Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Florida isn't pending anymore

The bill appears to have died in Florida in Ethics, Elections & Open Government Subcommittee thus removing it from pending. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/53 Watch Atlas791 (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Watch Atlas791 - thanks! Will update shortly Henrygg98 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Minnesota

Minnesota has adopted the NPVIC, according to this relatively reliable source. It was adopted as part of HF1830, the state government omnibus. Other sources may become available and mention this soon as well. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

As the article mentions at the top, one of the bills covered hasn't yet been signed into law, although it's expected to. My understand is that this refers to the omnibus bill that contains NPVIC, as this other article from the same source today about NPVIC in the state refers to "the omnibus election bill passed by the House and Senate". - Odin (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't find that in the source linked by Ganesha811, which says Gov. Tim Walz signed them all, and frames Minnesota's NPVIC implementation as a done deal. While our table does list other bills, are we sure they're not subsumed in the one that passed? DFlhb (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Walz signed the bill only hours after my original comment, so they presumably updated the article. - Odin (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Maine

As someone who isn't as familiar with Maine's system, could someone explain if the bill has actually failed or not? It appears to have been "tabled" in one of the chambers but not in the other, and I can't tell if that means the bill is dead or not. Henrygg98 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's time to split off the "Constitutionality" section

@CommonKnowledgeCreator, Perl coder, and Levivich: I suggested this in September 2020 (when the section was called "Legality"). The result was, by my count: one agree, one neutral, and one "not now, but keep an eye on it". Since then, the readable prose size of the article has grown from 34 kB to 79 kB, which WP:SIZESPLIT puts in the "Probably should be divided" category. The "Constitutionality" section is 38 kB (48%) of that.

I'd like to perform this split in the next week. CommonKnowledgeCreator, do you have time to craft the summary that will remain in this article? I think 1-3 sentences for each of the two major subsections would be appropriate, but your call. If you can't, I'll do my best. Thanks! —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 20:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course! Since I've written most of the content in the section, I should be obligated to help summarize the two main subsections in the Constitutionality section, although I'd be interested to see what you come up with first and then maybe expand on it. Would that content double as the lede content of the new article? I reviewed the WP:Splitting rule of thumb recommendations for size splits and definitely agree that the Constitutionality section should probably be split off into a separate article. Not sure what the total byte size of the Constitutionality section is, but since it contains 167 of the article's 427 references (or 39 percent), probably a good chunk of the article's 269,855 bytes. (Just out of curiosity, how do you compute the readable prose size? Do you just copy and save the content into a Microsoft Word file, remove the refs and hyperlinks, and then look at the byte size of the file, or is there some sort of application on Wikipedia that I don't know about that does this?)

However, I've found a few more CRS reports about contingent elections, the Electoral Count Act, the Electoral College vote count, and presidential succession that are good sources for some content that should be mentioned in debates about the NPVIC, and I also looked back over the text of Federalist No. 68 and The Anti-Federalist Papers edited by Ralph Ketchum Ketcham and saw some things there that probably should be mentioned in the NPVIC article as well. Most of this content will probably go in the Continuity of government and peaceful transitions of power secondary subsection that I've added to the Protective function of the Electoral College subsection, but some will go in the Vertical and horizontal balance of power shifts secondary subsection and I'd like to be able to figure out what exactly would go where before we complete the split if possible. I'd also be interested to see just how much longer the readable prose size of the article will get afterwards. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I can take a crack at the summary text. It could double as lede for the new article, but it doesn't have to. For prose size, I use the Wikipedia:Prosesize script. Now that you've drawn my attention to it, the "Protective function of the Electoral College" section is also too large relative to the other points of debate, and most or all of the content there would be more appropriate in United States Electoral College or in the new Constitutionality of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I will probably move it to the former and restore the earlier, summary-style text of that section. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 13:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for making these changes - I'm fully supportive of the split. Perl coder (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator: I've completed the moves and taken my best stab at summarizing the most important legal issues in the "Constitutionality" section. I welcome your revision of that summary, although I'd hesitate to make that section or the "Protective function of the Electoral College" section any longer than they are right now. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 17:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Great! I'll look over the summary and work on it. Do you know how to use the Template:Excerpt for a lede section? If not, I'll just create an "Overview" section on the Constitutionality article. I've restored the factual correction in the Protective function section I had added before; the previous revision of the article cited Federalist No. 64, which is about the advice and consent function of the Senate to treaties rather than the Electoral College which I think is only discussed in Federalist No. 68. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Fine that it was No. 68 and not No. 64, but I don't think the Hamilton quotes provide as much clarity as the original summary, so I've put that back instead, with your improved source and a reference to Hamilton. I'm happy to help you with Template:Excerpt if you'd like. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Should the map have another color?

Some states that used to be yellow / pending on the map are now gray. I assume that is because the bill was introduced there, but was defeated or otherwise died. It might be useful to have two shades of gray: One for states where the bill was never before the state legislature, and one for where it was defeated. SlowJog (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that perharbs a map like the one you're describing would be fiting in the "Bills receiving floor votes in previous sessions" subsection. IchAiBims (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Bills have been before legislatures in all 50 states and DC. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that in dark mode, the colours on the status map don't display. Only reappearing when switched back to light mode.

Deepred6502 (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Enactment prospects

I disagree with the evisceration of this section. This section should state clearly IN TEXT the CURRENT STATUS of enactment prospects, and assuming that the reader should want to analyze what the data is in the infobox or in the adoption history is wrong. What remains here now is out of date, and the Republican adoptions clearly belongs in history, so I will rectify these issues. Robert92107 (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)