Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

End of year map?

Is the "Year-by-year status maps" progression going to be updated? Foofighter20x (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, someone should do that -- four legislatures have already introduced the 2009 version of the bill, see [1] . --Nightstallion 19:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done my best to double check session dates in all the ones where it had been introduced last year, and updated the map accordingly with the 4 new introductions. If any of this is incorrect, feel free to correct my work. Nevermore | Talk 10:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC

Fixed all errors, big thanks to KarlFrei. Nevermore | Talk 04:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

One nasty article...

It seems to me that this whole article is merely an advertisement for an idiotic piece of legislation disguised as an article. It's got a list of reasons why it should be enacted, maps, statistics, -- complete with a colorfully-done under-sampled poll by the Washington Post. Come on... 75.67.142.56 (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it! We do try to mention both sides in the Debate section. Note also that we cite Gallup [2], going back to 1944, not just some Washington Post poll. --KarlFrei (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame this article was given a "good" rating, because in reality, it is anything but. It reads more like an advertisement than anything else and makes this otherwise insignificant legislation appear to be far more noteworthy than it actually is. The multiple year-by-year maps and complete state-by-state legislative history are a bit over-the-top. This level of zeal make this article look like a site lobbying in favor of the bill. The only reason this repackaging of several other failed attempts to dismantle the Electoral College is noteworthy at all is because it has not yet been abandoned. Averyisland (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. I will... see what I can do to improve it, I did not know it was that bad. I would not call it insignificant though, wouldn't it be rather significant if it came into effect? Are you so sure it never will? Anyway, thanks for the feedback... (Regarding the level of detail, I noticed yesterday that we now have pages for the lists of seniority of US senators for the last 30 and the first 24 Congresses. That is something that seems over the top to me. At least this is only one article, and well within the recommended page size limit.) --KarlFrei (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It sure would be significant if it ever comes into effect. Whether or not I think it will is not relevant. However, I would say that, thus far, it is much less significant than the Bayh-Celler Amendment, which does not even have its own page. This entire article could be summed up in 2-3 paragraphs. Averyisland (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, as a contributor to this article, is that creating tables and tracking progress of legislation that could affect the way we elect the highest office in the land is not "over-the-top". You have an issue with the subject matter, and that's fine, but don't use that bias to damn the article and everyone who contributes to it Nevermore | Talk 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

When did I ever say whether or not I supported the bill? All I said is that I think it's not significant enough to warrant this much attention. The bill has seen more vetoes than passages. Maybe if it actually picks up steam and has a legitimate shot of making any sort of national impact would a full 50-state legislative history be warranted. Until that time, however, this information is really just superfluous and is better left to the organizations lobbying for it. Averyisland (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that a simple and informative chart on legislative activity throughout the fifty states is "superfluous." But since you seem to feel so strongly about it, maybe you'd like to suggest a concrete change for discussion. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate... I think it would be sufficient to list only the states where it has been either signed into law or vetoed with a link under external references for any further (more detailed) information. It would be fine to mention that legislation has also been introduced in ## states, but unless it makes some serious progress, it's not really necessary to list the details. I also think that the map showing current progress is sufficient and the previous years can be removed. There is such a thing as being too thorough. Averyisland (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no opposition to my proposed edits, I guess I'll start applying them to the article. Averyisland (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that maps for previous years, as well as a full table listing failed attempts, are only marginally interesting. But I would suggest to keep listing at least all the states where the bill is currently pending. My main reason for this is that every line of the table is based on a different reference/source. If the table is just removed, it becomes hard to find a good place to put all the references that are needed for the current map. If the references are just removed along with the table, the map becomes unsourced. It also makes it easier to track current progress (i.e. visit the sources) for those that are so inclinced. --KarlFrei (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To add anythmore would be superfluous, so I'll just say that I agree completely with KarlFrei and stand by my opinion that while the article is by its nature specialized in audience, it is none the less notable and should be kept as is. Nevermore | Talk 10:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Another vote here for keeping the past maps. It's quite a small table, and provides a vivid, easily-read perspective on past legislative sessions. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The maps should stay. Maybe the tabular data could be trimmed, but it is already de-emphasized at the end of the article. I believe the article is structured so that one gets more detail as one progresses through the article. Nobody is making you look at details and their inclusion at the end of the article doesn't detract from the beginning. Greg Comlish (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The maps should be put back - they provide great information density. Why would we remove them? » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 18:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The maps were removed unilaterally by Averysisland, who has already made his objection with the article in its entirety known, not because of any consensus. Nevermore | Talk 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea of removing information from wikipedia and directing people to external links seems to be the opposite of what wikipedia wants to achieve. If we have the information, and someone is willing to put the work in to make it into a map, then it can only be a good thing to include it. Considering the number of fiction and web-celebrities with articles, i would think this is easily in the top 50% most important articles.YobMod 14:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Eight more states

THe NPVIC compact has been introduced in eight more states: Alaska (SB 92), Arkansas (HB 1339), Maine (LD 56), Mississippi (HB 1360), Missouri (HB 452), Nebraska (LB 623), Oregon (HB 2588), and Rhode Island (SB 161). Unfortunately I lack the time at the moment to edit the table for this information, and to look for all the references. Would be nice if somebody could put this in, and also edit the map.

There is also a bill pending in New Jersey to repeal the National Popular Vote Plan law! I am not sure how we should put this into the table.... Source: http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/02/06/many-bills-on-electoral-college/ --KarlFrei (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I agree... --Nightstallion 11:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Map is updated. And the attempt to repeal in NJ should be mentioned in the article, but the table is used only to track the progress of the actual compact, not attempts to repeal it. Nevermore | Talk 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, I think we have to mention it in the table. Otherwise we will give a false impression of the real status. Suppose more states start to repeal this law? We could use a different background color or something. --KarlFrei (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

a different table maybe? Nevermore | Talk 09:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be in favour to have a second table for that, I'm pretty sure we'll see more attempts to do that in the future. We needn't bother with it in the map for now, though, I'd say...? Or should we? --Nightstallion 10:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And could someone update the table with all the new bills? --Nightstallion 10:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the bill to repeal in NJ. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A3000/2641_I1.PDF

John Koza

This article attributes the conceptualization of the NPVIC to the Amar Brothers. I don't think this is accurate. Everything I have read, such as this article suggest that it was invented by computer science professor John Koza, who was introduced to the idea of interstate compacts after he invented the scratch-off lotto ticket. Does anybody have any citations for the Amar brothers? Greg Comlish (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the dispute is. The article is here, dated December 28, 2001. Koza concedes in the article you cite that the idea came to him in "early 2004." --Npvwatch (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Amar brothers abstractly suggested that coordinated action among states could produce an outcome that reflects the popular vote, but they didn't actually delineate a specific mechanism of coordination. My understanding is that Koza formulated the actual proposal using the interstate compact. (When Koza said the "idea came to him" I don't interpret that as a concession, it looks to me like its just a figure of speech). It's very common for articles to refer to NPVIC as "Koza's idea". [2][3]. In any case, it's clear that he has been central to promoting the NPVIC and his name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. I think this is a serious weakness we need to address. Greg Comlish (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Table getting unwieldy

The table with the legislative history is getting ever larger, and therefore harder to use. I see two possible solutions (apart from just removing parts of it):

1. Make a separate entry for each year and state where it was introduced, thus making the table sortable (i.e. no more cells spanning two or more rows)
2. Put all the bills that failed into a new table, keeping a separate (much smaller) table for the states where the bill is still pending.

Personally, I prefer the second option. What do you think? --KarlFrei (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mh, I think I prefer the first... --Nightstallion 16:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's two distinct questions people might want to answer with these tables: what is the most recent status of the NPVIC bill in a given state? and what is the complete history of a bill within a state?

