Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

I think a "current event" tab would be appropriate. Perhaps addition of a month to those dates may be more useful. SiriusAlphaCMa 08:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with a current tag; I've placed one. —Cuiviénen 20:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the table is getting a little busy. Do we really need the state flags or the bill numbers? Also, if Vermont and Arizona have started the process, should they be added to the table? Cms479 01:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think state flags and bill numbers should stay; Arizona and Vermont should not be added yet, as they have not yet introduced the bills, but only stated they would do so in the next legislative session. —Nightstallion (?) 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the table is getting very cluttered. Perhaps it's time to snip out or separate the 2006 data? 164.223.72.5 19:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Text of the Legislation

I added a section summarizing the text of the agreement. I know it's poorly written, but I feel the text itself is important. Feel free to improve upon my attempt to summarize confusing legislative language. --- Rogsheng (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Debate

How can I take up arms to defend my constitution against this? 65.66.103.43 21:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lobby your state legislature not to pass it. If you happen to live in a state that would be on the losing end and opposes it, that's tuff - once states having 270 electoral votes agree, you will be outvoted in each presidential election by the Framers' own original design. --Pgva 22:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just glad I moved to Texas (and a nice isolated part of the state at that). There are parts of the U.S. I wouldn't want to be in when people discover that the populations of the 20 largest cities are electing the president by themselves. -Acjelen 23:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing unconstitutional about it. Article II, Section 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors... Mdiamante 04:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The populations of the 100 largest cities/towns in America is about 58 million, which is less than a majority with anything under 86% voting for one party. Cities have a very strong influence, but they don't all vote the same way; most tend Democratic, but in varying amounts. The largest 20 cities, which include Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and Fort Worth, total not much more than 35 million. Any candidate who only courts urban votes will not get a whole lot more than a majority, and will lose a lot of rural voters. --Ponder Stibbons 5:18 UTC, 3-Jan-2007

Look, if cities really have that much swing, how is it that the popular vote continues to run so close? By the "20 largest cities electing the president" assumption running on the basis of their combined populations, then dems would have had a huge popular lead, yet they didn't.--71.232.31.175 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Other side of the debate

I've placed one person's thoughts here. Before presenting the other side, this would need to be Wikified. Zz414 15:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[Added 9-18-2006 by Steve Eppley] Unfortunately, no one seems to be discussing the possible negative consequences of electing the President using a national popular vote: 1. By forcing the candidates to compete nationwide instead of in a few "battleground" states, candidates will need a lot more money for their campaigns, a lot more organizational skills, and a lot more get-out-the-vote election day effort, all of which would increase the advantage held by wealthy special interests. 2. Fraud and/or voter disenfranchisement in a single state (Florida? Ohio?) could swing the national outcome in a close vote. (There are no nationwide standards for how to conduct elections.) 3. A close vote could trigger demands for a nationwide recount, but procedures for recounts are not well-tested. 4. Instead of competing to be the best compromise in the battleground states, candidates could attempt to win by increasing the turnout of their (non-centrist) base in the regions they are most popular, increasing polarization.

Although the Electoral College may seem "unfair" and antiquated, proponents of a national popular vote are overstating the unfairness. Elections are crude instruments but serve two important purposes. One purpose is to implement the heuristic that the larger the number of people who prefer alternative X over alternative Y, the more likely it is that X will be better than Y for society. It's important to recognize that the heuristic doesn't imply that the majority is always right; in a close election it's impossible to say, given only the vote totals, which of the nearly tied alternatives will really be better for society. The other purpose, which exists only in the context of electing people to offices, is to increase the accountability of the office-holder to the voters' interests, by the desire for re-election. Both purposes are served adequately by the Electoral College.

The proposal for a national popular vote, and other "reform" proposals such as Instant Runoff Voting, electronic voting machines, etc., are distractions from serious reform. To significantly improve politics and electoral outcomes, the voting method needs to be overhauled based on fundamental principles. Here's the simplest voting method that would offer a big improvement:

 1. A month before election day, each candidate publishes a top-to-bottom 
    ordering of the candidates.  
 2. On election day, each voter selects a candidate.  These vote totals 
    are published.
 3. Then each candidate is given a few days to decide whether to 
    continue or withdraw from contention.  
 4. Finally, each vote is counted for the highest-ranked non-withdrawn 
    candidate in the ordering published by the candidate selected by
    the voter. The candidate with the largest count is elected 
    (or is awarded the state's Electoral College delegates.)

Such a method would allow each party to nominate more than one candidate per office, even in presidential elections with the Electoral College. This would eliminate the need for each party to winnow their contenders using costly primary elections. The method would tend to elect "centrist compromise" candidates, so candidates who want to win would need to adopt centrist positions on the issues. When candidates adopt similar platforms, the less corrupt ones can be ranked over the more corrupt ones.

