While I undoubtedly support the mission of the Interstate Compact to render the electoral college virtually meaningless, I suggest we not lose sight of a second option—enlarging the House of Representatives, which would make both it and the electoral college more representative.
For some context, consider from its outset that the House grew as the nation grew from 65 members in 1790, each member representing approximately 35,000 constituents, to 435 in 1913, the size we have today, because the 435 membership figure was capped in 1929 by the House. Consider as well that today the average House member represents approximately 770,000 constituents. Compared with 35,000 in 1790, I don’t imagine it far-fetched to expect that our Founders had intended the House of Representatives, the body closest to the people, to grow in size as the population grew. I further would note that a mere vote of Congress is all that’s required to add more seats, which, as earlier stated, would make both the House and the electoral college more representative.
Though I can’t be certain, I believe that adding seats to the House is an easier lift than mobilizing the requisite number of states to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold. Hence, I hope Professor Reich, in subsequent newsletters, addresses efforts currently underway to enlarge the House.
I live in Maine, where our electors are portioned according to the states popular vote. For many years I have struggled to understand why all other states (except Nebraska) have a winner takes all stance for their electors. It seems undemocratic for candidates who win 51% of the popular vote, to get 100% of the electoral votes. That said, the electoral college also skews the popular vote because the number of senators plus representatives gives small population states more representation. A senator from Maine represents half the population of Maine, about 640,000 people. In California, half the population is close to 20 million.
This move to consolidate the electoral votes behind the popular vote is a good first step, but our elections are far from democratic.
Bob, I live in one of those Red states. Our state would never vote for it, neither will other Red states. So what you will end up with is a pact of Blue states, agreeing to give their electoral votes to the person who wins the national majority vote--who likely will be a Democrat. Their electoral votes would go to the Democrat anyway. So the pact has affectively created no change. Worse yet, the pact will solidify the divisiveness of those in the pack and those who aren't. So why vote?
Don't despair if I shoot this idea down. Let's look at another solution. There are two states now that do not use winner-take-all. They select their electors based on the percentage of vote. What if every state had to report their electoral college votes based on the percentage of votes -- that is, what percentage voted for the Democrat candidate and what percentage voted for the Republican. if we do that, the electoral votes will reflect the popular vote. That way, we have affectively made the electoral college a reflection of the popular vote.
That's the only hope I can see. But I'm just dog-paddling in the Red sea.
To accomplish this Compact, or to get money out of politics, or break up the monopolies, or any other progressive purpose, it is probably necessary that the Democratic Party have working class content. This means another fundamental approach, equally hard to accomplish, would be to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, so that the tactics that allowed labor unions to organize in the first place can be used: sympathy strikes, community boycotts, political leadership of unions, and international solidarity. Just like with global warming, there are lots of wonderful approaches to democracy that are all blocked by the same billionaire cabal and their opportunist enablers. Throughout history, it is frustrating how close universal peace and welfare has been...just out of reach.
I Absolutely agree. This compact is the way we get back to a true democracy. I live in one of the states that is already a part of it. I’m not sure what I can do about other states.
I'd like to see such a plan implemented, but I see one huge, glaring problem with this. What happens in a state that is in the pact, that votes majority Republican, when the popular vote goes to the Democratic candidate, has to send all electors to vote for the Democrat. There are probably few such states that would be in the pact, but if for example MI were in the pact and even the slimmest majority voted for Trump in 2024, for example, but Biden wins the popular vote nationwide (as is likely), there would be hoards of gun nuts descending on the state capitol and I can attest that the police would be on their side, since most of them are in the Trump/Q-anon cult. If this scenario played out in even one or two states, and those electoral votes were key to winning the election, there would be the most contested presidential election ever.
I would rather see electoral votes awarded proportionally, as is currently done in NE and ME. If all states did that, Democrats would easily win the presidency, since popular vote proportions would roughly equal electoral vote proportions. That way Democrats voting in TX, or Republicans in CA, would see their vote counting for the first time.
Im struggling to understand why this is more democratic. In Maine we apportion the college based on the winner of popular vote in each districts. I’ll have to do some math to compare the two systems. Maine also has ranked voting which most of us love!
The number of electoral votes assigned to each state is not fixed. Depends on the results of the last census. Could undo the compact if the states in the compact lose enough electoral votes to drop the total below 270.
Thanks Prof. Reich for bringing the Popular vote interstate compact forward again. It is clearly the best way at hand to correct an appalling situation. The "swing" states like mine become a political nightmare every 4 years and Republicans challenge every one of our votes unless we vote Republican. That is not democracy. I find it interesting that the votes in the "red" states are rarely challenged. Knowing that there have been MANY voting issues in say, Florida and Texas in the past, attention is always on us swingers while who knows what goes on in the counting process in FL and TX, and somehow, the worst of humanity often get elected in those states. We need a popular vote, so the campaign is national not just in certain states that end up vulnerable to having our votes challenged and tons of money poured into recounts and other nonsense. All the states need to get on board with this sensible money-saving, highly democratic action.
