>This is simply counter-exampled with the proportional representation of the US House. If states were equal then population would play no part in representation.
This is a compromise because not all States have the same population (obviously). The Senate, where all States have equal representation, decides matters which are considered de facto of higher importance such as government appointments and diplomatic matters, among many others. All bills must also pass both the House and the Senate, meaning a bill must pass the test of equal representation voting; larger States cannot simply force their way through, especially if smaller States come together.
>Again untrue. This doesn't reflect reality. People don't behave like that or believe that. Most people are in fact in favor of abolishing the electoral college[1].
Abolishing the Electoral College (which in my humble opinion is rooted in ignorance and party politics more than anything) has nothing to do with the fact that the President of the United States represents the States and is elected by the States. The Governors are who represent the peoples of the respective States in the Executive branch of government.
Congress will act as a failsafe in the event the Electoral College deadlocks, and in such an event the House will vote for President-elect along State lines with the Representatives of each State voting in unison with fellow State Congressmen as a bloc, just like the Electoral College, with each State bloc getting 1 vote. The Senate will likewise vote per-Senator on who will become Vice President-elect.
It is very clear that the intent is the Presidency (and Vice Presidency) will be decided by the States, with or without the Electoral College by an equal representation vote. The Presidency is voted in at the pleasure of the States, derived from the pleasure of the people of each State respectively.
>I'm not asking that. We're discussing Federal elections and representation.
The President of the United States does not represent the people, at least not directly. In that context, you are in fact asking that because you, by citing and supporting the Compact, are arguing the President of the United States should represent the people directly rather than the United States.
>This literally describes how Electoral College operates. It's a well known point of discussion when critiquing the electoral college. Surely, you must be familiar with that line of reasoning.
The Electoral College (or Congress in the event of failsafe) votes, either officially or de facto, according to the will of the people of the respective States that the Electors (or Congressmen) hail from. The Electoral College (or Congress) quite literally represents the direct will of the people in each State.
The Compact instead proposes to not represent the direct will of the people in each State, instead deferring to whatever is the majority vote of the nation as a whole.
The very nature of the Compact means that if the nationwide majority votes for Bob, then any States that voted for Alex or Charlie or Dave effectively have their votes uncounted; this is because the Electors of States whose people voted for Alex or Charlie or Dave will instead vote for Bob in absolute defiance of that State's peoples' votes for the others.
The Compact effectively legalizes unfaithful Electors answering to the will of States they do not represent.
This is an attack on the sovereignties and democracies of the States and their peoples thereof and should never be accepted, let alone tolerated.
>This confuses a personal subjective experience with the objective truth of reality. You've extrapolated a genuine question and comment into a malevolent and sinister plot. I truly urge you to find the best in people.
>Questioning people's character and motives distracts from productive discussion.
Explain yourself how the Compact would improve democracy, then. What the Compact proposes is the exact opposite: What part of deliberately defying the will of the people is supportive of democracy?
It's giving everyone in the country the same amount of voting power. That's not defying the will of anyone.
Stop focusing in on exactly how individual electors would supposedly defy things, because the point of the compact is to make electors irrelevant, and the overall outcome follows people's will perfectly fine.
Consider this: If states traded pairs of electors with each other your logic would call that defying the will of the people, even though it would change nothing about the outcome. Because now they're not voting directly based on what their state said. Your logic is wrong.
You are neglecting to understand that the States are separate from each other, with a right to decide their affairs themselves. The nationwide popular vote is meaningless because the United States of America does not operate on nationwide popular votes, it operates on Statewide Popular Votes which are represented at the Federal level of politics by the States' respective Governors, Congressmen, and Electors.
Consider another example of Federal matters being decided by votes by the States: Constitutional amendments. Amendments require ratification from 2/3rds of all the States to become part of the Constitution, not 2/3rds of the nationwide popular vote.
The Compact argues for the people of one State dictating the decision of the people of another State, in this case the question of who shall become President of the United States of America. Destroying State rights like that is not how you improve democracy.
It is a politically convenient misrepresentation stemming from a lack of understanding regarding how the United States is structured politically.
First and foremost, the Electoral College (and Congress, whose numbers are the basis for the College's numbers) are determined by a popular vote within the respective States. The ballots in a presidential election are asking the voters "Which candidate should your State vote for?".
This means California determines by popular vote who to vote for President, likewise Wyoming. The State tallies their votes, and the State then decides according to the results who to vote for President. If the voters in California voted for Bob, California will vote for Bob in the Electoral College; if the voters in Wyoming voted for Dave, Wyoming will vote for Dave in the Electoral College.
We should also note that Nebraska and Maine both allot their Electors proportionally according to vote results, unlike all other States where the winner of the State gets all Electors.
I reiterate for emphasis: The basis for the Electoral College (and Congress) is a popular vote within the respective States.
As regards the "disproportionate voter power" itself, the Electoral College's roster of 538 Electors is derived from the following numbers in Congress:
* 435 House Representatives.