Consider an example drawn from the election of 2000. Suppose there are 3 candidates for President: Al Gore, George Bush, and John McCain. Assume Gore published an ordering that ranked himself on top, then McCain, and Bush at the bottom. Assume Bush published an ordering that ranked himself on top, then McCain, and Gore at the bottom. Assume McCain published an ordering that ranked himself on top, then Bush, and Gore at the bottom. Suppose 45% of the voters vote for Gore, 35% vote for Bush, and the rest (about 20%) vote for McCain. If Bush withdraws, McCain will win with 55% (35% + 20%) to Gore's 45%. If Gore withdraws, McCain will win with 65% (45% + 20%) to Bush' 35%. Since Bush presumably prefers McCain over Gore and Gore presumably prefers McCain over Bush, one way or another someone will withdraw and let McCain win. This would be very appropriate, since in 2000 approximately 65% of the voters preferred McCain over Bush and approximately 55% preferred McCain over Gore. (Inferior voting methods make McCain appear to be the least popular of the three candidates, even though he would defeat either of the others in a two-person contest.) [End of Steve Eppley's 9-18-2006 addition.]

I've added a section on called "Opposing View" with a repost from a Blog Entry against the National Popular Vote. Figured that would be a good jumping board to try to get a natural point of view. Michaelcox 07:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its funny. I post some opposing views and they get deleted. I post that I dont think the article has a NPOV and the tag gets deleted. So much for fair and balanced.Michaelcox 05:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply add SOURCED criticism instead of a badly written blog post (which is also a copyright violation) and noone will be against it. —Nightstallion (?) 13:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a website supporting this reform idea? I think the downside in that scenario would be, e.g., if you really like Bush but hate McCain. Your vote for Bush could end up helping McCain, so there could be an incentive not to vote at all if that risk is unacceptable to you. Captain Zyrain 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Indicating sponsorship

I don't know if listing the number of states that have legislators that have indicated they'll sponsor the bill the next legislative term is a meaningful category. That's several steps removed from actual enactment of the legislation, and it seems like it's just promoting the program (e.g., indicating that "really, there are lots of states that'll do this!") rather than reporting what's actually happened. I think that the enumeration of states that will propose this legislation should be eliminated, and the entry should only report the status of legislation currently, actually pending. Zz414 12:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would guess the people in those states are waiting how the bill is doing in the states where it was already introduced. If it fails there, that's probably the end (although if it's rejected in CA and succeeds elsewhere, there's still hope). If it succeeds, they'll have a greater chance then than if they introduce it now.Ambi Valent 7:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that's what those states are doing, but is that newsworthy? I think it's not newsworthy, but proponents want it available to show people how "widespread" the idea is when it hasn't even been introduced much less passed in a state legislature. Do you see the distinction? Generally, Wiki articles don't reference possibly future pending legislation, but only actual pending legislation. Zz414 12:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion on Wikipedia does not depend on how newsworthy some piece of information is. Moreover, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is not exactly legislation. The French Revolution wasn't quorum breaking. If state legislators have pledged to introduce similar bills in their states, that is important information for this movement. -Acjelen 15:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

State legislators make many promises about legislation they intend to introduce. I concur that including the 'intent to propose legislation' is more like a promotion than encyclopedic information. When it is proposed then it should be placed on the chart. Otherwise it is useless information which, it could reasonably be argued, is not viewpoint neutral. Using Minnesota as an example, we are nearly a month into the session, over 300 bills in either chamber have been proposed and this one has not been.

Listing "seeking sponsors" or "being drafted" is as valid as putting a campaign speech in Wikipedia as coming legislation. These have POV issues, especially considering there are not any listings of the negative outcomes to this point. -- Tony 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if there are readily-verifiable accounts (e.g. news articles) of these legislators pledging to introduce these bills, then it is okay to include that information. That information is relevant and useful. Captain Zyrain 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

California

What is the status of the bill in California? It is already September 30. Also, do state officials swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution? I don't see how these bills aren't breaking that oath. -Acjelen 15:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger still has not indicated what he plans to do. He's got about 15 hours to decide.... Zz414 15:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would they break their oath when signing the bill? Interstate compacts have existed for some time, and states are free to decide how they choose their electors.Ambi Valent 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh goodness, this is not the place to debate this issue. On the pro-side, Interstate Compacts exist, and States can allocate their electors as they choose. On the con-side, circumventing the actual amendment process violates the spirit of the Constitution, and Interstate Compacts require the consent of Congress under the Constitution. There we go. That can save us a debate. Zz414 18:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

