constitution gives state legislatures absolute authority to allocate their Electors as they wish. Indeed, in the earliest days, they simply appointed Electors with instructions to vote for a specific presidential and vice presidential candidate. It was decades before the westward expansion created a groundswell for elections.

However, see this: Robert Prather (blog)

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least one reason why this might be unconstitutional: The supporters apparently don’t intend to get Congress’s approval of this pact. Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This is the strongest constitutionality argument I've seen. However, note that he says that it "might" be unconstitutional. This specific argument should be addressed in the article. My understanding of it is that this doesn't apply, because this is not a compact in the meaning of that section. It comes into effect when ratified, but there is no enforcement mechanism, nothing other than a coincidence of legislation, and a process whereby *each state* decides how to proceed. No state could use sue another state for "non-performance" under the Compact. My opinion. Now, where is a source for this? I think I've seen it, some place where this specific issue was examined.

There seems to be an opinion that the power behind NPV is "disgruntled Democrats." Of course, the electoral college/all-or-nothing problem bites both ways. Some seem to have short memories.

Here is another blog:

J.J. Jackson (blog) The author gives definitions for Treaty and Alliance and Confederation and Compact, but seems to have overlooked that words have a range of meaning, and that meanings overlap does not make every usage of one word equivalent to every usage of every other word. The Compact is misnamed, is the fact. It isn't a Compact except that it has an effect similar to one. If my state decides to choose electoral votes based on how a certain number of other states choose theirs, and if there is conditional legislation in a series of states that implements a plan based on conditions in other states, so that I can know, if I'm the elections official for my state, what other states are going to do based on deadlines in the legislation and what we do, I make my decision, subject to the laws of my state and my interpretation of the laws of other states. If I err, it's a matter for my own state's courts. (This is a reason why true compacts would have to be approved; whose courts would have jurisdiction. Here, only my state's court would have jurisdiction. If a state failed to perform -- and the state supreme court in that state failed to rectify it -- I'd have no recourse. This, indeed, could be a flaw in the Compact, but it is not a constitutional issue (and I don't recall how, specifically, this is addressed, if at all.) Essentially, this author claims that because a compact is an treaty, and this legislation is called a compact, it must be a treaty. Really bad logic. But it's going to convince a lot of people who don't think accurately!

Here is an article Peter Shane (blog), in which an apparently noted professor says he has "doubts" about the constitutionality of the Compact, but isn't particularly detailed as to why. He cites his own prior articles, but those were not on this particular point, I think. (He favors the general idea, by the way, and seems to hope he is wrong.) --Abd (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow... there's more stuff out there now than there was when I last looked. It seems that the consensus is that NPV is constitutional, but I'd agree that a law professor at a real university is a legitimate source for an opinion, even if it's just on his blog. Also I found a very recent mention of unconstitutionality in the Columbia Law Review.

I don't think the Wikipedia article needs to get into the nitty-gritty of the constitutional issues until they are better defined and more widely agreed upon. But for now we should definitely mention that a debate exists. So how about adding something like this to the "Debate" section:

Constitutionality

Some law scholars have raised doubts about the constitutionality of of the compact, arguing that it could be struck down by the courts for various legal reasons, or that it would not be constitutional without the consent of Congress. Other constitutional law experts such as Maryland state senator Jamie Raskin, who co-sponsored the first NPVIC bill to be signed into law, see no legal conflict and count themselves among the compact's most ardent supporters.

As mentioned in that paragraph I also found an academic source challenging the consensus that the compact needs no Congressional approval. I will change the mention of that in the article to reflect the disagreement.

Szu (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionality of Governor Vetoes

Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution states that

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."

Since the state legislatures, not the state governments including the governor, determine how electors are assigned, governors may be unable to veto the Compact, which would mean that California and Hawai'i have entered it. On a side note, this also probably means that popular referendums cannot approve it or otherwise change the way electors are selected. SteveSims (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Arguments can be mentioned in the article if there are reliable published sources to back them up.

Szu (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked a lawyer today and he said that the federal Constitution gives that power to define the appointment of electors specifically to the state legislatures. Also, the legislatures cannot give this power to the governor. However, taking an originalist, as opposed to a strict constructionist approach, one may be able to argue that "Legislatures" meant "states."

This is original research and thus should not be included in Wikipedia (plus I didn't ask a Constitutional lawyer), though. SteveSims (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think that Governors have to sign the bills to enter the compact, which is more than just determining how electors are assigned. There is nothing to prevent each state from assigning its electors to the winner of the popular vote - no interstate compact is necessary. Perhaps that could be achieved without the governor's approval. However, to achieve certain rules, such as that states will do this only when a majority of the College is signed on, can't withdraw a week before the election, etc., takes an interstate compact. Rrlemur (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)rrlemur

Series of article issues

I'm new, but I have a particular interest in this issue, and I wanted to offer some thoughts that could improve this article. I realize that I'm new, but please consider these options that would drastically cut down this article's size.

• First, the "legislature" debate (i.e., the constitutionality of gubernatorial vetoes) is relatively meritless. The Supreme Court has interpreted Article I § 4, which has a similar directive about the "legislature" in redistricting that mirrors the language in Article II, and has concluded that gubernatorial vetoes are a part of the "legislature." See Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932); Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565 (1916). That said, there is some debate about whether ballot initiatives pass this definition of "legislature." See Richard L. Hasen, When 'Legislature' May Mean More than 'Legislature': Initiated Electoral College Reform and the Ghost of Bush v. Gore, Hastings Law Quarterly (2008).
• Second, does most of this article really pass the test for Notability? Consider the definition: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." (emphasis added) When a bill is introduced in a state legislature, it's not really notable. When it passes one house, it's not really notable. If it passes both houses and confronts the governoer, it may be notable, but still likely does not receive much coverage. If it's enacted, however, then it's notable, particularly in contingent legislation like this where it requires several states to pass it. I would be inclined to eliminate a majority of this article's coverage about yearly maps, current legislative pending, etc. Virtually all of the citations are not independent of the NPV's own site. If the bill is enacted in a state, let the map reflect that. Perhaps include a link to the NPV if people wish to see the current status of the legislation. But most of this page contains information and citations that do not appear to be independent of the NPV.
• Third, an overwhelming amount of the "debate" on the NPV (and some of the "background") is duplicative of the debate on the main page for the Electoral College. I would be inclined to remove most of the debate and link to that story, unless the disputes are unique to the NPV (e.g., the constitutionality of the NPV). --Merevaudevillian (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this article. Here are a few quick responses:

1. The "legislature" debate, while discussed in this forum, is not included in the article itself.

2. Wikipedia's Notability guidelines apply to topics for articles, not content within articles. More here.

3. My opinion is that the information contained in the "Background" and "Debate" sections is essential to understanding NPVIC and brief enough that it is worthy of being outlined in this article, even if there is some duplication with other articles.