* 100 Senators.
* Equivalents of 2 "Senators" and 1 "House Representative" for the District of Columbia.
All States are guaranteed a minimum of 1 House Representative, with more allotted according to population as determined by the Census. All States are guaranteed 2 Senators. The District of Columbia has no representation in Congress (D.C. is not a State!) but is represented in the Electoral College with representation equivalent to the smallest State in the Union.
The "disproportion" comes from all States being guaranteed at least 1 House Representative and 2 Senators (this is where "all States have at least 3 Electors" comes from), and this is necessary in order to make sure that all States are represented no matter how small they are.
The ability of smaller States banding together to override a larger State is the system working as intended, it is a safeguard against a tyranny of the masses. The United State is a Union of States, not a Union of Peoples.
Oh, I get it. You think that my disagreement stems from a lack of understanding and that if I disagree it is because I don't understand what you're saying.
Most of the cries for abolishing the Electoral College come around election time from the losing side, of which both sides of the political aisle have been guilty of. Republicans cried for it when Clinton won, Democrats cried for it when Bush won, Republicans cried for it when Obama won, Democrats cried for it when Trump won, Republicans cried for it when Biden won, etc.
This indicates most of it is all politically motivated, enabled by a lack of understanding for the political system among most Americans. It's a gross violation of Chesterton's Fence, crying for the Electoral College (the "fence") to be abolished ("torn down") because who needs such a seemingly convoluted and meaningless system, amirite?
As for you specifically, you obviously still aren't understanding how American democracy is structured, no. We are a representative democracy and a federal republic. The people vote along State lines to determine delegations whom we respectively send to the Federal political table. The United States operates on Statewide Popular Votes, not nationwide popular votes, because we are a Union of individual, otherwise independent States.
> because we are a Union of individual, otherwise independent States
That's the original reason, but it doesn't have any real benefit. Everyone knows why this fence was built. You're not specially enlightened among a bunch of fools.
But it causes people's votes for president to have different strengths, which is bad. And nudging the presidential vote up or down by 5% doesn't do jack shit against the tyranny of the masses.
It's a complication with no upsides and mild downsides.
This is a compromise because not all States have the same population (obviously). The Senate, where all States have equal representation, decides matters which are considered de facto of higher importance such as government appointments and diplomatic matters, among many others. All bills must also pass both the House and the Senate, meaning a bill must pass the test of equal representation voting; larger States cannot simply force their way through, especially if smaller States come together.
>Again untrue. This doesn't reflect reality. People don't behave like that or believe that. Most people are in fact in favor of abolishing the electoral college[1].
Abolishing the Electoral College (which in my humble opinion is rooted in ignorance and party politics more than anything) has nothing to do with the fact that the President of the United States represents the States and is elected by the States. The Governors are who represent the peoples of the respective States in the Executive branch of government.
Congress will act as a failsafe in the event the Electoral College deadlocks, and in such an event the House will vote for President-elect along State lines with the Representatives of each State voting in unison with fellow State Congressmen as a bloc, just like the Electoral College, with each State bloc getting 1 vote. The Senate will likewise vote per-Senator on who will become Vice President-elect.
It is very clear that the intent is the Presidency (and Vice Presidency) will be decided by the States, with or without the Electoral College by an equal representation vote. The Presidency is voted in at the pleasure of the States, derived from the pleasure of the people of each State respectively.
>I'm not asking that. We're discussing Federal elections and representation.
The President of the United States does not represent the people, at least not directly. In that context, you are in fact asking that because you, by citing and supporting the Compact, are arguing the President of the United States should represent the people directly rather than the United States.
>This literally describes how Electoral College operates. It's a well known point of discussion when critiquing the electoral college. Surely, you must be familiar with that line of reasoning.
The Electoral College (or Congress in the event of failsafe) votes, either officially or de facto, according to the will of the people of the respective States that the Electors (or Congressmen) hail from. The Electoral College (or Congress) quite literally represents the direct will of the people in each State.
The Compact instead proposes to not represent the direct will of the people in each State, instead deferring to whatever is the majority vote of the nation as a whole.
The very nature of the Compact means that if the nationwide majority votes for Bob, then any States that voted for Alex or Charlie or Dave effectively have their votes uncounted; this is because the Electors of States whose people voted for Alex or Charlie or Dave will instead vote for Bob in absolute defiance of that State's peoples' votes for the others.
The Compact effectively legalizes unfaithful Electors answering to the will of States they do not represent.
This is an attack on the sovereignties and democracies of the States and their peoples thereof and should never be accepted, let alone tolerated.
>This confuses a personal subjective experience with the objective truth of reality. You've extrapolated a genuine question and comment into a malevolent and sinister plot. I truly urge you to find the best in people.
>Questioning people's character and motives distracts from productive discussion.
Explain yourself how the Compact would improve democracy, then. What the Compact proposes is the exact opposite: What part of deliberately defying the will of the people is supportive of democracy?