this is a talk page, it *can* be a place to debate issues, though not necessarily the best.... but I'm not debating, this is information. There is no credible allegation that this violates the Constitution, which left a huge loophole in allowing the states to determine their electors as they choose; the political parties soon realized that the majority party in the state would benefit nationally if they decided to award *all* the electors to the majority winner in that state, thus effectively eliminating all those other votes from consideration at the national level. Once one major state did this, the majority parties in other states were more or less forced to follow suit. Thus the constitutional intent of the electoral college was subverted a long time ago. Because the electoral votes of the "blue" states and the "red" states balance each other out to some degree, for one state to go back to a fair system of allocating electors proportionally, as one example, could quite easily award the victory to the minority party in that state, unfairly. In other words, it could increase the imbalance. The Compact manages to accomplish the change without having that negative effect. This amounts to electing the President by national popular vote, through *voluntary* cooperation by the states. I haven't seen a formal legal opinion by an expert regarding this, but the Compact is not actually an interstate agreement in the meaning of what requires Congressional approval (the constitutionality of that law is debatable). It is a unilateral declaration, binding only upon the state that enacts it. If I'm correct, no state would have standing to sue another state to enforce performance under this "compact." It would be an internal state matter. The opinion, expressed twice above, that the Compact violates the Constitution or "the spirit of the Constitution," is an imagination based in neither the text of the constitution nor on what we know of the intent of the framers. Indeed, if we were to think something a violation of intent, it could be the all-or-nothing rules that states chose to legislate. However, the framers apparently could not come to agreement on how electors would be chosen, so they punted and left it to the individual states. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abd (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Having re-read Article II of the U.S. Constitution, I see that I was in error back in September. Nonetheless, it has been the practice since the first half of the 19th century for a state to use a general election in that state to determine its electors. I wonder what "spirit" if any would be violated to have a state's electors determined by a general election in another state. Maybe we should expand this plan beyond the president. There's a senator from Oklahoma I'd like to vote against. Perhaps the other states could be given veto power over ballot measures in each particular state. These things are debated nationally; why not voted thusly? Finally, since this movement gained stature following the 2000 election, it will be ironic if the president is elected even more indirectly than the current system. -Acjelen 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You're analogy is completely unrelated. This is an election for a *national* president, so it should be national; that it's not is just a very curious anachronism of the U.S. electoral system, IMO. —Nightstallion (?) 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Should there be some indication that this bill was passed in 2006, but vetoed by the governor? I think past history of the Compact in different states, when it's significant enough, should be included in some fashion. I think the bill's passage in California and veto in 2006 is important and should be noted in some fashion, perhaps in a footnote to the California bill this year. Zz414 15:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the passage and veto should be in the chart itself (not a footnote). THAT is the current status. If another bill is proposed it should be a second line under California. -- Tony 03:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent edit, thanks. Zz414 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In the same vein, though, should we also include this information? —Nightstallion (?) 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

State	Electoral votes	Date	Bill(s)	Lower house	Upper house	Governor	Final outcome
Colorado	9	2006	SB 06-223	-	Passed on 2006-04-17	-	-
New York	31	2006	A11563	Introduced *	-	-	-
Illinois	21	2006	HB 5777, SB 2724	Introduced *	Introduced *	-	-
Missouri	11	2006	HB 2090	Introduced *	-	-	-
Louisiana	9	2006	HB 927	Introduced *	-	-	-

I agree, these should also be place into the chart. -- Tony 07:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 13:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. Thanks. -- Tony 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

List of references

Do we really need 50 separate references to the website nationalpopularvote.com? I propose to refer to it just once. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KarlFrei (talk • contribs) 10:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Agree--It does seem a bit overboard. The references all point to different pages within the same website and I believe proper citation would warrant citing the homepage only (with reference to the time 'last accessed'). After thinking about it for a few days I think it could also be a POV issue. It gives the impression upon a less-than-careful review that this topic is covered by so many sources when in fact over 50 of them come from the same single source. Since this article started out with so many subtle "could be POV" I believe now they were all intentional, and this extensive listing of the same source is, in my own opinion, intentionally not POV neutral. -- Tony 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

shrugs If you've got a better source, feel free. I think for simply listing where the bill has been introduced, the source is good enough. —Nightstallion (?) 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not a question of the source itself. The problem is the number of times one single source is referenced which is both unencyclopedic and creates a false impression that there are many sources. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Nightstallion (?) 10:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Being drafted"

Listing states where it's "being drafted" seems to bolster the map in a pro-legislation POV manner without indicating the actual status of bills. As it is, merely introducing a bill seems rather early to be indicating a status, but indicating one that's "being drafted"? I propose removing that category from the map, or alternatively coloring it gray like the "no legislation pending" category to reflect only bills actually pending in a state house. --Zz414 11:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the image until the "being drafted" coloration is grayed to look like the "no legislation pending," because that's accurate. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and until legislation is actually introduced, such future intentions make it appear that more legislation is pending than reality. --Zz414 21:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular vote plan dies in N.D., Mont.