Szu (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. On (2), even if notability is not about content, do you really think it's worthwhile to have such excruciating detail of where legislation is introduced, when, in reality, the thing that matters is where it's passed? I'm not saying there shouldn't be a link to the NPV page tracking the current status of legislation, but it just seems unnecessary for this article. On (3), I don't know if it's "brief" enough given that it cover four sub-headings of five lines each, when a link to "For the debate on the Electoral College, see Arguments for and against the current system," or something like that. It would be quick and avoid duplication but have a direct citation (see Template:Duplication, I think). --Merevaudevillian (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, NPV's map doesn't show current status; it only shows farthest advance. Our maps and tables might be excessive if we were tracking something else, but I believe NPVIC deserves a high level of detailed coverage because of its importance. After all, it would radically change US presidential elections, and it has proven its seriousness by having now advanced 1/6 of the way toward becoming reality... so I don't think it's unreasonable to provide a high level of detail with the maps and tables we're using.

Template: Duplication is used when text has been copied word for word. Our summaries (which aren't copied from anywhere) are only a few sentences on each point, so I think they're probably brief enough. And as you mentioned, some of those points are unique to NPVIC. I agree that the article as a whole may seem a little long, but about 1/4 is references and another 1/4 is the big table, so the article itself is really just half as long as it may seem. ;-)

Szu (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to briefly chime in here and point out that I also think the article currently relies far too much on the NPV site for its information. It would be much better if we used direct links to all the states' legislatures' websites. However, this will of course take quite a bit of effort. (As a side comment, many links in the table currently link to the TEXT of the bill in the different states, which is pretty useless. Much better would be to have a link to the STATUS of the bill.) I do not mind having a table which is as detailed as the one we have now. Sure, you may argue that it is only relevant which states actually pass the bill, but it is also useful to see how far along the process each state is. Of course it is not absolutely necessary to have this information in the article, but I think it does no harm. --KarlFrei (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone out there is able to weed through and fix the citations as KarlFrei suggests, it might also be a good opportunity to switch to the Template:cite web format suggested by the GA reviewer. And if there's any way we can have the citations take up less space that would really help too. Szu (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ohio bill needs to be added to chart

The bill is HB 524.

http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_HB_524

Not sure how to do it myself.

RRichie (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ohio is added. Apparently the legislation has been introduced in Arizona as well:

http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1004&articlemode=showspecific&showarticle=2968

I've updated the map but I don't know how to make new rows in the chart.

Szu (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems it has been introduced in Connecticut, too. HB 5662 I uploaded a new version of the map but CT won't turn green... hm....

Szu (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this increase the chance of a challenge?

Illinois has just passed this so I decided to read the new law. I don't understand how a member state is going to certify the election totals of a non-member state. While each member state is suppose to certify their results to other member states at least six days prior to the day the electors are to cast their votes, what about the non-member states? If they don't certify to the member states, are their votes just lost? What if there is a challenge in a member or non-member state and the state official can't certify? If the election is close, will this hold up the whole process? While this idea sounds good on paper, in practical terms it seems to shift the political battle from 50 battlegrounds to 175,000 battlegrounds (precincts) thereby greatly increasing the probability for challenges in close elections. Currently, if a candidate is leading in a state by 50,000 votes and the other candidate believes there is fraud in a number of precincts, there is no need for a challenge unless the total change possible exceeds 50,000 votes. In most cases, it won't matter so the challenge is never made. But under the new proposed system, it won't matter what is happening in your state and while those votes might not change the outcome in your state under the current system, it might assist in changing the outcome nationwide under the new one. Had this been in place in 2000, it wouldn't have solved anything. Gore had one massive challenge in Florida because it was the only state where challenges could have mattered statewide and that state's electoral votes also happened to be pivotal. But under this new system, Bush could have had 3,000 challenges going nationwide to make up his popular vote deficit. That could have led to Gore making 2,000 challenges to make up the difference Bush gained with his challenges. There's no end to the challenges in close popular vote elections. So the new adage will become - when in doubt, challenge. We could have tens of thousands of challenges each election and wind up looking like some third world country who can't figure out who won their election. ASanders 96.230.138.189 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.138.189 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This issue is discussed briefly in the article. Szu (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, close elections are less likely to be a problem under the compact, not more likely, but 96.230.138.189 raises one interesting point: how are the totals of non-member states certified? Member states can only certify their own totals, but the compact requires certified totals from all 50 states and DC, and non-member states have no obligation to make an official report of their totals to the chief election officials of the member states. Will the member states just use media-reported totals for non-member states in their tallies? Do the chief election officials confer, and unanimously certify the nationwide total, or does each member state certify the total independently, based on the numbers they have available? If the numbers for a certain state are in dispute, might the election officials reach different conclusions about who won the national popular vote? Then, if the 270+ delegate block of member states doesn't pledge its electors unanimously, is the compact voided for that election? — Swpb^talk.edits 20:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the state officials add up their own totals independently, using official statements from the other states. All states publish official statements of their popular vote totals so I don't think there would be a problem with that. Szu (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

DC is a "state"

The legislation and NPV's site each address the classification of DC as a "state" for the purposes of this compact. I don't know why someone removed it. Merevaudevillian (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Iowa

has reportedly closed its session for this year: http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/04/30/iowa-legislative-session-ends-with-no-action-on-various-election-law-bills/ —Nightstallion 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Polling

How is this poll relevant? The NPV is a way of implementing the direct election of the President, but some people may not support the NPV if they believe it's unconstitutional, if they would prefer a constitutional amendment, etc. How is the abstract idea of "do you support direct election" relevant (or, more importantly, beneficial) to a discussion about the NPV in particular? While I appreciate the sentiment of showing popular support, the NPV and abstract "direct election" are two different things. Merevaudevillian (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The poll is included in the "Background" section, not the discussion of NPVIC in particular. The "Background" section states that most Americans support switching to a direct vote (a very relevant background fact, IMO) and if that fact is included then the poll is essential because it is the evidence backing up the fact. Szu (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Color key not working on firefox/mac

I've been puzzling for a while over what the colors on the maps mean. I compared the page to how it renders in Safari and the problem was obvious: the colors to the key don't display in Firefox on the mac:

Safari: http://slim.deasil.com/~swain/screencaps/safarikey.png

Firefox: http://slim.deasil.com/~swain/screencaps/firefoxkey.png swain (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm... I wonder the problem is... I'm running Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Mac OSX 10.4.11 and it all looks fine... Anybody know if there's another way to show those color boxes?