I think we can only the first proposal really answers both of these questions. If the table is still weighing the article down then it might be worthwhile putting the big table in a separate article such as State-by-state history of NPVIC or something like that. I'm glad you brought up the question because I believe it is an area where the article could be improved. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Karl, for the purposes of illustration could you give use a small sample of the table you might use for proposal 1? Greg Comlish (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure:

State	EV	Year	Bill(s)	Lower house	Upper house	Governor	Status
Alabama	9	2007	HB 192	introduced	--	--	not voted on
Alaska	3	2007-08	SB 138	--	introduced	--	not voted on
Alaska	3	2009-10	SB 92	--	introduced	--	pending

--KarlFrei (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally? I don't understand why 80% of this table even exists. The mere fact that the legislation has not been "voted on," or the mere fact that it's been "introduced" or is "in committee," seems pretty meaningless to me. It seems that these aren't terribly "notable," to crib from the Wikipedia term regarding articles in general. It seems to me that a bill actually approved by one chamber of a state legislature would be sufficient for table listing. The rest of the table, however, seems like NPV shilling to me. Thousands of bills are introduced in legislatures every year; virtually all of them never see the light of day. Listing them here seems like puffery, unless they actually meet a nominal achievement (i.e., at least on chamber passes it). My humble opinion, anyway. --Npvwatch (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable compromise between the two extreme options of removing the table entirely and having it completely. I wouldn't mind deleting all the information about bills that did not pass in any house. What do others think? --KarlFrei (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I have now deleted only bills that did not even make it out of committee. This has already cut the size of the table by almost 50%. Regarding bills that are currently introduced, I prefer to keep them in the table, if only to make life easier for the table maintainers (since these entries also contain links to the legislature websites, where we can check for updates). --KarlFrei (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that made a huge difference. The marginal gains from eliminating entries where the bill has only passed one committee is very low (only 2 entries). We should keep those bills for now. We can revisit the issue down the road if things become unwieldy again. I still think it would be nice to have a table can be sorted. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

For consistency sake should we also remove bills that die in committee from the table of bills to cancel the NPVIC? I would say yes, but we might find ourselves with an empty table. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Karl, sorting the table by "status" doesn't work properly. It returns me to the top the the article and leaves the table unsorted. Greg Comlish (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have the same problem! I assumed it was just an error in my browser or something. I have no idea what can cause this - I just added the word "sortable" to the heading of the table. Anyone else know what is going on here? --KarlFrei (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits by RRichie

There have been a series of edits by RRichie, who, I think, is Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, an organization that advocates for the National Popular Vote plan. I think this qualifies as a conflict of interest. --Npvwatch (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, but I would hope fixing mistakes and updating things isn't a problem. Someone else should do something like what I did if it is. Take a look at what was done - -thanks. RRichie (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the edits made by RRichie. They all seem benign to me, like noting that Professor Bennett was from Northwestern Law School or that 48 states have introduced the compact. None of these edits appear to promote the bill. Npvwatch, did you have any specific edits that you were concerned about? Greg Comlish (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Updates to pending legislation

State-by-state pages need some updates. I believe in 2009 bills in Arkansas, Nebraska and Virginia are no longer pending, although ideally some enterprising person would check those states and some of the others.... Not any easy job, of course. RRichie (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is quite straightforward, since all data is referenced (which is one reason why this article is a WP:GA). Just click on the link [91] or whatever after the word "pending", and then on the link in the footnote, and you will magically be transported to the correct legislature website, which will tell you the current status (if it is up-to-date!).

I have removed Nebraska. Regarding Virginia, the website now states that the bill was "Left in Privileges and Elections". Is that the same as saying it died in committee? --KarlFrei (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut house passed NPV on May 12

Not sure how to update the chart, but the house passed the bill 76-69. RRichie (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's easy if you try :-) --KarlFrei (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Missouri adjourned... so everything is removed?

this looks like a mistake to me, but perhaps I'm not familiar with the rules for this page.. swain (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Missouri has no carry-over to next year, so this bill is dead. It was recently decided to only list bills that had passed in at least one house committee, or that were still pending. (In the future, we may not want to list bills until they pass in one house, though that makes it harder to keep track of the status.) --KarlFrei (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. thx! Perhaps the edit summary should reflect this, when it occurs. swain (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Colorado NPV legislation

I edited what was written previously. Colorado did not pass NPV legislation, I linked to Colorado State Legislator's page to show the history of HB 1299. Also, I found academic testimony and many articles that did not support NPV legislation in Colorado and have included just an example of each to the page for further references and defense. What was previously written about NPV legislation in Colorado actually cited an older bill that was unrelated and never went into effect. I just tried to update the Colorado section with what has happened this year with NPV legislation. Lobnow (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits Deleted

I noticed that my edits were already deleted, however when one checks all the links they go through, and the legislation shows that HB 1299 did NOT pass in the Colorado Senate, therefore to return to the old page is in fact untruthful and keeps the page inaccurate. I thought wiki tried to make their pages as accurate and up to date as possible? That is what my edit did. They should not be deleted again. Lobnow (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also...

My edits should NOT go in a new section because that section is talking about advocacy in state legislatures...Colorado does not advocate for NPV legislation so if my edit should go in a new section, they should still change the fact that Colorado did not pass an NPV bill in the Senate. Also, when speaking of advocacy, it is important to show that there is advocacy against the bill as well... Lobnow (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

State-by-state progress table.

How about instead of a year-by-year display for the states which have several attempts we focus on the most recent effort? The fact that a state legislature tried and not passed is one thing, but there's really no need to show they've failed at it several times. Thus, recommend the Year column become Year Last Considered/Most Recently Considered. jmho. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is florida on the state table?

Florida I figured would be the first state to look at, where is it?--Loodog (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No bill has passed any committee in Florida; please read the paragraph immediately above the table. --KarlFrei (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Lobnow's Edits

Recent edits by Lobnow baselessly claimed that Colorado rejected the NPV due to a lack of popular support and "academic rebuttal". No Colorado senators or their motives were referenced in either citation. Furthermore polling shows that Colorado overwhelmingly supports NPV and nowhere did Lobnow's citation (an editorial from the Denver Post lauding Colorado's status as a battleground state) claim otherwise. And the "academic rebuttal" is not an academic article, just a list of unsubstantiated claims hosted by a nakedly-ideological website. Greg Comlish (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Updates

I have made edits so the page's readability is not compromised but the most up-to-date information on Colorado's NPV legislation is printed, in a logical progression of the current status. I have cited the bill that proposed NPV legislation's history from the Colorado State legislature's site, as well as the copy of Professor Hardaway's testimony against the bill, and an Op-Ed that shows from the generally left-leaning Denver Post which shows public disapproval of the bill.

Greg, I'm sorry if the FACTS upset you. But Colorado will NOT be passing NPV legislation anytime soon, and it is important that whoever is looking into the Wikipedia page has the most up-to-date and unbiased current information about Colorado.Lobnow (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lobnow, your edits have been removed because they make claims that are unsupported in the citations you have provided. Having "citations" does not provide verifiability if the citations do not support the claims you are making. Greg Comlish (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

2010

Hi Guys,

We need to update the maps and tables for 2010. Greg Comlish (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that there is anything to be done at the moment! The table is current I think - all bills that are still marked pending should be in states with two-year sessions - and I think the map corresponds to the table. Of course, it could well be that right now new bills are being introduced in states; I read recently that supporters hope to introduce bills in 44 states. But I have no specific information about this. The blog Ballot Access News will probably give information once bills are introduced.