"A movement to essentially dump the Electoral College and give the presidency to the winner of the nationwide popular vote has been defeated in North Dakota and Montana..." [1] 64.74.153.189 08:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To the anonymous IP:

There's no special reason to list too much information in the map. It's more than enough to have the status of the bill in 2007 in the map, the list contains all the other information, anyway. —Nightstallion (?) 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think for each legislative term the map may change, but the "present status" in many states that it failed in last year is that it's been reintroduced this year or has some other "present status." That map is accurate as such. --Zz414 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Doing the right thing is indeed a "special reason". It's a self-validating reason to do something and by virtue of it being right, it's special. In this case, the right thing to do is make sure the map is as acurate as possible. By omitting the detail which I have said needs to be in the map for full accuracy, the map, as it stands now, downplays the fact that there is an ongoing battle over this Compact underway in many states. The battle is evidenced by the fact that certain advocates in favor have re-introduced "pro" legislation right on the heels on recent defeats. That's agrresive advocacy and omitting that data element from the map, weakens the map as an informative device. At Wiki, doing the right thing means telling the fulls story in a neutral manner. The full story on this issue is that there is a battle royale under way and this issue is becoming a political football. And because of that, all the nuances of the back and forth should be made clear. The readability of the map would not suffer if we added a color to represent those states where this has previously failed and has been re-introduced. And better yet, the information value of the map would improve if we followed the suggestions I made on User:Nightstallion's talk page. As it stands now, the map is flawed because: 1) It tends to misinform 2) It could be easily improved and 3) Those improvements would enhance the value of the map, not detract from it. Because the the case for improving the map is so clear, leaving the map in as-is is evidence of POV bias. It's merely the POV of some that this map is accurate as-is. Personally, I feel that self-produced maps of this type, unless they rigorously include all the data elements at issue, are merely original research (unique showings of limited data). And because they are limited, they tend to be biased. I renew my objections against this map and urge the others here to accept what I am saying: 1) This map does not tell the whole story. 2) The story it does tell is biased to hide state defeats of this Compact. 3)This could be easily remedied by modifying or removing the map. The fact that some here will not agree to that, puzzles me. NS, are you saying that fixing the map is impossiBly difficult? Are you saying that less truth in the map is better than more truth? If we publish limited accuracy maps, we are lying the the readers. That's not doing the right thing. And such a posture torwards the readers does not meet the "special reason" as to why we are here. Are we to be publishers of junk, or quality? 64.74.153.189 09:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not add any valuable information to the map. The map is only meant to represent the *CURRENT* status, and it's completely irrelevant whether a state has failed to pass it once or not; failure to pass in 2006 does not prevent introduction of a new bill in 2007. However, failure in 2007 *IS* important information, since it will not be introduced before the next legislative session. We should not overdo it with the different kinds of colours in maps if not necessary. I already made it absolutely clear that the map only shows the status of the bills in 2007, so I really don't see what your problem is. —Nightstallion (?) 11:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The map will indicate the present legislative status of the bills. If a bill passes, it will indicate so on the map. If it fails, it will indicate so on the map. Once a new legislative term allows the reintroduction of a bill, then its status will change to pending once again. So goes the cycle. 64.74.153.189 who refuses to log in, the map CANNOT tell the "whole story," but only the "present story." As you'll see, we've worked toward compromise and removing POV already (e.g., previously the map said "legislation being drafted," which is a legislatively meaningless and pro-POV status). The map tells the present story accurately, and that's plenty. --Zz414 14:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not refused to log in and you have no business saying that. Wiki rules give everyone the the oppportunity to edit and if you don't like that, then you are hung up on a non-issue. And, your arguments make clear that regardless of whether I log in or not, you are going to ignore the points I've made. For this reason, the issue of logging in or not, is a straw-dog and irrelevant. Now as to the real point, which is my suggestions about adding more detail to the map. I renew my objections to this map in it's current form. Because a wikipedian created that map and because it's an incomplete summary of certain salient facts in the article, it is also objectionable on the basis of being a WP:NOR violation. That map is an original work of art and it does not refer soley to a fact set arrangement which is non-disputed. I dispute the misleading nature of the limited facts potrayed by that map. In the strongest possible terms, I object to that map. At the same time, I am trying to reason here, not fight. That being the case, I have held back from logging in and replacing the map myself. In any case, if the map stays as it is now, the legend for the yellow states must be clarified. The word "status" means "position or rank in relation to others" [2] so using that word to title this map fails to make an apples to apples comparison between the states. You cannot make an accurate ranking or comparison when the base line is not the same. There is a differing baseline in a state where re-introduction has occured. In those states, there is an active political battle underway. And this Compact issue is at it's core, a political dispute. For that reason, a state where there is a re-introduction battle underway is materially different than one where there is a simple introduction underway. Intentionally omtting material facts is fraud. The map as it stands now, especially if the phrase "introduced or re-introduced after previous defeat" is left out, is fraudulent. Also, NS has stated (and ZZ agreed) that there is no "valuable information" information added by the changes I want to make. This is the essence of a POV stance. NS, you say it's not valuable, I say it is. Adding the information I want to add would not be detrimental. So what if you think my suggestions on this point add no value? They don't take away from the article or map and you two don't own the article, so if I want to add something, provided it's not detrimental to the truthfullness, accuracy, readability or neutrality of the map/article, then your complaints hold no water. I say these changes will make improvements. I have cited a rationale that the improved map will aid readers in quickly correlating true factual distinctions relating to legislative history (legislative history being an element of our article and chart) to each state. That my suggested changes would accomplish this is not in dispute. Rather, what I am hearing is that you two want to monopolize which self-created maps we can display. But your aim at advancing that disputed map as the sole choice, has now created a WP:NOR problem. I renew my objections and expect that I will soon once again be removing the map. Either the legend (or map) must be clarified as per above (and prior comments) or the map must go. Anything else is misleading, biased, fraudulent and disputed original research. 64.74.153.189 18:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon, I'm listening, but first, you're reverting without paying attention to the discussion here. Right now, two users think it's fine the way it is, and you think it's not. But the point is the map say "Status in 2007." You're throwing around words like "fraudulent" incorrectly, but then cite dictionary definitions for "status." We're not ignoring you. NS and I both come out on different sides on the desirability of the NPVIC, but we've agreed that it's current status is perfectly acceptable. The list below indicates the past history of all the bills; the map indicates the present status of all the bills. It's not a "present status" of a bill that was rejected last year; it's a past status. that's why the map says "Status in 2007." You say it's POV to refuse to indicate on the map that some have been rejected; but it's just as POV to indicate that among the 26 or so states where it's been introduced, an unspecified number of them have failed in the past. and what happens in 2008? A color for failed once, a color for failed twice? The map is not meant to be a perfect historical snapshot; that's what the chart's for. Instead, the map gives the present status. And because this page's consensus approved of the map as is through the discussion, and it approved of listing previous defeats in the chart. You can't simply unilaterally change the page. You have to have a discussion. And so far, the page consensus is keep the map. --Zz414 19:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Before any further edits are made to the map, if consensus cannot be reached, please Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Further_dispute_resolution consider dispute resolution to avoid a revert war. The page will stand under the consensus unless resolution suggests otherwise. --Zz414 19:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Presidential election bill goes down in flames