Szu (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That fixed it! Many thanks. swain (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

State-by-State Status Table

I think it would be worth it to make this table sortable by state name, electoral votes, and current status. This is beyond my knowledge in wikipedia, so could someone take care of this who thinks it's worthwhile? Much appreciated.--Cms479 (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that some entries in the table span more than one row. The sorting algorithm in Wikipedia cannot handle such tables. A way to fix it, I suppose, would be to repeat any entries that occur twice (for instance for states that had legislation in more than one period). Anyone in favor of that? --KarlFrei (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Vermont

Are we writing off Vermont prematurely? They passed the bill with a 2/3 margin in the state senate. I think its reasonable to expect that they will overturn the veto. Greg Comlish (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. The legislature has adjourned for the year and has not scheduled any session to overturn possible vetoes. The bill is dead. --KarlFrei (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

the pesky intro

I can understand why Szu would see "slate" as confusing and perhaps it's not needed in the intro. But one area of confusion for some folks is based on not understanding how electors works. They think each state has only one set of electors, and those are electors are instructed by the vote in their state (or whatever rules governs them) to vote a certain way. But of course in reality each candidate has a slate of electors made up of party loyalists and that candidate's electors will vote when that candidate wins that state's electoral votes. This is why there are so few faithless electors now and why that will continue with the NPV compact.

One of the questions that comes up in people's minds about the compact is: "Won't a state's electors have trouble casting a vote for a candidate who didn't win their state." That of course isn't an issue, as it's that candidate's electors casting the votes, and as loyalists for that candidate's party, ones who will do it enthusiastically.

So, with all that in mind, that can explain the value of using "slate" -- or at least being very clear about that later.

RRichie (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit pesky myself... ;-) I just want the intro to be as simple as we can reasonably make it. That's why I used "electoral votes" instead of "electors" in the intro (and throughout the article) to eliminate a whole layer of complexity which I figured wasn't particularly important to NPVIC. But I agree you've got a good point. Perhaps the most direct way to address it might be to add "Faithless Electors" as one of the issues in the "Debate" section, something like: Opponent X says, "Won't a state's electors have trouble casting a vote for a candidate who didn't win their state?" But Supporter Y responds, "it's that candidate's electors casting the votes, and as loyalists for that candidate's party, ones who will do it enthusiastically."

Szu (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good addition, Szu. One reason to say something like "slate" in the intro is to avoid people getting on the wrong track. Is this language any clearer? "At that point, all of the electoral votes of the member states would be cast for the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia."

RRichie (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Feel free to go ahead and add it.

Szu (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss this, Averyisland (Part deux)

Averyisland wants to emphasize the fact that Al Gore did not win an absolute majority of the vote in 2000:

This scenario can affect both major parties. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore lost the election despite winning a plurality of the popular vote.

I think it's simpler to say:

This scenario can affect both major parties. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore lost the election despite winning the most popular votes.

Besides the fact that most people don't know the word "plurality," the only difference between the two versions is that "plurality" explicitly emphasizes the fact that an outright majority was not won. I don't think we should emphasize that fact, because it may mislead people into thinking that such a thing wouldn't have happened if Al Gore had won an outright majority. The truth is that the exact same thing can happen even with an outright majority, as was the case with Tilden in 1876.

Avery, if you'd like to pursue this change, please discuss it here rather than waging an edit war in the article. Thanks!

Szu (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

winning a "Plurality" and winning the "most votes" are isomorphic, everyone knows what most means and not everyone knows what plurality means. We should keep the introduction as clear as possible. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Assuming that readers are ignorant of the meanings of words is bad policy. Plurality is linked, if someone doesn't know what it means. Presumably, majority would be understood more widely, so if you really think this is important, refer to the 1876 election. And then you can use "majority." I think both should be there, in fact. "Majority," as I argue below, makes the point more clearly. It's quite possible to argue that, in some situations, a winner with a plurality should not win the election. Consider top-two runoff elections; a "comeback" takes place about one-third of the time. Should we award an election to someone who would lose a direct pairoff with the other frontrunner? I think Gore would have won that, though, of course, I can't be sure. It is far more complicated than most might think. However, the mention of plurality could be important. NPV awards the victory to the Plurality winner. *That's a problem.* I was for NPV when I first encountered it, but would prefer a system that might start with all-or-nothing assignments, state-by-state, but which would transition, as adopted by other states, into a proportional assignment of electors. This is much closer to the original design for the college, rather than being an institutionalized complete shoving into irrelevancy of that original design. If there is proportional assignment of electors, and there is, in fact, a majority election requirement (in the electoral college), it could indeed happen, in a close election, that quirks of the college system, and, more importantly, votes by independent electors, could cause a plurality winner (and even a majority winner) to lose. And that is what happens when you have a semi-deliberative system. It's not entirely predictable from the original input. Which is a good thing. That the party system co-opted the college was the original problem. That's the problem that should be fixed, I conclude. Relevant here? Maybe. The word "plurality" is more accurate for 2000, and the additional commentary I've given hints at why.