Sounds like a good idea that also sounds fragile. A state legislature gone hostile could outlaw participating in such a pact., and then you're back to square one. Just sayin'.
“In 2020, Biden owed his Electoral College victory to just 43,809 votes spread over Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin. In 2016, Trump owed his Electoral College victory to 77,744 votes spread across Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.”
It’s actually HALF those numbers: had only one-half of the number of votes separating the two candidates in each state — plus one — gone the other way, the losing candidate would have won.
And Dr Reich’s argument applies, in part to the Senate: as we all know the Constitution mandates that only two Senate seats are allotted to each state. In the last Congress, the Senate was divided 50-50, YET, largely because Democratic voters are a majority in most of the largest states, Democratic Senate candidates drew over FORTY-MILLION more votes than Republicans; were there proportional representation in the Senate as is the House, Democrats would have a permanent iron grip on the upper chamber.
As I said, the Constitution specifies only two Senate seats per state, BUT I think that there may be something in the document — hiding in plain sight — that supersedes that, along with the Gerrymandering that gives Republicans an edge in the House despite their voters’ markedly inferior numbers…
When I was a young voter I thought the President was elected by popular vote. Then came all the noise on the electoral issues - a wake-up call. In fact Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency as she won the popular vote…wonder how different America’s politics would have been then? Clearly the electoral count has made electing the President more crooked. Here’s the thing, too, if we had the popular vote then gerrymandering (which is a serious problem getting worse) would be out of the game, wouldn’t it? We’ve got to solve the electoral issue and stop the gerrymandering!
My state in your red map, Colorado, passed the National Popular vote act a few years ago. Both houses are blue, as is the governor. But I live in a “red” county that last year elected its first Democratic rep in decades ( a former Republican). It is the wealthiest county in Colorado, has a right wing board of commissioners, and a board of education just overthrown by right wing nut jobs currently fighting a legal ethics battle. Also with the poorest paid teacher s in the state.
Vote Blue. Vote for the Popular vote act. Your children’s lives depend on it.
While I undoubtedly support the mission of the Interstate Compact to render the electoral college virtually meaningless, I suggest we not lose sight of a second option—enlarging the House of Representatives, which would make both it and the electoral college more representative.
For some context, consider from its outset that the House grew as the nation grew from 65 members in 1790, each member representing approximately 35,000 constituents, to 435 in 1913, the size we have today, because the 435 membership figure was capped in 1929 by the House. Consider as well that today the average House member represents approximately 770,000 constituents. Compared with 35,000 in 1790, I don’t imagine it far-fetched to expect that our Founders had intended the House of Representatives, the body closest to the people, to grow in size as the population grew. I further would note that a mere vote of Congress is all that’s required to add more seats, which, as earlier stated, would make both the House and the electoral college more representative.
Though I can’t be certain, I believe that adding seats to the House is an easier lift than mobilizing the requisite number of states to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold. Hence, I hope Professor Reich, in subsequent newsletters, addresses efforts currently underway to enlarge the House.
I live in Maine, where our electors are portioned according to the states popular vote. For many years I have struggled to understand why all other states (except Nebraska) have a winner takes all stance for their electors. It seems undemocratic for candidates who win 51% of the popular vote, to get 100% of the electoral votes. That said, the electoral college also skews the popular vote because the number of senators plus representatives gives small population states more representation. A senator from Maine represents half the population of Maine, about 640,000 people. In California, half the population is close to 20 million.
This move to consolidate the electoral votes behind the popular vote is a good first step, but our elections are far from democratic.
Bob, I live in one of those Red states. Our state would never vote for it, neither will other Red states. So what you will end up with is a pact of Blue states, agreeing to give their electoral votes to the person who wins the national majority vote--who likely will be a Democrat. Their electoral votes would go to the Democrat anyway. So the pact has affectively created no change. Worse yet, the pact will solidify the divisiveness of those in the pack and those who aren't. So why vote?
Don't despair if I shoot this idea down. Let's look at another solution. There are two states now that do not use winner-take-all. They select their electors based on the percentage of vote. What if every state had to report their electoral college votes based on the percentage of votes -- that is, what percentage voted for the Democrat candidate and what percentage voted for the Republican. if we do that, the electoral votes will reflect the popular vote. That way, we have affectively made the electoral college a reflection of the popular vote.
That's the only hope I can see. But I'm just dog-paddling in the Red sea.