The State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee voted 10-1 to kill Senate Bill 46 (In Colorado, March 8, 2007) [3] 64.74.153.189 06:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Interstate Compact?

Is this, technically, an interstate compact? There is no process of negotiation and agreement between states involved. Each state independently adopts a bill that states that its allocation of Electoral College votes is contingent on what other states are doing.

"Interstate compact" is, actually, simply a treaty between states of the U.S.; in this case, the actual treaty was drafted by an NGO and it is simply passed by those states which agree with it, but it's still an interstate compact, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 09:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How is this a treaty? To examine a similar case, various states have laws setting their presidential primary dates contingent on the dates on which they are held in other states. Do these laws also constitute an interstate compact? This is an important question, because most interstate compacts require Congressional approval. Reading Wikipedia's own article on interstate compacts, the NPV plan does not match up.

No, they don't, and not all compacts need congressional approval. Read the whole article, it's all in there. —Nightstallion (?) 13:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I know not all interstate compacts need Congressional approval, but some do, so calling the NPV plan an interstate compact muddies the waters and stirs up potential litigation. The plan does not create any sort of interstate regulatory or advisory body. Each state election official would remain independently responsible for ascertaining the national popular vote winner.

That is true, but it is still a contract between states and as such *can* be called an interstate compact. It doesn't *have* to be called interstate compact, but since the people who initiated it want to call it interstate compact, that's what it is. —Nightstallion (?) 06:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Status table for "States which have not yet voted on the compact in 2007" contains wrong information?