Regarding the year-by-year status maps, I would not be in favor of adding a map for 31 December 2009. Rather, I would prefer to remove the map for odd years (2007), since they give a kind of misleading picture because it is a snapshot in the middle of many legislative sessions. KarlFrei (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wisconsin introduced Assembly Bill 751 on 15 February 2010. I am not updating as a lot of work has been done on these tables and in regards to what should or should not be included and I would rather someone more familiar with this article do it. Sperril (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Added, thanks for the tip! The rules for inclusion are above the table - are they unclear in some sense? KarlFrei (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the rules are perfectly clear. Since I know this topic is controversial, and am not a regular contributor to this article, I simply felt it more proper to mention it on the talk page first. If nobody else made the change, and there were no objections here, I would have made it myself. (Now I just need to figure out how to update the map...) Sperril (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Arguments why it should be unconstitutional

I know that this is not a forum, but I am wondering whether anyone has a response to the following argument against its constitutionality (which seems like a really obvious argument to me, but I haven't seen it discussed anywhere):

• Suppose the NPV is constitutional. Then consider the following three examples, and tell me why they aren't also constitutional:
  • The "Big 12 Compact". The 12 largest states: CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, NC, NJ, GA, MA get together and sign a compact, by which they will allocate all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote only among those 12 states. These 12 states control a majority of the electoral college. This means that the presidential election will be decided only by the voters of the 12 largest states. The remaining 38 states will have no possibility of affecting the outcome.
  • The "Blue State Compact". The states with the largest margin for Obama in the 2008 election: DC, HI, VT, RI, MA, NY, IL, CA, DE, MD, CT, ME, WA, MI, OR, NJ, NM, WI, NV, PA, MN, NH, IA, CO sign a similar pact. These states between them control a majority in the electoral college. They agree to allocate all their votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the blue states only. This means that the "Red States" have no possibility of affecting the outcome, and pretty much guarantees the election of a Democratic president.
  • The "Red State Compact". The states with the best (relative) performance by McCain in the 2008 election do the same: WY, OK, UT, ID, AK, AL, AR, LA, KY, NE, KS, TN, MS, WV, TX, AZ, SC, ND, SD, GA, MT, MO, NC, IN, FL, OH, VA, CO. These states also control a majority of the electoral college. They sign a pact allocating all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in the red states only. This shuts out the blue states, and virtually guarantees the election of a Republican president.
• Are the Big 12 compact, the Blue State compact, and the Red State compacts constitutional? They certainly seem as though they ought not to be. Each one cuts out a whole section of the country giving it literally zero influence in the Presidential election. But it is hard to see the constitutional difference between the 3 hypothetical compacts listed above, and the NPV compact. If anyone has seen a discussion of this argument (which, I repeat, seems really obvious to me: I can't believe that no one has discussed it) in a WP:RS, please add to the article. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In 1966 a number of smaller states sued the state of New York arguing that the latter's usage of winner-takes-all practically disenfranchised them.[4] The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, presumably on the principle that states have the right to award electoral votes as they see fit, even if it means "effectively disenfranchising" other states. But all of this is speculative, and as you say, without a source it would be WP:OR to take it to the article. Gabbe (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Big 12 Compact couldn't happen? All it says is that adults can vote, and that states can apportion their electors in whatever way they wish. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every vote must effect the outcome of the election. All of your examples would be perfectly Constitutional. Remember, the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. The individual citizen has no Constitutional right to elect the President. Only the electors have that right. In all States, it just so happens that the electors are chosen by which party wins a popular vote, (or in some cases, by fraction of a popular vote.) The citizens of the US have no actual right to elect the President whatsoever. Sperril (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The 14th amendment provides equal protection under the laws. Grover's "never-going-to-happen" compacts go beyond the Delaware lawsuit from 1966 into straightforward violations of equal protection. National Popular Vote does not do so, however -- indeed it better upholds the principles of equal protection than state winner-take-all rules. For more information on various hypotheticals, check out http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php RRichie (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the attempts to repeal?

I know that some of the member states have introduced bills to repeal the compact that made it out of committee. I was on this page a year ago and it have info on this. It is certainly relevant to the legislative history. What happened to it? Does anyone with expertise on the subject know which states they were and add it back to the article.128.252.78.87 (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding that this article only report on legislation that reaches a certain threshold of support (passage in one chamber?). No repeal legislation has made it out of committee as far as I know.RRichie (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There was consensus that the unchecked proliferation of state bills detracted from the article and made the relevant information more difficult to keep track of. Criteria were established to limit which bills would be enumerated. The new criteria for inclusion in the table was that the bill passed a chamber. Since no repeal for the NPVIC has ever been passed by any chamber, the table of attempted repeals was eliminated. Greg Comlish (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Status as of July 2, 2010

I just did some updates, as there was some dated information. Note that the state-by-state chart isn't quite right if someone wants to take that on. Delaware is no longer pending, but New York still is (as legislature isn't done for year). RRichie (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the NYS Legislature is going to return to business? I thought they had adjourned on 1 July for the year. Sorry, I will re-edit that. BTW, where is good information on how much and when again the legislature will meet? Thanks. --Cornince (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Google '2010 state legislative sessions'. KarlFrei (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If merely introducing a bill is meaningless/trivial/doesn't matter...

Then why does the map of the states include a dark green color indicating a bill was introduced? Tisane ^talk/_stalk 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. This should be removed, really. Unfortunately, I don't know how these maps are edited. KarlFrei (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me -- or . . . ?

I'm not a regular contributor, so I am asking those of you who are for help here.

I have two points which I think are highly relevant to this article -- but I'm not sure where they should best go in the article, or even if they have enough authoritative support to be included. Still, I would appreciate the consideration of those watching over the article.

(1) I am concerned about the increased prospect under any popular-vote system of "majority fraud" -- where one party controls enough of the government/structure in a state, or a major metropolitan area, that it can give a major boost to its ticket's vote totals without fear of reprisal. But does that issue/argument fit in with the current "Close elections and voter fraud" section, or should it be off by itself? (And has anybody else mentioned it, so that it's more than just one third-party member/attorney's opinion -- even if I did do tolerably well in my Election Law class?)

Some people would say that this has already happened, in Ohio in 2004... I agree though that this could be more of a problem if every vote counts in states where this was not previously the case (deep red or deep blue).

(2) And maybe there should be a separate section for another concern, more specifically about the NPV. What would happen if the national vote were close enough that recounts in one or more states might swing the total decision, but the votes in *those* states *weren't* close enough to require (or even permit) a recount under their laws? Does it make a difference if the states you want recounted aren't even participants in the NPV compact? How much control/interest/interference could voters from state A (or states A, B, and C for that matter) have over/in/against the results of state D (or D, E, and F) and voters there?

Again, I thank you in advance for your consideration of whether these points are worthy of inclusion. -- jalp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.13.73 (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a very interesting point, I think. This could certainly happen, and I am not sure what the result would be! It could in fact happen that all states have large margins, but the sum happens to be extremely close. Of course such a very close presidential election will on average only occur less than once in a thousand years, but when it does happen, they should be prepared. So it seems states would have to change their laws regarding when a recount for a presidential election is allowed...

In any event, I'm afraid that both of your points fall under WP:OR, so we cannot include them in the article unless a reliable source brings them up. KarlFrei (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Would this attorney and author do as a reliable source? Or, on the fraud issues at least, perhaps even this Cornell professor of mathematical psychology? Though he lists it on his home page under "Some quantitative methods with little application to psychology". . . . -- jalp 209.172.14.181 (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)jalp 2010/07/01 (sorry I didn't sign it properly then)

I'm sorry, but these are two self-published articles, which do not count (I think). We would need a peer-reviewed article, or a newspaper article about these objections. I certainly appreciate your contributions, and your concerns are valid I think, but we cannot put them into the article like this. However - just wait: if this compact gets close to passing, there will definitely be tons of newspaper articles raising these objections, as well as others that we haven't even thought of. KarlFrei (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I enjoyed reading in the second source "I don't need a citation for this, I was there!" Very funny :-) but not very scientific. KarlFrei (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Is it just me, or" II . . .