To summarize: "most votes" in the popular mind will be translated into "majority." If it had been actually a "majority," however, that's what would be said. "Plurality" therefore, even though it means, in some contexts, "most votes," in this one quite clearly implies the truth: more votes than Bush, but not a majority of votes. So the two phrases are not identical in meaning, in context, and "plurality" is more accurate. Even though "most votes" is still true. --Abd (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC) --Abd (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Greg, that was edit warring, that you reverted this again. I've made *one* edit to the article. You have made two edits restoring the same content. That is edit warring. Don't edit war. I'm not, and I won't. But I might push this point through RfC etc. "Plurality" is clearer and more accurate. "more votes" is a broader term. Now, tell me, why is this worth edit warring, which can get you blocked? (Likewise, Averyisland and Szu started edit warring.) (And if it doesn't get somebody blocked -- which normally won't happen without warning -- it can result in article protection, which is a nuisance, making it more cumbersome to improve the article.) What I consider substantial arguments have been made for "plurality." I'd suggest the following would be a courtesy (and avoid any semblance of edit warring): revert yourself. If it is isomorphic, as you have claimed, the extra value of "most votes" over "plurality" is surely minor. We can still work on consensus here, and, as I wrote, I'm not going to edit war, particularly over something relatively minor like this on a topic where I'm close to neutral. But, I suspect, "more votes" will pretty frequently get changed to "plurality." It will be hard to maintain.

By the way, POV editors often as I noted, will insist on "easily understandable language" as a way of getting across points they want to make. I know nothing about your history with this article or others, but I'd guess, from edit warring over this, that you do have a point of view that you would like to make "clear" to readers. I highly doubt that this is simply coming from some overall concern for simple language on Wikipedia. If so, I apologize for even noting the semblance. Do you have a POV, Greg? --Abd (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Another summarization: In this context, "plurality" has a very specific meaning, and it is not "more votes," it is "more votes but not a majority." Which is exactly correct. When we talk about a plurality system, we mean "candidate with the most votes wins." But when we talk about a "winner by a plurality," we mean that the winner did not gain a majority, but did have more votes than any other candidate. --Abd (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to ignore your numerous accusations and thinly-veiled threats, because I really think this is a simply resolved issue. You claim In this context, "plurality" has a very specific meaning, and it is not "more votes," it is "more votes but not a majority.". Actually in this context plurality means "most votes" period. This misunderstanding emphasizes the lingering confusion people can have with the word plurality.Greg Comlish (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

They aren't threats. They are reflections of policy over edit warring. I also noted that usually there will be a warning first, and what I wrote here doesn't count as one. If I was seriously threatening you, I'd have placed a warning on your Talk page. If you see one, take it seriously, the next step would be a block (not from me!). Now, as to the point, the world "plurality" means "most votes." Yes, that's true. In this context, though, when you say that someone "won by a plurality," it means, specifically, that they won without a majority. That's usage. English language. You might reread what I wrote above. I already said all this. It's *not* a misunderstanding.

Since Greg is insisting, even though it's very obvious to me from a lot of reading and writing in this field, I Googled "won the election by a plurality." It returned six hits. While it is possible that some of these were majorities (see below), some are explicit about the difference. (It is also possible that those that might possibly have been referring to a majority were referring to a mere plurality, and that is how I read them; I'm just noting that there may be some variant usage.) See [2], where "plurality," "majority," "substantial majority" and "landslide" are indicated in a chart with separate symbols, and, in the chart, "plurality" and "majority" are distinct categories. In [3] the word "plurality" is used three times in ways that clearly distinguish it from "majority." I.e., "plurality" is used to mean "the most votes, but not a majority." I found no contrary example, though further research might uncover one in these six hits. Probably not more than that. Then I googled "won by a plurality." 2030 ghits. Look, for example, at FairVote: Plurality Wins in the 1992 Presidential Race. See Findlaw, "Primaries are often won by a plurality winner, and sometimes even a low-percentage plurality winner," which very clearly, without any additional qualification means "not by a majority." The FairVote citation is a headline and clearly intended to convey the "most votes, not a majority" meaning.

There is a third meaning for plurality that may apply to a few of the hits: "So-and-so won by a plurality of 8000 votes" may refer to the vote margin, regardless of whether or not a majority was obtained. (I did not find a clear example of that, but it's possible. But I found no examples of "won by a plurality" without a vote margin being specified that referred to a majority victory.

In common usage, Plurality voting means a voting system where the voter votes for one candidate and the one with the most votes wins. This isn't the technical name for this method, which is First past the post. "Plurality" is used here to imply that a winner *can* prevail with a mere plurality of votes. Absolutely, if I read that a candidate "won by a plurality," I understand that the candidate did not gain a majority. And I've seen this language hundreds of times, at least. And the google searches confirm it. So.... do you have a reason why the text should not read "plurality," when even you acknowledge that it is not incorrect? --Abd (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already made clear my reasoning why. Rather than generating more long-winded demands that I explain myself, I would prefer if you would address the arguments I've put forth. Let me say them again. Plurality is as universally understood as "most votes". Hence "most votes" is clearer. The distinction you are trying to make is not inherent in the definition of plurality, it's just your connotation of it. Furthermore the distinction isn't in any way germane to the paragraph. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems silly, but I'm slightly inclined to support "plurality" for the reasons stated: "most votes" has a slight implication for "majority." I checked some non-controversial elections (e.g., pre-2000) and saw that "plurality" has been used in 1996 and 1968, and other articles specifically emphasize when an electoral vote winner has received less than 50 percent of the popular vote. I think the use of "plurality" in non-controversial contexts (like 1996 and 1968) suggest its appropriateness here. Merevaudevillian (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Abd, please be more brief. If this isn't important enough for an edit war, then it's certainly not worth writing essays about. ;-)

My problem with the word "plurality" is that it's confusing and irrelevant.

Look at the context. The reason why we mention 2000 and 2004 is to point out that the Gore scenario (winning the most popular votes but losing the election) can happen to both major parties. Whether the winner gets more or less than 50% is completely irrelevant to the point being made in this paragraph. The person with the most votes can lose. It is bad writing to insert an obscure word into the heart of an otherwise easily readable sentence merely to emphasize a totally irrelevant fact.