The table lists that it has already failed in Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, and New York, even though, according to the table, these states haven't even voted on it yet. This needs to be clarified or corrected. Mmortal03 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't read the table correctly. Look at the year besides it. —Nightstallion (?) 15:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In those states, the Compact failed in 2006 because it wasn't passed before the session ended. In every state, it has been reintroduced for the 2007 session. —Cuiviénen 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Update Status on Map

Will someone do me the favor of updating Hawaii's status (failed) on the map? 64.29.91.52 23:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This article mentioned it as failed 70.172.221.26 00:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii Veto / House

In this article, http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/03/hawaii-legislature-will-decide-on-national-popular-vote-plan-in-july/ it says that the Hawaii House may override the veto in Hawaii. Therefore, it hasn't failed yet. Behun 03:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

While the legislature technically has 45 days after adjournment to reconvene to override a veto (this would put the deadline in June, not July), I haven't seen it reported anywhere else that there are any plans for them to do so. Considering the link you provided is unsourced, can it be relied upon? Do you have any other sources for this information? 70.95.175.54 03:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=HI —MC 21:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The House has 45 legislative days to override the veto. Since they adjourned in early May and will not reopen until early July, the veto-override deadline is sometime in late July. (I'm not certain of exactly which day Lingle vetoed the legislation.) —Cuiviénen 03:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This supports Cuiviénen's statements -- the supporters in the lower chamber are simply trying to get the two-thirds majority they need for an override. The battle's not over yet in Hawaii. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 13:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the Chief Clerk of the Hawaii House of Representatives, the National Popular Vote Plan bill cannot be enacted this year. The legislature had passed it in April (SB 1956), but Governor Linda Lingle had vetoed it. The Senate overrode her veto, but the House adjourned before getting to the bill. It had been thought that the House had another chance to override the veto in a special session in July, but that is not true. http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/07/06/national-popular-vote-bill-cannot-be-enacted-this-year-in-hawaii/

Can someone update the tables?

That's what I said above, but nobody believed me. The map needs to be updated too. 70.95.175.54 08:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC).

To 70.95.175.54, I updated the table per your request above; however, I do not have edit rights to the map (perhaps Nightstallion can help).--Swingline2000 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Many failed bills?

I'm pretty sure including all of those bills as failed simply because they didn't pass before the legislatures adjourned for the summer is grossly incorrect. For one, they don't mean that the Compact failed for 2007, sicne they can all be passed later in 2007, and in some states (Arkansas), the bill passed in the House can still be passed in the Senate later in 2007 and become law. I'm going to revert all of those changes for now until we can come to an agreemtn as to what "failed in 2007" means. —Cuiviénen 17:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuiviénen’s comments above are well taken. A case in point is the Wisconsin Legislature, where a single legislative session lasts for two full years. When this Legislature takes summer breaks, bills are not killed, and continue to be considered after the summer break is over. The Wisconsin Legislature adjourns sine die every two years, usually on the day immediately preceding the next numbered legislature. It would be incorrect to indicate that a bill in Wisconsin has died when the bill did not pass prior to a summer recess.

However, in most states, regular and special sessions are limited by constitutional or statutory provision to a specific number of calendar days or legislative days. When a session adjourns sine die, bills that did not pass are dead for that particular session. In 24 states, dead bills cannot carry over from the 2007 session to the 2008 session. In 26 states, a bill that did not pass in 2007 can be carried over to the 2008 session. In all states, the business of the next regular session begins in the next calendar year following the year of a sine die adjournment. On this basis, it is correct to say that each national popular vote (NPV) bill which did not pass before sine die adjournment in 2007 will not be considered again in 2007.

Governors and legislatures can call special sessions between regular sessions. In almost every state, these sessions are limited in duration (typically 30 days) and in scope to the issues specifically mentioned in the written call. It is inconceivable that a special session would be called to address the NPV issue.

In the case of Arkansas (mentioned above by Cuivienen), both the Senate and House of the 86th Legislature adjourned sine die on May 1, 2007. This is not a summer recess. Neither chamber is scheduled to come back until January 12, 2009, per the Arkansas Constitution. The Arkansas Senate cannot legally come back into session later in 2007, to vote on bills that passed in the House but did not pass before the May 1 sine die adjournment of both houses. House Bill 1703 is dead.

NPV bills filed in states listed in the below table are dead for 2007 because the sessions in which these bills were introduced have adjourned sine die and the Legislatures will not re-convene for business until 2008 or 2009.

