Easy and impossible

Thanks, Jorg, for a cogent argument in favor of a First Past the Post election system, however, a direct vote count may not be the "simple as that" solution you are suggesting. The emergence of serial plurality elected candidates would mean persons not supported by a majority of voters would be installed in our presidency. As a result, your version of "winner take all" elections would produce decidedly undemocratic outcomes. In 2016, Hillary Clinton tallied a shade under 3 million more popular votes than Donald Trump. She won California by more than 4 million votes. So, under your FPTP system, the majority votes in 30 states would be set aside because more people in just one state voted for your candidate.

Here's a thought... what if EC votes were proportional in all 50 states? Presently, the RNC concedes California every four years even before balloting begins across the country. The DNC... knowing it has a lock on all California's EC votes... spends its time fundraising in California not campaigning. Yes, the swing states would still be critical to getting elected, but the cumulative effect of flipping districts across the country could offset the disproportionate influence of a handful of states. Maybe.

Hello, Mike

It looks like 16 states plus Washington, DC have approved the NPVIC representing 205 Electoral College votes. That means the movement is 65 votes shy of its goal. Interestingly, Barack won Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in 2012, but Hillary lost those same states in 2016. They total 67 EC votes. If the Democratic Party could get the NPVIC approved in those five states, it would achieve its goal of controlling presidential elections.

All but Iowa can be considered a swing state, and as Ohio has a slightly higher percentage of Republican voters than Iowa, it doesn't seem likely the EC votes from Iowa and Ohio will find their way into the DNC's EC column in the near future. Additionally, of those five states needed to reach the 270 EC mark, only Michigan's state legislature is poised to approve the NPVIC.

If the NPVIC is approved, it will be challenged on the grounds of constitutionality. Willamette Constitutional Law Professor Norman Williams avers "it is unconstitutional for states to appoint electors against the wishes of their own state electorate but in accordance with the will of voters outside the state." Professor Williams points out another concern, i.e., NPVIC states can withdraw from the compact. Why would they do so? Well, if a Republican candidate appears to be in a position to win the national popular vote by a narrow margin, a state like California could withdraw so its EC votes would not be tallied for a Republican candidate. Can a Republican win the national vote total? Take a look at current polling.

Good morning, Mike

I don't know... Law Professor Williams, who has been published in the country's top law reviews, is certain the NPVIC is unconstitutional. Yes, states can withdraw from the compact before the election. Why would they do so? In the scenario where a Republican candidate holds a slight edge in a close election, he or she would get the big EC prize... California. Unless the California legislature withdrew from the compact. Then, the big EC prize would go to the Democratic Party candidate which could tip the EC scale against the candidate with the greater number of popular votes. BTW... it doesn't have to be California... other blue states could have the same effect. The Democratic Party is pushing the NPVIC; states approving the compact break along partisan lines. If the compact's workaround the EC looks like a Republican will win and pulling out of the compact will change an election's outcome... that will happen. I disagree that an election "would have to be fought in all the 50 states not just the 'battleground' ones." A candidate who commands blue state bastions can ignore most of "fly over" America.

Mike... states can withdraw from the compact. Let's say for sake of argument those five states mentioned in my earlier email have joined the NPVIC. California would have almost five months from today to withdraw from the NPVIC so its electors could be assigned to the DNC's nominee on election day in November 2024. That would mean California's EC votes would not go to the RNC's nominee if he or she won the popular vote. However, if California chose to withdraw after June 5, its votes would still go to the candidate with the most popular votes. Now, let's acknowledge the real GOP elephant in the room... DJT. In the above scenario, if DJT was positioned to win the popular vote, don't you think blue state NPVIC members would bail out to ensure the DNC's candidate would get their EC votes? In the end, even under the NPVIC, the states retain the right to choose their electors... not the NPVIC.

At a minimum, the NPVIC violates the Constitution's Compact Clause... but there is an answer... and here it is. The framers provided for a way to amend the Constitution. The procedure is not impossible, but it is challenging. If NPVIC advocates want our president selected by a national popular vote, then change the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College system... instead of trying to circumvent the Constitution.

Uncommon: How can you be considered “equal”, if you are denied participation when the EC eliminates all minority voters in each state from contributing to the nation’s total vote count?

Do I need to remind you again about the damage done by the last two, incompetent, lying, EC-minority selected, Republican WH participants, a lasting damage we are still paying dearly for, and which we may not recover from in our lifetime? Hard to understand with a too tight MAGA hat?

Mike... they're not my legal arguments. They are the reasoned arguments of legal scholars. Perhaps you can provide your reasoned arguments why you believe the NPVIC would pass Constitutional muster?