Szu (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur. It's easy to write essays, dangerous and obsessive to edit war. Yes, I know the context. Yes, whether it is a plurality or a majority is irrelevant to at least part of the point. I worry about "points," though. Trying to make a point? Maybe I better look again at this section. Plurality is more accurate, and "more votes" could be misleading. Some people do care about the difference, I think, starting with Averyisland. Simple fix: mention the 1886 election as "majority" and the 2000 one as "plurality." Merevaudevillian is correct that "more votes" has a coloring of "majority." Is there some idea that readers of this article are ignorant and won't know the word "plurality?" Those other articles used the word. It's linked so anyone who doesn't know what it means is one click away. "Plurality" is not a "obscure word" when talking about elections. Further, it's not totally irrelevant to the article. NPV plans to turn a plurality -- which many think a problem in itself -- into a forced electoral majority. This is actually a problem with the method. The insistence on "more votes" is starting to worry me. As I mentioned, I've seen this kind of insistence on simple, dumbed-down language, in other articles, among people who have an agenda to push. --Abd (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being more concise. The subject of the paragraph (if you don't like the word point) is that the Electoral College allows the person with the most votes to lose the election, regardless of party. If the issue of "plurality" mattered in this context, then it might make sense to use the word and discuss examples of plurality and majority. But since it's completely irrelevant here (just because someone thinks it's relevant doesn't make it so) I see no reason to make the meaning of the sentence depend upon a term that most people probably don't know. Your concern about "turning a plurality into a forced electoral majority" is already addressed in the "Details" section: "The compact member states would give their electoral votes to the candidate with the greatest number of popular votes, even if no candidate has an absolute majority."

Szu (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Szu, Use of the word plurality made the article more accurate, as I explained in my edit notes. Abd seems to get it. I have nothing new to add to this argument and it appears that far too much effort has been spent debating it in my absence. However, I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. -- Averyisland

"Gore won 50,999,897 to 50,456,002" would be even more accurate. But just like the issue of plurality, the numbers are totally irrelevant to the context involved. Of course irrelevant additions are often harmless, but not when they hurt the quality of the writing, distract from the subject at hand, cause confusion, or potentially mislead. That's why I wasn't the only one who opposed the change. Sorry if it seemed like I thought I owned the article; I don't.

Szu (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring over ... what?

An edit war began when a seemingly harmless edit by Averyisland was reverted.[4]. The change was:

The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency while losing the popular vote, as happened in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. This scenario can affect both major parties. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore lost the election despite winning the most popular votes a plurality of the popular vote.. Four years later Republican George W. Bush would have faced the same situation himself if there had been a 60,000 vote shift to John Kerry in Ohio.

Now, I appreciate that the point being made doesn't need "plurality" and that the problem can occur with "majority." But "the most popular votes" means, exactly, "a plurality." Technically. If "majority" is part of the point, then a reference should be made to an election where a majority was involved, as in 1876. So why the concern over this difference in language? Well, I suspect, without pinning this on any editor, there is a political point to be made, and "most popular votes" can sound like "majority," and thus underscores a point that is often made about Bush, I've seen it in a bumper sticker in 2004: "Re-defeat Bush." "Plurality" doesn't sound so strong; and suppose we had a rational electoral college, with proportional assignment in states. Winning by a plurality might indeed not mean winning the election, and quite properly so, when the other electors decide to vote for one of the front-runners. Given that the change made by AveryIsland was correct, and is less likely to imply a majority (we'd have written "majority" if that was the case), "plurality" is more accurate, less likely to introduce some coatrack slant. I have accordingly "voted" that way by reverting the edits back to Averyisland's version.

Folks, *do not edit war* without discussing in Talk. This applies to all parties. Don't demand that others bring things up in Talk if you don't. An exception would be if the matter had already been extensively discussed. Was it? --Abd (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I see now that an editor did bring it here, we just crossed edits.... good for him. --Abd (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

I removed "most votes" and "plurality" and simply used the phrase popular vote winner. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

I'm sorry, but I cannot pass the article as this time. Here are some things for you to work on before renominating the article:

• There are entire sections without references (Details of the proposed legislation, 2006).
• There are sections that need to be wikified as they have few or no wikilinks (Details of the proposed legislation, Background)
• The references need to be formatted properly using the Template:cite web.
• Headers should have more than one sentence under them. Is there nothing else that can be said under 2006 and 2007? Maybe the two sections could be merged together?

Good luck. Nikki311 03:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Other problems with the compact

This I found in comments in Ballot Access News: "You cannot have a national election without first establishing common voting requirements. Felon voting? Registration dates? Early ballot access?" [5] Perhaps we should include this in the article (if it can be properly sourced), since it is claimed to be the reason that the Washington House did not take up this bill. --KarlFrei (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's the reason the Washington house didn't follow suit -- more leadership decisions about priorities at the end of a short session. But it's a reasonable concern to include, although the formulation should not be "you cannot have a national election " but rather "you should not have a national election". The basis of the compact is that legislatures can decide to allocate electors on whatever basis they so choose,and there is an official national popular vote count generated from the numbers provided by each state and D.C. to Congress in the form of Certificates of Ascertainment. Note that the suggested changes could be done by federal statute if there was political will to do so.

RRichie (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it important that states have more uniform standards? This issue of unform standards isn't unique to the NPV since our current system also lacks uniform standards. Also, I believe it is likely that quibbling about registration dates and felon voting arises from conviction that all votes should be treated equally; Certainly the NPV comes much closer to the equal treatment of "1 person, 1 vote", despite minor discrepancies about felon voting. Furthermore, by joining in NPVIC states facilitate the trend towards a uniform standard. The whole argument seems dubious. You can cite it if you can source it, but you might just be looking at nothing more than the naked assertion of some dude in a comments section. Greg Comlish (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The obvious problem would be that there would be a "race to the bottom" as each state tries to increase its vote count. Suppose California, for example, lowered its voting age to 16 and allowed non-citizens to vote. This would increase its relative weight in the national popular vote and force other states to follow suit. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you can cite good sources making that argument, feel free to add it... although it doesn't seem realistic to me. Voters in a state don't vote as a bloc, so letting foreigners or children vote wouldn't really give the state much more power; it would mainly give the state's foreigners and children more power. I can't imagine majority support for such a move in any state.

Szu (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought these issues were brought up in a previous discussion here. If anyone thinks the arguments are important enough to be added to the "Debate" section, they should go ahead and do so as long as the sources are good.

Szu (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the use of Certificates of Ascertainment to certify the totals? If there is, this should be in the article, since it would probably clarify things a bit. — Swpb^{t & c} 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The compact doesn't specifically say that states must use Certificates of Ascertainment to calculate their national totals, but it does say that they "shall treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate..." An official statement would be available for every state because Certificates of Ascertainment are required by federal law (see National Archives) and must include the number of votes received by each slate.