Is the argument of NPV supporters listed under "Electoral votes awarded to national winner, not state winner" a bit out of order?

As I write this, the text of that section reads as follows:

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 effectively 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.[38][39][40]

But surely the point of NPV is to find a way, *short* of actually amending the Constitution, to use the existing EC structure to let the popular vote decide the outcome . . . a way to make that formality's symbols turn out the way supporters wish they would. Or, looking at it the other way around, even under NPV the popular vote couldn't decide the outcome *without* the formalities of the EC.

Aside from my position on the issue, I really do think this argument is somewhat cart-before-the-horse.

(By contrast, the objection to NPV given here is clearly hypothetical -- but also clearly a true hypothetical. On that, the question for individuals considering whether to support NPV is not how true or not the possibility is, but rather how important they think it is . . . compared to other possible effects of the plan.)

-- jalp 209.172.14.181 (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like BS...

This sentence "They contend 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 numerous statewide tallies may determine the national winner" seems like malarkey. There is not a single nationwide pool of votes. Rather, there are more than ten thosand small local precints nationwide and every single one of them provides massive opportunity for voter fraud and vote manipulation. Under the current system when a loser loses a state, there's no reason to go back to cheat upp some additional phoney votes. But under this new plan, a cycle of endless recounts would occur. "We need to keep counting until we win", they'll say. Sounds like a scam. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There will probably need to be a constitutional amendment at some point, giving the feds the power to administer Presidential elections, so that any complaints can be taken up with the administering agency, rather than with all these local election systems. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Modifying the compact

It's not particularly easy to modify this compact, is it? It would require state by state ratification of the amendment, basically the same process that will be required to enact it to begin with. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What would happen if...

One of the states that was not part of the Compact refused to provide certified state popular vote figures (perhaps intentionally so in order to screw with the NPVIC). Would that state be ignored in calculating the overall national popular vote? Grover cleveland (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a massive "what if." All states have laws that direct how the popular vote is to be counted and how electors are to be chosen. In most states, it's a part of their constitution. What would happen under the current system if that occured? It's just as likely to happen now as it is if NPV is passed. States are required to send their electors no matter whether they certify a vote count or not. What if Martians came and stole all the ballot boxes? We can play what-if forever but this is so unlikely that I would consider it effectively impossible. But if it did occur, and a state simply refused to count the votes of it's own citizens, then those uncounted citizens didn't actually get to vote and thus wouldn't be counted. The state that refused to count it's citizen's votes would likely be in violation of the US Constitution though.Sperril (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Grover -- good resources on such hypotheticals at: http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php RRichie (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of more detailed scenarios that I don't see discussed at your link:

• south carolina reacts to the activation of the NPV compact by changing its electoral law so that the state's electors are not appointed by popular majority vote . Instead they're directly elected by the state legislature(as they used to be until the Civil War). There would no longer be any popular vote to report from south carolina.
• california widens its franchise for presidential elections to give a vote to all human beings in the state, including illegal aliens and children (parents can vote on behalf of children). This gives california a huge extra weight in the national popular vote.Grover cleveland (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

South Carolina is free to choose her electors as she wishes. If there was no popular vote in South Carolina, then the state would become irrelevent to presidential elections under NPV legislation. There is nothing unconstitutional about this. However, South Carolina would then lose all but 1 Representative in the United States House of Representatives in accordance with the United States Constitution. (Representation in the US House of Representatives is determined by the number of males over the age of 21 that are allowed to vote in all types of elections, with a minimum of 1 for each State. Because of this, South Carolina would also lose all but 3 of her electors.) California is free to count votes in whatever way they wish. I don't see anything in the US Constitution that would prohibit California from enfranchising illegals, or children. The Constitution of the State of California provides for enfranchisement. Specifically, "A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote." Enfranchising anyone else would likely need an amendment to the state constitution. (Although one could possibly argue that the Constitution only says who must be allowed to vote, it doesn't specifically say that others are prohibited. In practice, illegals and children cannot vote in California.) Because of what I mentioned above, California would gain electors based on the number of male illegals over 21 that are now allowed to vote. This is my interpretation anyway. Sperril (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The last part is incorrect, as the the 14th amendment, section 2 talks about "male citizens." So California would not have its representation increased by that.

For the first part, I had never seen that interpretation, but it does make sense from the wording. --Cornince (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To add, you are again mentioning situations that are so far removed from reality that I consider them almost impossible. You are assuming that South Carolina would willingly drop almost all of her representation in Congress, and that California voters would happily allow children and illegals to vote. You are also assuming that the rest of the states that are party to the compact would simply allow California to do this without response. If something this silly occured, they would likely modify the compact. Sperril (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Under the current system the weight of any one state within the Electoral College is fixed. California has 55 electoral votes out of 538, regardless of how many people in California actually vote in the presidential election. However, under NPV the relative weight of California is not fixed: it depends on the number of votes cast in California as a proportion of the number of votes cast nationally. Therefore California has every incentive to expand the franchise in any way constitutionally permissible. Of course other states face the exact same incentive, so we may expect to see some kind of "race to the bottom" as every state attempts to expand its Presidential franchise. The NPV could try to set standards on who should be allowed to vote but this cannot bind non-participating states. BTW on the south Carolina hypo I think you're both misinterpreting Amdmt XIV section 2 (which was never enforced anyway). Grover cleveland (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The legitimacy of a Constitutional Amendment is not dependent on whether it was enforced in the past. Even if we put the question of representation aside, I still say that the people of South Carolina would throw out any government that took away their right to vote. It is simply unimaginable to me that a state would get away with not counting the votes of it's own citizens. I can't see the people of South Carolina approving of their own disenfranchisement. It will never happen. As for California, I don't see what anyone in the state would stand to gain from enfranchising illegals or children under either system. Having more voters wouldn't make people in a given state more powerful in any meaningful way. If it did make a state more powerful, I would expect to see different counties within the states "racing to the bottom." That isn't happening. Voters would never approve of non-uniform enfranchisement on a noticeable scale. I guess I'm failing to see what a voter in either state would gain by performing the actions you hypothesize. Why would a voter in South Carolina choose to be disenfranchised? Why would a voter in California choose to enfranchise more people and thus dilute their own vote? I don't see what they have to gain in either instance. Sperril (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No electorate would perceive any advantage to diluting their political influence by allowing an unlimited number of foreigners to vote. There is no mechanism for a "race to the bottom." Greg Comlish (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There might not have been much opportunity for its enforcement. If I recall, no state except Colorado in 1876 and Florida in 1868 (both of which had only 3 electors) has used legislative appointment as its method of choosing electors since end of the Civil War. --Cornince (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If a state really wanted to screw with the compact, the way to do it is to adopt a balloting system in which the number of votes can exceed to number of ballots. Note that this incentive exists both for states within and outside the compact. 76.204.100.116 (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