State	Date of 2007 Session Adjournment	Date on Which Next Regular Session Begins (with Constitutional/Statutory Reference)
Alaska	May 16, 2007	January 15, 2008 - Alaska Statutes Title 24 Chapter 5 Section 90
Arkansas	May 1, 2007	January 12, 2009 - Arkansas Code Title 10 Chapter 2 Section 101
Colorado	May 4, 2007	January 9, 2008 - Colorado Constitution Article V Section 7
Florida	May 4, 2007	March 4, 2008 - Florida Constitution Article III Section 3(b)
Idaho	March 30, 2007	January 7, 2008 - Idaho Statutes Title 67 Chapter 4 Section 67-404
Indiana	April 29, 2007	January 14, 2008 - Indiana Code Title 2 Article 2.1 Section 2-2.1-1-2(d) and Section 2-2.1-1-3(b)
Kansas	May 22, 2007	January 14, 2008 - Kansas Constitution Article 2 Section 8
Kentucky	March 27, 2007	January 8, 2008 - Kentucky Constitution Section 36
Mississippi	April 1, 2007	January 8, 2008 - Mississippi Constitution Article 4 Section 36
Montana	April 27, 2007	January 5, 2009 - Montana Code Title 5 Chapter 2 Section 5-2-103
Nebraska	May 31, 2007	January 9, 2008 - Nebraska Constitution Article III Section 10
Nevada	June 5, 2007	February 2, 2009 - Nevada Constitution Article 4 Section 2
New Mexico	March 17, 2007	January 15, 2008 - New Mexico Constitution Article 4 Section 5
North Dakota	April 25, 2007	1st Tuesday after January 3, 2009, or on a day fixed by Legislative Council (must be between Jan. 2-11 inclusive) - North Dakota Constitution Article IV Section 7
Oklahoma	May 24, 2007	February 4, 2008 - Oklahoma Constitution Article V Section V-26
Texas	May 28, 2007	January 13, 2009 - Texas Government Code Title 3 Chapter 301 Section 301.001
Utah	February 28, 2007	January 21, 2008 - Utah Constitution Article VI Section 2
Washington	April 22, 2007	January 14, 2008 - Revised Code of Washington Title 44 Chapter 44.04 Section 44.04.010
West Virginia	March 10, 2007	January 9, 2008 - West Virginia Constitution Article VI Section 6-18
Wyoming	March 1, 2007	February 11, 2008 - Wyoming Constitution Article 3 Section 7 and Wyoming Statutes Title 28 Chapter 1 Section 28-1-102

These were the states that were in the table of “States which did not pass the compact into law as of 2007” before Cuivienen reverted to an earlier version of this article. There are at least eight more states that fit the criteria of having adjourned sine die in 2007 without passing a NPV bill (South Dakota, Iowa, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Minnesota and Virginia).

A nice webpage which documents state legislative calendars, including adjournment dates and notation of whether bills can carry over to the following year is at:

http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/SessionDeadlines2007?OpenPage

I caught a couple of errors in the table posted there, based on my research. For example, it says that Kansas adjourned May 3, but the correct date is May 22 from the Kansas legislative website.

When this article was reverted to an earlier version, a number of other (presumably non-controversial) corrections I made were lost. For example, the correct number of the Alaska bill, and the additional West Virginia bill that was introduced in the House. I see that Nightstallion has restored those corrections. Thanks, Nightstallion!

Also, I note that Louisiana shows up green on the map (passed in one committee); however Louisiana has not introduced a NPV bill in 2007. This appears to be a holdover from 2006. Louisiana should be colored gray at this time, and on June 28 (expected date of sine die adjournment) should be made black – I am assuming that it is too late in the session now to introduce new bills.

I appeal to everyone interested in this article that it may be misleading to suggest that bills remain alive (as introduced bills) in 2007 if, in fact, they are dead. It gives false hope to supporters of the plan that things are advanced further than they are. For example, the map posted at National Popular Vote, http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ is very misleading because it shows the furthest extent that a bill has progressed in each state regardless of the timing of the event. The fact that 11 state legislative chambers have at one time or another approved the plan (since 2006) exaggerates the truth that only 8 legislative chambers (and one state - Maryland) are currently in approval of the plan. I like the map that Nightstallion has been updating for this article, showing the actual status of bills filed in the current year.

I agree with Cuivienen that we should not quickly declare the NPV bills failed. I believe that I have exercised care in this regard. In conclusion, where NPV bills have died due to sine die adjournment, and those particular legislatures are not coming back into regular session until 2008 or 2009, such bills should be shown now as failed for 2007 in the table and on the map. I believe this would improve the integrity of the article and respectfully ask for consensus on this point. –Swingline2000 02:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Another great site that tracks state legislative sessions is http://www.statescape.com/resources/Sessions/SessionsNew.asp -- Swingline2000 18:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous 68.236.49.160 added, "Unless the bill is listed as failed in a legislative body or vetoed by a governor, the bill is pending rather than failed" at the top of the table "States which did not pass the compact into law as of 2007". Most NPV bills introduced in 2007 did not get a hearing in the first committee before the legislature adjourned. These bills are no longer pending - they are dead. Should the status in the table be changed to "failed" rather than "introduced" to address the concern raised by 68.236.49.160 ? -- Swingline2000 02:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it's quite clear the way it is now -- it was introduced, but never voted on, so it failed. Writing "failed" instead of "introduced" would suggest the legislature was against it, when it was just not for it at the time. ;) —Nightstallion 09:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Governors' quotes in the "Criticism" section... misleading?