Szu (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The article states that "states wishing to join or withdraw from the compact after that date would not be able to do so until after the election." If a member state were to pass a bill negating the NPVIC after July 20th, what enforcement mechanism would prevent them from apportioning their delegates however they choose? — Swpb^{t & c} 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume they would be sued in some federal court? Surely there have been lawsuits between states before. The law negating NPVIC could not be legal for a state that has joined the compact. (Also, there must be other interstate compacts, right?) --KarlFrei (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've been doing a bit more reading about this. States can take each other to federal court over violating the terms of interstate compacts. Now, the question of whether this compact would require congressional approval, that's much hairier. Supreme Court precedent on the Compact Clause indicates that a compact must only be approved by congress if it may increase the political power or influence of the member states. In White and Blackmun's dissent in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978), they claim that this test includes encroachment on the political power of non-member states, not just on the federal government (which, constitutionally, has no power in the area of elector selection). But it's unclear whether the Court would 1) recognize this part of the test, 2) see the NPVIC as encroaching on the political power of non-member states, or 3) reverse precedent anyway, making it all moot. — Swpb^{t & c} 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this compact could ever be seen as reducing the political power of the other states. It would be a different matter if the compact specified that the members would give all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner of the member states. But now, all votes still count. However, it is of course true that the smallest non-member states could see their "influence" drop by a factor of 2 (or something), because their number of electors is no longer relevant. From a strategic point of view, it is probably important to ensure that as many small states as possible join this compact before it becomes effective... --KarlFrei (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to the Courts, I'm not sure the degree to which political influence is shifted is going to matter as much as whether it is or isn't (or whether it potentially could be). You're right that voters in some states will see their influence drop (even voters in small member states will see their votes count for less, and voters in large non-member states would see their votes count for more under the compact).

The other factors affecting whether a state is seen to benefit from the compact include whether or not it is a battleground state (subjective) and whether the bloc of states it caucuses with benefits as a whole from the compact (i.e., a populous, non-battleground state like Texas should theoretically benefit, but if it tends to vote with the Republicans (who, let's not mince words, stand to lose from the NPVIC), then it could be seen to lose out. This is clearly also very subjective). So the set of states which benefit from the compact could be debated ad infinitum, and is clearly not identical to the set of member states. I see the compact as causing a political power shift toward equitability, but this could be debated as well, and would not necessarily cause the compact to pass the test.

Also, the Court test may not look at the political power of the citizens of the states, but of the states themselves (i.e., the state governments). Under the compact, legislatures of non-member states can still appoint their electors however they choose, but this choice is guaranteed to have zero effect on the outcome of the election. This may be a much stronger argument for the Court to require Congressional approval of the compact. — Swpb^{t & c} 13:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There are legal articles, cited in this article, that address these points substantially. An argument as you've articulate, Swpb, is essentially what is made: that non-compacting states have worthless electors, because the compacting states' electors are sufficient to elect a winner without any help from outside non-compacting states. --Merevaudevillian (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, states may bring interstate disputes directly to the Supreme Court. --Merevaudevillian (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is perhaps off topic, but is it so clear that the Republicans stand to lose from this compact? They have won the popular vote in the most recent presidential election, and in many elections before that... Sure, things don't look so good for them right now, but who knows what will happen in four or eight years? --KarlFrei (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's likely off-topic, but I'll give it a shot. First, I think Republicans are relectuant to engage in "change" in this way, when the Electoral College was a cornerstone of the Constitution; and they are reluctant to engage in what is perceived as an "end-run" around the ordinary constitutional amendment process (e.g., requiring just a majority of electoral votes to approve, rather than supermajorities of Congress and 3/4 of the states). Second, and more practically, I think Republicans tend to prefer the Electoral College system in which the more rural Western states have a slight advantage in terms of electoral votes, even if they're not typically "swing states." Wyoming, for instance, may not be a stomping ground of political activity, but it's a relatively solid 3 electoral votes, which, as we know, is the margin of victory that Bush had over Gore, even though Wyoming was never in doubt. --Merevaudevillian (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Merevaudevillian makes the point well. The bloc that stands to lose is geographic in nature (rural, mostly western and some southern states), and at present, this bloc of states uses its Electoral College advantage to the benefit of the Republicans. The party benefiting from this situation could change, but the fundamental point (the one that could play with the Courts) is that a state which might be seen to benefit from the compact, based on having a high population, might in fact suffer politically, if it tends to vote together with a group of states that lose power on the whole. — Swpb^{t & c} 14:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you justify your claim that "rural, mostly western and some southern states" stand to lose by joining the compact? Greg Comlish (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Republicans are more reluctant to change things. But I think the idea that they stand to lose in practical terms is a myth. The states most overrepresented in the EC are in fact an equal mix of red and blue: 1. WY, 2. DC, 3. VT, 4. ND, 5. AK, 6. RI, 7. SD, 8. DE, 9. MT, 10. HI. The states most underrepresented in the EC are also evenly split: 1. TX, 2. FL, 3. CA, 4. GA, 5. AZ, 6. NY, 7. IL, 8. NC, 9. VA, 10. MI. But IMO the states that would benefit the most from the compact are the 40 or so states that aren't swing states.

We really shouldn't be discussing this here though; this space should be for discussion about the article itself. Feel free to continue on my talk page if you like.

Szu (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the point is not whether this or that state benefits. In determining whether congressional approval is needed, the test may be whether any group of states might gain political advantage at the expense of others, no matter which group that may be. I may be wrong about which group I think that is, but Szu is right that that conversation strays too far off topic for this talk page. — Swpb^{t & c} 04:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Does a state have to report the vote? Or can they just report the winner? In the primaries the real popular vote was unknown because some states did not report the vote just the winner. So lets say that a state that was in strong opposition to this compact just gave the vote total of the winning candidate, and did not state the popular vote of the losing candidate. Is that possible and how would that affect the compact?

States are required by an Act of Congress to provide their vote totals in the form of a certificate of ascertainment. Many such details of the plan are addressed in Every Vote Equal (www.everyvoteequal.com), which is available on-line and has a detailed appendix and table of contents.