District of Columbia

I'm confused. If Mayor Fenty approves the NPVIC will DC then be part of the compact? That is what is suggested in the table, and in some news articles I've read. But elsewhere in the wikipedia article it suggests that Congressional approval is required for DC to join the compact. Do we have a definitive source that says which is it? Greg Comlish (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that Congress has to approve it, but I am not sure. Certainly if you go to the DC website (note 60) and look for this bill, below the section Mayoral Review there is a section Congressional Review. But I don't know if every bill gets sent to Congress. We should know more on Monday though, because that is Fenty's deadline. KarlFrei (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I decided to use this new-fangled Google thingy and this is what I found: "Unique to the District of Columbia, an approved Act of the Council must be sent to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for a period of 30 days before becoming effective as law (or 60 days for certain criminal legislation). During this 30-day period of congressional review, the Congress may enact into law a joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act. If, during the 30-day period, the President of the United States approves the joint resolution, the Council’s Act is prevented from becoming law." I added a link to this information in the table. KarlFrei (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hertzberg explains the situation here. He appears to take it for granted that congress will not intervene in this issue. Greg Comlish (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, we need to revise this sentence "Regardless of whether or not Congressional approval is required, supporters of the NPVIC are seeking congressional approval so that Washington DC may be incorporated in the compact" since it now appears that Congressional approval is not required to incorporate DC into the compact. Maybe something like "Regardless of whether or not Congressional approval is required, supporters of the NPVIC are seeking congressional approval to ensure DC's continued incorporation in the compact". Or maybe just "Regardless of whether or not Congressional approval is required, supporters of the NPVIC are seeking congressional approval." Greg Comlish (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your last sentence is the simplest and is accurate. Notes this from the NPV website: "15.4 MYTH: The National Popular Vote compact requires congressional consent to become effective.Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent." -- http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m15.php -- I'll go head and put Greg's language inRRichie (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this last part appears to talk about the entire compact, not about DC. But this text change is fine. However, since the approval of Congress *is* required, even if it is almost always given by default, I would keep the table and the rest of the article as it is for the moment. We can wait 30 days... KarlFrei (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The small states

People say, "The small states would never agree to getting rid of the electoral college," yet look who is lining up to join the NPV Compact. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 03:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You do know the average size of a state is 10.76, right? Only Maryland and Hawaii are below average, and they're two of the bluest states of the union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.184.209 (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Also note that according to the Penrose square-root law, the current electoral system gives above-average voting power to the voters of both the smallest and the largest states, while the medium-sized states are somehow disadvantaged. And indeed, five out of the six contracting states are medium-sized, so the states behaved quite rationally. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Recount

I think the article needs to address the ambiguities about the recount process under the compact and how such a process would proceed. This is an issue that is coming up more frequently in discourse about NPV. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Which ambiguities exactly? [5] explains many details about recounts under NPV. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's good information, and the kind of content we should include in the article. People do not understand the process for a recount under NPV. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add something from it to the article. Otherwise I may do it when I have more time...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Status of New York?

What is the current status of New York? Did it pass? Or is it getting blocked from the floor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.184.209 (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It certainly did not pass. I do not know why it is not being voted on. The status of this bill has not changed since July 1. KarlFrei (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the speaker of the Assembly, where the bill is being considered, still plans to convene the Assembly again before the year is out. --Cornince (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the New York Legislature's site, and it looks like new bills have been introduced for 2011: A489 and S1820. Are we adding new session info yet? --JasonDAnderson (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure we are :-) However, it is our custom to only include bills in the table that have been voted on in a legislative chamber (not just in a committee). This makes it easier to maintain an overview. KarlFrei (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DC is IN

The mayor signed the bill on Oct 12. Congress only has 30 days to overturn the bill and those days have expired. The bill is now law. Greg Comlish (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link about DC (with thanks to RRichie) that explains it is legislative days that count, not calendar days -- http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/lims/faq.aspx#6 There have not been any legislative days (in Congress) since October 12. KarlFrei (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you know when Congress will have completed the 30 legislative days, approximately? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. Definitely not this year... KarlFrei (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As of 11/19 at 3:32 PM EST, there have been four have legislative days since DC has passed the bill. http://houselive.gov/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.89.10 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

These links show the days when each house of Congress is in session: House, Senate. Since October 18, 2010, when the bill was sent to Congress, there have been 14 legislative days (days when at least one house is in session). Dave (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So... early next year then, unless they become unusually productive before Christmas! KarlFrei (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. It's 15 days as of today... BTW, the "current status" map needs to be updated, DC should be coloured green. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So, it seems like Friday the 17th is the magic date! I certainly did not expect this a month ago. I would prefer to wait with updating the article until the DC legislative website agrees that this bill is now law, though. KarlFrei (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"can affect both parties."

KarlFrei, 22:19, 4 February 2011: ~~"can affect both major parties" is factual and accurate. It just happened to benefit one party so far. Who's to say what will happen in the future?}~~

Since the electoral anomaly always causes some party to win the election and some other party to lose, how is "can affect both major parties" possibly unambigous? By definition it always DOES affect both parties. Everytime it happens it affects two parties differently.

When the anomaly occurs it *benefits* one party and *costs* the other. As such, it *can* cost or benefit both parties/either party -- hypothetically ("can").

Historically, however, the anomaly always *has* benefited Republicans and cost Democrats. If you want to put this in terms of political parties, then "can affect both parties" is strictly theoretical, while "has always benefited Republicans" is factual (and thus more accurate), more clear and less ambiguous.

As for "Who's to say what will happen in the future?" Well, the good thing about Wiki is that if things change we can always come back and update it afterwards, can't we? Until then, the fact is that the electoral anomaly has always benefited the Republicans and cost the Democrats.

Furthermore, I can think of nothing more relevant for a section called "Motivation for introducing the compact" than the fact that the status quo consistently advantages one side. It's misleading to suggest that, "oh, by the way, this affects both sides equally" -- it most certainly does not (and not by accident, either). Without question, Democrats are rightfully more motivated to advance the compact. In the interest of accuracy and completeness, that should not be glossed over here. Cpurick (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Before we get into a discussion, could you please explain your comment about it not being by accident? I will say already that I interpreted "affect" here as: it can happen to both major parties that they win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. Doesn't seem like such a controversial statement to me. KarlFrei (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Affect is ambiguous because it can also mean "lose the popular vote but win the electoral."

And it's not by accident that constitutional design gives less populated/more rural states more weight in congressional and electoral representation. If the electoral anomaly happened to go both ways from time to time then you could argue that it's a separate phenomenon from that weighting. But since it consistently favors along those same lines, then there's no reason to doubt that the anomaly is in fact a manifestation of that original deliberate bias. By not acknowledging that trend, and by seemingly suggesting that the anomaly is random, a reader could be misled to conclude that participating in the compact merely corrects for some statistical glitch and does not advantage or disadvantage anyone. However, since the true track record is that the anomaly gives someone an advantage, then accepting the compact does not merely correct a glitch -- it actually shifts power. The reader is entitled to know how the status quo has historically affected him in the past, so he can conclude for himself how the compact might affect him in the future.Cpurick (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course I fully agree that smaller states have more weight. And currently this favors Republicans. But it wasn't always so and most likely will not remain so (that rural states vote R, I mean). The parties change over time and so do the people. About the line with "affect", I suppose it is an empty statement and might as well be kept out of the article. KarlFrei (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot in NYS

The NYS assembly site now refers to a bill relating to agriculture, not elections. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. KarlFrei (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

2010 Updates

Hi Guys,

We have a lot of updates for 2010 that we need to make to this article to keep in GA. Here are some standards we agreed to that are not being met:

• The current legislative session map needs to be updated
• The historical maps showing the progress of NPVIC need a 2010 map added.
• The article should eliminate all statehouse bills from the table unless they passed at least one chamber. The statehouse bills need to be updated to point to laws in the current session.