To accomplish this Compact, or to get money out of politics, or break up the monopolies, or any other progressive purpose, it is probably necessary that the Democratic Party have working class content. This means another fundamental approach, equally hard to accomplish, would be to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, so that the tactics that allowed labor unions to organize in the first place can be used: sympathy strikes, community boycotts, political leadership of unions, and international solidarity. Just like with global warming, there are lots of wonderful approaches to democracy that are all blocked by the same billionaire cabal and their opportunist enablers. Throughout history, it is frustrating how close universal peace and welfare has been...just out of reach.
I Absolutely agree. This compact is the way we get back to a true democracy. I live in one of the states that is already a part of it. I’m not sure what I can do about other states.
I'd like to see such a plan implemented, but I see one huge, glaring problem with this. What happens in a state that is in the pact, that votes majority Republican, when the popular vote goes to the Democratic candidate, has to send all electors to vote for the Democrat. There are probably few such states that would be in the pact, but if for example MI were in the pact and even the slimmest majority voted for Trump in 2024, for example, but Biden wins the popular vote nationwide (as is likely), there would be hoards of gun nuts descending on the state capitol and I can attest that the police would be on their side, since most of them are in the Trump/Q-anon cult. If this scenario played out in even one or two states, and those electoral votes were key to winning the election, there would be the most contested presidential election ever.
I would rather see electoral votes awarded proportionally, as is currently done in NE and ME. If all states did that, Democrats would easily win the presidency, since popular vote proportions would roughly equal electoral vote proportions. That way Democrats voting in TX, or Republicans in CA, would see their vote counting for the first time.
Im struggling to understand why this is more democratic. In Maine we apportion the college based on the winner of popular vote in each districts. I’ll have to do some math to compare the two systems. Maine also has ranked voting which most of us love!
The number of electoral votes assigned to each state is not fixed. Depends on the results of the last census. Could undo the compact if the states in the compact lose enough electoral votes to drop the total below 270.
Thanks Prof. Reich for bringing the Popular vote interstate compact forward again. It is clearly the best way at hand to correct an appalling situation. The "swing" states like mine become a political nightmare every 4 years and Republicans challenge every one of our votes unless we vote Republican. That is not democracy. I find it interesting that the votes in the "red" states are rarely challenged. Knowing that there have been MANY voting issues in say, Florida and Texas in the past, attention is always on us swingers while who knows what goes on in the counting process in FL and TX, and somehow, the worst of humanity often get elected in those states. We need a popular vote, so the campaign is national not just in certain states that end up vulnerable to having our votes challenged and tons of money poured into recounts and other nonsense. All the states need to get on board with this sensible money-saving, highly democratic action.
Can you provide a list of states that have joined?
Sounds like a good idea that also sounds fragile. A state legislature gone hostile could outlaw participating in such a pact., and then you're back to square one. Just sayin'.
“In 2020, Biden owed his Electoral College victory to just 43,809 votes spread over Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin. In 2016, Trump owed his Electoral College victory to 77,744 votes spread across Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.”
It’s actually HALF those numbers: had only one-half of the number of votes separating the two candidates in each state — plus one — gone the other way, the losing candidate would have won.
And Dr Reich’s argument applies, in part to the Senate: as we all know the Constitution mandates that only two Senate seats are allotted to each state. In the last Congress, the Senate was divided 50-50, YET, largely because Democratic voters are a majority in most of the largest states, Democratic Senate candidates drew over FORTY-MILLION more votes than Republicans; were there proportional representation in the Senate as is the House, Democrats would have a permanent iron grip on the upper chamber.
As I said, the Constitution specifies only two Senate seats per state, BUT I think that there may be something in the document — hiding in plain sight — that supersedes that, along with the Gerrymandering that gives Republicans an edge in the House despite their voters’ markedly inferior numbers…
Make this into a petition or format so we can send it to our state reps
When I was a young voter I thought the President was elected by popular vote. Then came all the noise on the electoral issues - a wake-up call. In fact Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency as she won the popular vote…wonder how different America’s politics would have been then? Clearly the electoral count has made electing the President more crooked. Here’s the thing, too, if we had the popular vote then gerrymandering (which is a serious problem getting worse) would be out of the game, wouldn’t it? We’ve got to solve the electoral issue and stop the gerrymandering!
My state in your red map, Colorado, passed the National Popular vote act a few years ago. Both houses are blue, as is the governor. But I live in a “red” county that last year elected its first Democratic rep in decades ( a former Republican). It is the wealthiest county in Colorado, has a right wing board of commissioners, and a board of education just overthrown by right wing nut jobs currently fighting a legal ethics battle. Also with the poorest paid teacher s in the state.
Vote Blue. Vote for the Popular vote act. Your children’s lives depend on it.
Original Sin . . .
But Why the College in the first place . . .by Founding Minds considered First rate . .
Property owners frightened . .by The Unenlightened ..
and a Mad King! an Unjust tax! on their plate . . .#school board referral . ..