RRichie (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Some time back there was, on the Range Voting mailing list, [6], some discussion of what happens, under the Compact, if reformed voting systems are used by a state. How would IRV be reported by states? States might locally eliminate a candidate under IRV rules and never report the vote totals. The Compact seems to assume a plurality method in each state. The application of this to any other method is problematic. If one state allows Approval voting, as an example, it would not be fair unless all states offered it. Yet the numbers, the "extra votes" would appear in the election results from the state. I don't see an obvious way to report, fairly, the results of any advanced voting method without creating "equal treatment of votes" problems, whether the method is IRV, top-two runoff, or anything else. Top-two runoff, for example, if the runoff is done speedily, would create no problem with the electoral college. But what vote would be reported? Just the top two from the runoff? That would exclude the candidate who comes in first in the state. A third party candidate, under some conditions, within one state, might make it to second place, killing the votes for the national major party candidate in the final "report of votes." Same would happen with Contingent vote "IRV." Given that RRichie's organization FairVote is promoting both NPV and IRV, I wonder how Richie would address this? --Abd (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Map color key suggestion

Currently, the "red" set of colors indicate bills which did not pass into law in a given year — but they do not differentiate between states where the bill was killed that year, and states where the bill remained pending after the end of the calendar year (as in states with a 2007-2008 legislative session). My original impression from the map was that the bill was killed in a lot of states in 2007, but a look through the state-by-state status chart shows that 12 of these states carried bills over from 2007 to 2008, and 9 of those bills are still pending today (NJ and IL passed, VT vetoed).

My suggestion is to use the green set of colors for all 12 of these states on the 2007 map (and in future years). The green colors would then represent "pending at the end of the year" (except in the current year, where they would still mean "pending currently"), and the reds would then exclusively mean "killed during that year". It will then become clear at a glance how many states actually killed the bill in a given year. You could always add a third set of colors (yellows?) to indicate bills that remained pending at the end of the year, but my solution would hopefully be visually simpler. — Swpb^{t & c} 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion makes some sense, but the way the table is worded doesn't leave room for weather the bill was killed or remained pending. Fact is, the legislation in those states did not pass in 2007, and therefore they go in the section labeled "Did not pass". I would support using a yellow for states that did not pass in a certain year while the bill itself was still pending, however. Nevermore27 (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, obviously the wording would have to be tweaked as well, "Did not pass" would likely become "Killed" — Swpb^{t & c} 13:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Swpb makes a good point: the maps don't show whether a bill was pending at the end of a year, or whether it had failed during the year. However, I wouldn't want to add an additional color to the maps. So... I think the challenge is to use green, but find a good way to word it. How about something like this:

Status of NPVIC legislation	December 31, 2006	December 31, 2007	Current status
File:NPVMapKey2.png
Participating states	0	1 (MD)	4 (MD, NJ, IL, HI)
Electoral votes	0 (of 270 needed)	10 (of 270 needed)	50 (of 270 needed)

Szu (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I really like the "Dec. 31, 200X" approach - it presents each map as a snapshot in time, which makes the "pending" label more intuitive. And you've avoided using a label like "killed" or "died", which would probably be too vernacular-sounding. In this setup, one can infer from "did not pass" that the bill died or was vetoed. I think this is an excellent way to present the same map with more information but without sacrificing readability. Kudos! — Swpb^{t & c} 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll put it up!

BTW I'd also been wondering about what happens to these maps on Jan 1 '09... I think shrinking them a little is probably the best option:

Status of NPVIC legislation	December 31, 2006	December 31, 2007	December 31, 2008	Current status
File:NPVMapKey2.png
Participating states	0	1 (MD)	4 (+NJ, IL, HI)	4
Electoral votes	0 (of 270 needed)	10 (of 270 needed)	50 (of 270 needed)	50 (of 270 needed)

Szu (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Shrinking would work for 2009, but by 2010 a second row might become necessary. We've got a while before that becomes an issue, though. — Swpb^{t & c} 23:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

At some point we will have to ask whether we really want such a detailed history, with a map for every year. We could also show only maps for even years (since no legislative session appears to continue after an even year). However, two years from now, when most of the legislative sessions will again have concluded, the ultimate result of this compact will probably be clear. States will not continue to debate this legislation every single year (or session), I think. --KarlFrei (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A map every two years would be a good idea. I do think (some) states will continue to bring up the bill as circumstances change. For one thing, as more states pass the bill, the likelihood of it coming into effect (and thus the value of debating it in the legislature) changes, and for another, there has been very little in the way of public outreach on the compact thus far, and as it becomes a more mainstream issue, states may become more or less inclined to do something about it. — Swpb^{t & c} 13:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we'll see how it goes. At least we don't have to worry about it for a while. Szu (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the first thing we should get rid of when the time comes is 2006, since nothing passed, and it was hardly introduced anywhere. But like you all said, there's a bit of time before we have to worry about that. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. To simply remove 2006 would give the impression that 2007 was the first year in which the bill was introduced. The fact that little activity occurred in the first year of NPV's effort is itself a notable fact. If we are going to have maps tracking the compact's progress, we have to include the entire life of that process. — Swpb^{t & c} 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, you're right. Well forget I ever said that. Nevermore27 (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Electoral strength"

For the caption of the diagram, can someone in the know please clarify whether this means electoral college votes or popular votes? I couldn't find it anywhere. Thanks. --Padraic 14:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Another map question: does the light pink (passed both houses but failed) mean the bill was vetoed? Or is there some other way a passed bill can fail? Please clarify for non-American readers. --Padraic 14:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Electoral strength represents electoral votes - a larger state in the second image has more votes, and a 'stronger' presence than other states. Light pink means that it was vetoed by the governor: Either the governor vetoed it and the legislature either opted not to or failed to override the veto with a 2/3 vote, or the bill was 'pocket vetoed', in that the governor did not return the bill in time for an override to be attempted before the legislature ended their session. The 'pink' cases are California's first attempt, which was vetoed, Hawai'i's first attempt, where the lower house failed to override the veto, and Vermont, where it was vetoed. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 15:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Since a "pocket veto" is not technically a veto, the pink is not strictly synonymous with "vetoed". — Swpb^{τ • c} 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionality

I don't know. The way this section is written seems to name drop more than describe what the conflict there actual is. And just because a few experts say something is constitutional doesn't make it so (Milgram experiment, anyone?). The USSC has ruled on this in the past in other instances, but those compacts never had such far-reaching consequences as this would. They are likely to be inclinced to rule against it, especially with the collectively conservative stance of the Court. Again, Congress could give thumbs up and then that's that... Foofighter20x (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In Federalist No. 39 Madison discusses popular vote in connection with the radification and amendment of the Constitution,

"...it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act..."