I will work on these myself, too. How are the maps produced? I would love to volunteer for the map updates, but I don't know how. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No one else seemed to be doing it, so I used comment tags to edit out all the states in the table that no longer had current legislation pending, but left those that had passed NPVIC into law. I added Vermont's current bill. Hope I didn't mess it up too badly, please take a look and see if that is what is intended for the page. I think it is, or I wouldn't have made the edits. JasonDAnderson (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, but I think you may have gone a bit too far :-( The idea was to show all states where the bill had at least made some progress in the past (beyond just being introduced, I mean). Now, all the unsuccessful attempts are gone! This is no longer a state-by-state legislative history, but only a listing of the *successful* attempts, which we actually already have in this article. If anything, perhaps *these* should be removed and the unsuccessful attempts added back in; at least then we add some information. (Of course the section title should then be changed to 'failed attempts' or something.) Thoughts? KarlFrei (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood the intent of the table. I thought it was for anthing that had already been passed *completely* and enacted, or bills currently pending. I see what you/we intended now. JasonDAnderson (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The consensus that we agreed to was that we would keep items in the historical table if they passed at least one chamber, but eliminate bills that were merely introduced, or died in committee, or otherwise failed to pass the house. We should restore those items to the table and keep the new Vermont bill. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I restored the items, minus the Montana and North Dakota bills that did not pass either chamber. I also added Vermont. But I couldn't get the m-dash to appear correctly in the table. Am I doing something wrong? Greg Comlish (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I always just copy the m-dash from other places when I need it, I don't know how to create it.KarlFrei (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarity query, who would be the electors

Party A and Party B provide full elector slates in a state that has NPV and NPV is in effect. Party B wins the state and would normally get to send its slate to the capitol to undertake the vote. But Party A wins the NPV and thus the electoral votes go to Party A's candidate. So do Party A's slate go to cast the votes or do Party B's slate? I'm not entirely sure how this would work satisfactorily either way but the article as it stands now doesn't seem to make it clear who the electors would be. TMLutas (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If A wins the NPV, then by law A's electors would be appointed to the electoral college in any state that has enacted the NPV compact.Greg Comlish (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

New Bills

Here are a few articles on NPVIC bills in various states:

CT: [6] NY: [7] PA: [8] WV: [9] NB: [10]

we need to make sure to add these to the list Greg Comlish (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I added West Virginia, complete with the Bills. However I can't access the Nebraska Bill Tracker (always get a 404), and the search for the Pennsylvania bill leads to nothing: Search for the bill# as given in the table (HB1270) gives the result "This bill does not exist", a keyword search for election returns over 300 results, none of them concerning National Popular Vote. --Completefailure (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Managed to connect to the Nebraska Legislature website and added the bill, although I'm not entirely sure whether it's still alive. That still leaves Pennsylvania where there's still no official source for the bill. The source given in the article states that the introduction is planned, not that it already happened. --Completefailure (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Table getting long

Along with the introduced bills already in the table, bills have also been introduced in at least six more states this year (still checking sources). I'll add those later, but it will make the table rather unwieldy. I checked the archive, yet I found no consensus on when new bills should be added to the article - should we really add bills that have only been introduced/are still in committee? (I'd say yes, but I'm not certain) Or maybe split up the table into three tables passed/current/legislative history? --Completefailure (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeals

I noticed a news article today that Maryland had a bill to repeal the NPV but it failed... perhaps at some point a new table for repeals would be worthwhile, in the same manner we have a table tracking the passage of NPV.

http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/04/12/maryland-legislature-adjourns-having-passed-few-election-law-bills/ swain (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus criteria for a bill's retention in the article was that it was passed by at least one statehouse. The proposed repeals have never passed either statehouse so their table was removed when all the failed bills were cleaned up. If the repeal was pending the I would support re-adding the repeal table, but the bill was already voted down.Greg Comlish (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks! swain (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Better Maps 2011

It is a bit odd that this page is better at describing what's happening than the NPV page itself.

Thanks for the compliment :-)

However, the least good part of our page I think is the maps. They seem to be hard to maintain -- are they needed? If they are to be kept they need to be updated (I don't know how). The colouring of the maps should be harmonised with the colours of the excellent "State-by-state legislative history", so that green = passed into law, yellow = pending, red = failed (in current legislative period). Do we really need to mark states where the bill has been introduced? Wahlin (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, the stretching of the maps also needs to be redone because of the recent reapportionment. I certainly have no idea of how to do that. For the moment, I will just remove the outdated maps. KarlFrei (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

KarlFrei, it was really easy to edit the colours in the maps. I just downloaded the map files and opened them with the native "Paint" Windows program and bucket-filled the states with the colours of my liking. Anyone can do that. However, I sense that this page is your baby much more than mine, so I think it would be futile for me to change the maps. It's better if you did it. I only wish that the colours are harmonised with the colouring of the state-by-state history table. The scaling effects are not so important. I suggest remove the scaled maps, because the scaled ones only double the amount of work and maintenance but don't give much more information, because the electoral votes per state are presented elsewhere on the page.Wahlin (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get to it one of these days - real life is intervening. I really wouldn't mind if you put up new maps though (with whatever colour scheme you like); I never worked on the maps anyway (obviously ;-) ). Thanks also for adding CA. Let's hope it works out this time there! KarlFrei (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather than using the distorted map, I think a cartogram like that for the 2008 election (see here) gives a better overview regarding number of electoral votes. I'll make a vector graphic of an updated map anyway for future use, so it would be no problem to use it here. On another note, do we really need four status images? They currently take up 920 pixel in the horizontal, which is quite much and there'll be even more in the future. And that many colours? The map system was created when this article was quite new I guess, and I'm wondering whether it's still fitting. Alternatives or additions could be an animation showing year-by-year progress or a map for overall view (passed, pending, earlier efforts didn't pass). Just some thoughts.--Completefailure (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that would be really useful. This has been in the back of my mind for a while. Now is a good time to implement this since we need to change the cartogram we are using. (I believe it is based off of the previous electoral vote allocation). Greg Comlish (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll get to it, might take a bit. Still there's the question to the colours... specifically the different "stages of failing". I feel like a "currently failed" would be enough. Completefailure (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am used to the previous color scheme. What were the issues about it that you wanted to address? BTW, here's a vector graphic version of that cartogram off of wikimedia commons. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, as Wahlin suggested above, harmonizing the colours with those in the article might fit better - with the graphics giving the information in the same way as the article. Apart from that I think blue to indicate a bill that passed is a bit counterintuitive, with green being the standard choice not only in the table. That a different colour is needed, when there's already three shades of green in use is clear, so I'm questioning the three shades of green, too. I'm not really fond of black for states where no bill has been introduced either, since I feel it draws the most attention. Also, I too don't know whether any state where a bill has been only introduced should be included - currently that would add another 17 rows to table, making the article much of a list. Thanks, thankfully I've seen the .svg:), apart from moving of blocks also needed some re-structuring. I've uploaded it for now with the colour scheme of the table (seems a bit too bright to me), just for discussion, colours can be changed easily: File:Cartogram NPVIC Current Status.svg. Completefailure (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I really like the cartogram, let's put it in the article! I am surprised though that there are that many states where the bill is currently pending, how do you know this? I am only aware of the entries in the table. It is perhaps indeed a good idea to only mention bills in the table that have made some progress (i.e. made it out of some committee); however, the advantage of the current setup is that it is easy for editors to go over the states and check whether there has been any new progress anywhere recently by checking the references, which are cumbersome to track down. Finally, an animation showing past developments would be fantastic. KarlFrei (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll split discussion on when to add a state into a new subject, should be discussed more broadly I think. Using the cartogram instead of the distorted map still leaves a few question open to me: which colour scheme to use (and which stages to show), having an animation additionally to the current map table or to replace it and how to deal with the map table if we keep it. As it is now, it is unusable - when my browser window is not in fullscreen I don't see the map with the current status - the same will go for many users (my laptop monitor is 1200 pixel wide, monitors 1280 pixel wide are still the most widely used). So if we keep the map-table one map should go. Alternative is the animation (e.g. 31 Dec 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, current) along with a static map showing the current status. Completefailure (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Colour scheme: I would suggest to use green for enacted bills, yellow for pending (possibly in various shades) and red for failed (again, possibly in various shades).

Animation: I would like to see an animation of the past (and current?) plus a static map at the top. Probably an animation at the top is too distracting. It would perhaps be best to use only even years in the animation, since most states have two-year sessions that end in even years. KarlFrei (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Completefailure that the map colours should be simplified and harmonised with the colouring of the table. And the number of maps should be reduced.

I think ONE map should do. Just one map which ONLY shows the (green) states where the compact is law.

The pending situation is fluctual and subject to a lot of interpretation of what each editor thinks qualifies as pending. Since the "pendingness" can't be explained in the map I think the pending places should be left out, but they're fine in the table, where there is more room for explanation.Wahlin (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

When to add a state

I checked the legislation websites yesterday to see if the article misses something, as it turned out there's that many bills introduced (17, some aren't even on nationalpopularvote.com), I didn't really want to add them just yet. Currently as it happens: when a bill is introduced the state gets added to the table and marked in the map. When the bill doesn't even make it to vote at the end of the session it is commented out of the table, yet stays in the map. I think adding states only when a bill has made it out of committee would be fine. However not mentioning where a bill has failed even before being voted on might create a POV - it would show up as failed in fewer states than it really has. And having the states in the table so editors can easily check the status is a plus. Also the exact time when a bill gets added would have to be well defined: when it is voted on in committee, when it is out of the first committee, when it is placed on the calendar for third reading...? Keeping in mind that the table will get longer and longer anyway, I suggest splitting it into two or three tables: passed (additional to/or included in) legislative history (earlier sessions), and current legislation. And in that case to include states where it has just been introduced/is still in committee. I'll start adding states where a bill has made at least some progress. If we decide not to add states where bills are still in a committee, we should start posting the links to the status reports in the talk at least. Completefailure (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like states where a bill died without a vote are not currently indicated in the maps, as some states, e.g. Wyoming and Montana, are black in every map, yet we know that bills have been introduced in all 50 states. I've clarified the text prior to the maps to reflect this, but you are right about the unintended POV effect. The solution would be either A) to move to four shades of red, for "died prior to floor vote", "died in floor vote in first house","died in floor vote in second house",and "passed both houses and died by veto" or B) to stop showing bills that have yet to make it to a floor vote, thus moving from three to two shades of green. Either way, whether we want to discuss un-voted-on bills or not, we really should have one more shade of red than of green:

alive	introduced (green 1)	passed first house (green 2)	passed second house (green 3)	signed (blue)
dead	died in committee (red 0 -- currently black)	voted down in first house (red 1)	voted down in second house (red 2)	vetoed (red 3)

» Swpb^{τ • ¢} 16:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess the larger question that we have to deal with at this point is: what is the point of the table? I think that by far the most important thing that the table offers is an overview of the current status, in particular, the currently pending bills. For states where the bills passed into law, the table only adds details like how many failed attempts there were before. For states without pending bills, again it just gives you an overview of past attempts.

In order to avoid POV, an option might also be to remove the completely successful states, which are already mentioned several times earlier in the article. Then we only have pending and failed (but halfway successful) attempts, which seems reasonable. We already mention in the text that the compact has been introduced everywhere (perhaps we should add that it was introduced several times already in some states).

However, note that a problem with removing the completely hopeless attempts as we currently do means that much of the information in the maps is unreferenced, which is kind of problematic. Of course a possible solution for that is to just let the maps go... People have already argued before that all these maps (apart from the one with current status) are inherently POV because they give the impression of (unstoppable) progress.

Regarding the colours, see my comment above: I prefer shades of yellow to match the table. KarlFrei (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if pending states should be highlighted in the map at all, that should be done with yellow. As I wrote above, I now think that the map only should show states which have the NPVIC enacted as law (in green, of course). The multitude of maps is confusing and the chronology they are supposed to report is already shown in a better way in the list of states below.Wahlin (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think that map is enough, whether it should also show states where a bill is pending I don't really know. However it seems a bit out of place now under it's own heading - maybe placing it at the right with text flow on the left at the start of "Advocacy in state legislatures" would be a better choice.

Leaving information needed for the maps unreferenced is a point I forgot, but that is not true if there's only the current status left. A question about the mentioning of bills having been introduced everywhere but not voted on: Where they not voted on because they were introduced too late in the session, or because they have been voted down by a committee first? This paragraph needs a bit of clarification in my opinion. And the sentence doesn't actually say that it hasn't been voted on in those states not listed.

So back to the question of the "pendingness" needed for a bill to be included in the table: upon introduction, when in committee, when it's out of committee? Completefailure (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the map would be best placed to the right of the list of states which have adopted the law. I don't know how to move the map around. Could anyone with more wiki-skills help? I have no strong feelings about the pendingness. I think the table should be generous with listing all states where some form of legislative action is going on (or has been going on). The pending states are OK in the map, as long as the map adheres to the pending states below. Wahlin (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A try with one map only

Dear fellow editors, I have now tried with only one map. I changed the colours so that they are similar to those in the table. I also marked all pending states according to the table.

I think it is better this way, but if you completely disagree, please revert to the version of 22:47, 28 April 2011. But I hope we could discuss it here first. Wahlin (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the map with the vector graphic; this includes the cartogram instead of the stretched map. Editing it (the colouring of the different states) is fairly simply with a program like Inkscape and should also be doable with a simple text editor: All state-specific areas are grouped and named (e.g. "WA"), these in turn are grouped into "passed", "pending-introduced" and "not introduced". Colours are defined in these groups, so if a status changes, the according state group just has to be moved into the fitting super-group. Also, feel free to just request any changes on this talk page, I usually check wiki each 1-2 days.

Also, I moved the map to the start of "Advocacy in state legislatures", although I'm afraid this could ruin the layout on wide (1600+ pixel width) monitors - I didn't want to move it beside the table of states that passed the act, because I thought that might be a problem for the layout even more. Completefailure (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Map looks great. I think the "map issue" is solved now! Wahlin (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a positive step to move to one map and match the color scheme to the chart. My only complaint - why have we switched to this block-style cartogram, over the smoothly-distorted one we were using before? States were easier to identify by shape, and it was IMO more aesthetic. Very smart move, though, to put the 2-letter codes and EV counts directly on the map. Actually, I have one other slight concern, which is that IMO the two-color map seems to lend an (inaccurate) air of inevitability to the "pending" states. Would it be an improvement to add back in a "failed in this session" red? Or am I mucking up a resolved issue? » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 02:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the bill has been introduced anywhere (I also don't know what happened exactly to bills that were "not voted on"), I have now simply added a line to the map's legend, explaining that the bill failed in gray states. I also moved the map to the top of the article which is were it was before (i.e. last year), I think this was/is a great place for it, it immediately gives an overview.KarlFrei (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

KarlFrei, your insertion of the grey legend piece was a nice Gordian cut that instantly made the map less biased. Wahlin (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Aesthetics wise I'm not a big fan of the blocks either, but I think it shows the actual proportions better than the distorted map. Also, the distorted map would have to be redrawn to reflect the changes in the distribution of electoral votes, and while the tool with which the map was created originally, is available for free, it is rather complicated to use. As for the multitude of colours in use, there's still the possibility to only indicate in which states the compact has passed. Completefailure (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There is one small error on the map. Iowa has only 6 EVs and not 7 as depicted on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.48.173.245 (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

fixed that. Completefailure (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I really like the shift towards the block cartogram. Aesthetically I find it preferable. Excellent Job Completefailure! Personally, I'd like to split the image up into two images and they can be individually labeled as "Standard Ma" and "Electoral Vote Cartogram". Greg Comlish (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That, of course, is another possibility. Isn't that much of work, so if we want to change to two separate images, I'll get to it Completefailure (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Two separate maps'd be nice in a way. However, it will double the risk for inconsistencies. As of now, it is enough to change one piece of code for two maps. Maybe it's easier to keep them together. Wahlin (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Where is this code to generate the maps? It is embedded in the svg? I'm curious because I'd like to learn how to efficiently edit the maps. I don't have much familiarity with vector graphics. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Greg Comlish, the svg isn't a picture, but a program code. Can be opened with Wordpad. I did not get this myself, but I was also curious, so I asked Completefailure on his talkpage. His answer worked for me. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Completefailure#Edit_cartogram_.3F Wahlin (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Other Bills