"...If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly NATIONAL nor wholly FEDERAL. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the MAJORITY of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles...In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by STATES, not by CITIZENS, it departs from the NATIONAL and advances towards the FEDERAL character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the FEDERAL and partakes of the NATIONAL character..."

This is the plan of the Constitution and it is also seen in the organization of the Electoral College." --Jbergquist (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Federalist papers are not part of the constitution. Also, NPVIC is structured as an affirmation, nor a violation, of state sovereignty. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate upon that? The article does not explain how NPV helps to affirm state's rights, unless you mean the right to give away your rights.Averyisland (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, as the article explains the constitution allows each state to assign their electors however they wish. Historically, many different methods have been used. NPVIC is but one method of choosing electors. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

But they already have the right. A state could easily enact this on their own and throw their electoral votes toward the national popular vote winner no matter what the other states think. Winner-take-all allotment affirms a state's right just as much as this "compact" does. Averyisland (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   An excellent article, and the work put in since the first GA review certainly shows. I really have only one minor concern, which is not enough for me to hold off on passing the article: The state-by-state chart is inconsistent in how status is displayed. Some states where the bill has only been introduced lists the status as either "red/not voted on" or "yellow/pending". They should consistently be one or the other. Regards, Resolute 19:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing (and passing :-) ) this article. Regarding the issue you point out, the status is actually pending for states where the bill might still be passed. The status is red if the legislative session is closed, meaning that the bill definitely cannot be passed anymore (unless it is reintroduced in the next session, of course). --KarlFrei (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. It might be helpful to note that below the chart, imo. Resolute 21:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Updating 2008 legislative action

The North Carolina bill is dead for the year, as the session has ended. RRichie (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --KarlFrei (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I know those interested in this legislation are in favor of its passage. So, just out of curiosity, I'm compelled to ask this question: is anyone watching the states who have already passed the compact for any legislative action which might repeal it? It seems such action toward the negative should also be included on the state-by-state status table, if occuring. Foofighter20x (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. However, I am unaware of any such action. I read the blog Ballot Access News and would most likely have heard of any attempts to repeal this. --KarlFrei (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool... Just making sure this was being done. Foofighter20x (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To 138.162.128.55

A lack of board members who fit your definition of "conservative" does not make FairVote "left-wing." Has FairVote endorsed "left-wing" candidates or political parties? Has FairVote stated "left-wing" positions on a range of political issues? If so then you might have a case.

Szu (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A disproportionate number of liberal (democratic) figures and organizations support FairVote's initiatives compared to relatively few conservative (republican) groups. Especially when it comes to NPV, Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation, which are a lot more popular in socialist Europe than in the USA. I think one could legitimately call FairVote a leftist or left-leaning organization. However, it's probably irrelevant to the context of the article. Remember, everybody's got an agenda, even "nonpartisan" groups.Averyisland (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Enacted" in Massachusetts?

The bill history for H4952 in Massachusetts has as its last line simply "07/31/08 H Enacted". As far as I know, "to enact" has only one meaning, namely, that this bill is now law. However, this contradicts this news report. Does anyone know what really happened? --KarlFrei (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The bill did pass both houses, but needs a final vote to be sent to the governor and the legislative session ran out of time before that vote happened. So it is not enacted.

RRichie (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Could it have been that each house enacted a different version and didn't work out the differences? Foofighter20x (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I read an explanation on the website of the Massachusetts legislature now. Apparently, the bill is first "enacted" and then sent to the governor to be signed. If he does not sign it, then the bill does not become law. So they use the word "to enact" in a different sense than I am used to. BTW, it seems really strange to have a separate vote on whether to send a bill to the governor... --KarlFrei (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not Neutral

In the background section, there are only arguments for the electoral college, none against it. To me, it seems that it is biased against the Compact.--Lionheart Omega (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please point out specifically what you're talking about? The 'background' section presents each item as if it is a problem with the electoral college. If anything, it's heavily biased towards this silly legislation. Averyisland (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about effect

The compact specifies that it shall take effect only if it is law in states controlling a majority of electoral votes on July 20 of a presidential election year. States wishing to join or withdraw from the compact after that date would not be able to do so until after the election. The compact would terminate in the event of the abolishment of the Electoral College.

Question: Suppose that this compact goes into effect. States representing the necessary 270 electoral votes agree to it. However, in a future census, they lose representatives, dropping to 268 total electoral votes. Would this then cause the compact to cease being in effect? (Granted, this is a rather unlikely scenario, most likely, if it does pass, it would end up adopted by a sizeable majority of, or even all of, the states) Nik42 (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wording problems

A friend has brought up two issues with this article that I thought I'd bring to your collective attention.

1. "The compact is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to allocate its own electoral votes" However, the Constitution says "Each State shall appoint", not "allocate".

2. The ruling in U.S. Steel Corp. V. Multistate Tax Commission is misconstrued. The longer passage is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States." Considering this language, I think it's less clear that the courts would uphold the compact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanK (talk • contribs) 15:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed #1. Regarding #2, I could not find a reference to this ruling in the article. It is mentioned in the book Every Vote Equal, and it could be that it is misconstrued there. However, unfortunately, remarking on this is original research, which is forbidden by WP:OR. All we could do is write something like "The book Every Vote Equal claims..." Indeed, come to think of it, I am not even sure that this book is a reliable source, seeing as it appears to be self-published. Maybe we should remove all references to it? --KarlFrei (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The 14th amendment

A participant on Dailykos (not a reliable source, I know) has mentioned that this compact may violate the 14th amendment in that any state joining the compact disenfranchises its own population (!). I put this here to give general notice; if it appears in some reliable place, we can put it in the article. --KarlFrei (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I can't tell the difference in subject between this article and the Amar Plan. The latter just seems to be much shorter. I suggest that it be merged into this article. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 06:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have included some lines from that article here now, I think most of the information was already here. The other article can be deleted as far as I am concerned. --KarlFrei (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I turned the Amar Plan into a redirect. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Michigan House Passes It

Michigan House Passes It —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.18.215 (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is already marked in the table, but I do not know how to update the map. --KarlFrei (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Map is updated Nevermore | Talk 16:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5