I found other NPV bills on the state legislative websites of Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Oregon. I don´t know how to add them, and whether they are really pending. In Rhode Island the Senate bill is S 164 and there is an accompanying House bill. You can find these bills except for the NC bill on the NPV website. It would be nice if sombody could re-check and possibly add these bills. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.48.173.185 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added them for now, along with the other bills that have been introduced/are in committee. If anyone feels they shouldn't be added before they are moved out of committee, just comment/edit them out. Completefailure (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think all bills alive in the legislatures should be considered pending and listed. That is the kind of information that readers of this page would want to know -- what's going on in my state? We'll just have to remove them if they die in committee or red-mark them if the bills make it to the floor but don't get enough support there. We have to remember to update the map too (another place where the curious, casual reader would look). I have done that now for your additions. Wahlin (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, completely forgot about the map. Completefailure (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

MIssouri Failed?

It looks like the attempt in Missouri may have failed:

http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB974&year=2011&code=R

The bill just got a public hearing today, and all it says is that the hearing was completed. Some other bills at the hearing say they have received "Do Pass" standing. It may be the bills that just say the hearing was completed have failed. --Cornince (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the committee could still act on the bill in this session, however unlikely it is. Of course I may be wrong here, proceedings are quite different from state to state, as is the detail of the status given for the bill. Completefailure (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that there is only a technical session still coming up, Cornince was probably right. I removed Missouri from the table.KarlFrei (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Split Leglislation table

The legislation table needs to be split. Where an attempt for a state has failed but a new attempt started, the details should be split off into a past legislation table. This need to be done because the impression given by the table is one of lots of failures. If the reality is that the compact is gathering momentum because attempts at passing legislation in 2011 are succeeding (or at least none have yet failed) this should be clear from looking at a current table without misleading impression being given from past failures. crandles (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the table does list a lot failures, but they were indeed failures. I think the table does show the difficulty a bill has getting through the legislatures in the US. The failures that did not even make it to a floor vote are not even listed. The table shows the legislative history and one may actually discern "momentum" by looking at the yellow fields. There are indeed failures in 2011, such as LA and TX, but they're not shown because they were never voted on. I think this table should be kept. I suggest rewording the rightmost "Passed" to "Law" instead. Wahlin (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Governor Brown

For California under Governor: "To be decided before August 25, 2011"

Huh? According to this article, Gov. Brown has until August 8 to decide what to do with the bill:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/07/29/california-governor-signs-bill-moving-presidential-primary-from-february-to-june/

I can find nothing corroborating the August 25 day which was put into the Wiki article. If a reliable source isn't posted supporting that, then I will remove the statement later today.

--Cornince (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The governor only has 12 days to veto in CA (see http://www.statescape.com/resources/governors/govsigndeadline.asp), which makes the deadline 8/8. I'll change to 8th August now. Wahlin (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the confusion is, you read the California constitution, it does mention the 30 day figure. But that is only when the Legislature is out-of-session. The 12 day figure is in-session. I assume it must be in-session at the moment. 138.217.149.18 (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. And according to my link, the session should last till August 31. So 12 days it is.Wahlin (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Brown has until Monday, Aug. 8.RRichie (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"July 25Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1:30 p.m." from the reference for the legislature. 12 days after 25 july is saturday 6 august.

EV column in table

Re this edit, saying "The heading "EV" indicates the number of electoral votes a state had at the time of the bill's introduction". As the effect of the Compact, if it achieves critical mass (270 EVs among its signatory states) involves the number of EVs allocated to states for a given Presidential election, it seems to make sense for the table to present the current vote distribution (presently, the number of EVs allocated for the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections -- see Electoral College (United States)#Current electoral vote distribution), along with a clarifying footnote explaining that. Alternatively, two EV figures -- the figure at the time of bill passage (of academic interest only) and the figure allocated for the next upcoming Presidential election (of practical interest). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have changed the heading and the numbers so that we consistently refer to the current numbers of EVs.KarlFrei (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Change to the section "State-by-state legislative history and status"

I think it would be very helpful if the table were split in two (or, if you will, there were two subsections):

• States where the compact has passed
• States where the compact has not passed

Right now, it's hard to get a sense of where "the action is", so to speak, because of this mixing. Unmixed, it would be easy to see, for example, which states lack only a governor willing to sign the bill. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You can sort the bills by current status by clicking the icon next to "status" at the top of the table. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 23:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

UH/LH in table

Why do DC and NE have two columns for upper house/lower house when they only have one house legislatures? I know they both used to have colspan="2", but someone changed it. Why? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A recent change which was discussed previously: to make the table sortable in all columns. Wahlin (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative compacts?

Would it improve the article to mention other possibilities for interstate electoral compacts?

For instance, a compact could stipulate counting only the votes within the signing states rather than all votes nationwide, taking effect as soon as two states sign. (The incentive on the remaining states to sign would become overwhelming once the signers comprise a majority of the Electoral College. Even before a majority is reached, signing by a substantial bloc might increase other states' incentive to sign.) This was proposed as early as 1996. Another advantage is that this compact can include additional terms--binding on the signing states--that promote fair election procedures and standards (and presumably create an oversight board to certify whether states meet the terms, else their votes won't be counted by the other signers). These could include anti-fraud provisions (such as standards for electronic voting machines so the presidency can't be easily stolen by massive fraud in one state), voter eligibility standards, require a provisional ballot when there's a dispute over eligibility, standardized recount procedures, non-partisan election officials, uniformity of polling stations per population, uniformity of voting technology within a state, etc. (The compact should also include a mechanism for amending the terms.) By contrast with the initiative discussed in the article, voter fraud and other bad behaviors in non-compliant states would be irrelevant when the compliant states are a majority of the Electoral College.

A minor advantage is that, after critical mass is reached, it won't matter if a few delegates disobey their mandate, since the vote within the Electoral College would never be close due to the overwhelming incentive for the remaining states to join.

Also, note that an interstate compact can mend the Electoral College: Each signing state simply awards all its delegates to the candidate who would win given whatever formula is agreed. For example, Larry Sabato promotes a Constitutional amendment to give additional Electoral College delegates to the more populous states; it could be effectively achieved by compact. For another example, a compact could tweak the Electoral College winner-take-all formula used by most states, keeping it winner-take-all when a candidate has a significant margin of victory (say 2%) in the state, but sharing the state's delegates among the top two candidates when the margin is small. Let M denote the winner-take-all threshold (2%); if the leader's margin m is less than M, the fraction of delegates won by the leader is 1/2 + m/2M. (Examples: A candidate who wins by 1% would win 3/4 of the state's delegates. A candidate who wins by a single vote would win half the delegates, or half plus one if the total is odd.) This would allow candidates to continue to focus on the few battleground states so they won't need more money from rich special interests to campaign nationwide, yet reduce the impact of recounts. By contrast, a national popular vote would be nightmarish to recount. (Also by way of contrast, this formula can be adopted by any state, without compact.) SEppley (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

...focus on the few battleground states...: I think the whole point of this compact is to eliminate the whole concept of battleground states... Other possibilities for compacts probably belong more to the Electoral reform in the United States article, since the current article focuses specifically on one such reform. KarlFrei (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)