While it's technically true that a state's electoral votes would sometimes be awarded to candidates who didn't win in the state, it would happen only after the compact comes into effect, when electoral votes have been rendered effectively meaningless.

In other words, since the president would be chosen by nationwide popular vote (for all practical purposes), then it wouldn't matter whether any given state's electoral votes go to the candidate who won in that state.

So... it seems misleading for the two governors to focus on the allocation of electoral votes in a situation in which electoral votes have no real meaning.

Is it appropriate for such misleading quotes to appear in a Wikipedia article without explanation or context? Or... perhaps there is more meaningful criticism that could replace them? Szu 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you've got better ones or have found sources which state your criticism in a citeable form, sure! I just don't want to remove the criticism without having a replacement, as the article should contain at least some form of criticism IMO... —Nightstallion 09:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A more informative "Criticism" section?

Thanks Nightstallion. It's definitely important to include criticism.

Here's a quick copy and paste job, with quotes grabbed from sources already cited in the article. Perhaps people could improve and expand this table?

Issue	Criticism	Response
Small states and rural areas	"Direct election of presidents would lead to geographically narrower campaigns, for election efforts would be largely urban. ... Rural states like Maine, with its 740,000 votes in 2004, wouldn't matter much compared with New York's 7.4 million or California's 12.4 million votes. Rural states' issues wouldn't matter much either; big-city populations and urban issues would become the focus of presidential campaigns. America would be holding urban elections, and that would change the character of campaigns and presidents." -- Pete du Pont http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008855	"Twelve of the 13 smallest states are almost totally ignored in presidential elections because they are politically non-competitive. ... Although it is sometimes conjectured that a national popular election would focus only on big cities, it is clear that this would not be the case. Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run can be found by examining the way presidential candidates currently campaign inside battleground states. Inside Ohio or Florida, the big cities do not receive all the attention, and they certainly do not control the outcome. Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns." -- NPV Memo http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/7-Page-NPV-Memo-V33-2007-6-1.pdf
Close elections and voter fraud	"In any direct national election there would be significant election-fraud concerns. In the 2000 Bush-Gore race, Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country's 175,000 precincts. "Finding" three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing..." -- Pete du Pont http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008855	"Nationwide election of the President would reduce the possibility of close elections and recounts. The current system regularly manufactures artificial crises even when the nationwide popular vote is not particularly close. ... With a single massive pool of 122,000,000 votes, there is less opportunity for a close outcome or recount (and less incentive for fraud) than with 51 separate smaller pools, where a few hundred popular votes can decide the Presidency." -- NPV Memo http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/7-Page-NPV-Memo-V33-2007-6-1.pdf
Nature of elections	"Direct election would lead to a multicandidate, multiparty system instead of the two-party system we have. Many candidates would run on narrow issues: anti-immigration, pro-gun, environment, national security, antiwar, socialist ... For such candidates to run under the present system is very difficult, for they have to win state by state electoral votes. But if all you need is national fame and fortune to win popular votes, many candidates would run and presidential campaigns would become unfocused, confused..." -- Pete du Pont http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008855	"[Direct election is how] the people of all fifty states plus the District of Columbia ... elect their governors, mayors, senators, and congressmen." -- Hendrik Hertzberg http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/columns/newyorker.php
Electoral votes to national, not state, winner	"I cannot support ... giving all our electoral votes to the candidate that a majority of Californians did not support." -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger "Hawaii's electoral votes would be awarded in a manner that may not reflect the will of the majority of the voters in Hawaii." -- Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle	"[This argument] appears to miss the main point of the popular vote bill. That is, the bill aims to render the electoral college system irrelevant. Casting the electoral college votes to the popular winner would be a symbolic gesture only, a nod to an antiquated system. The popular vote would determine the winner, the electoral college votes would follow..." -- Todd Shelly http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/op-eds/hawaiireporter_20070411.php

Szu 12:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't exactly know how to deal with fixing this entry myself, but perhaps someone would care to amend the criticism to be criticism of this compact/initiative, rather than of a national popular vote in general; there are people who are in favor of a national popular vote who are not in favor of this initiative. This is because there is a difference between a national popular vote initiated by constitutional amendment, and this circumvention which comes with several problems such as:

(1) States not having equivalent voter qualifications meaning states could race to the bottom on who gets to vote. For example, there's nothing in the Constitution (and a federal law directing otherwise would likely be unconstitutional) that says states cannot allow non-citizens to vote for electors, or minors (how felons, who are treated differently by different states, would be counted is also a problem).

(2) Votes not being equivalent from state to state (why the current national popular vote tallies are worthless). For example, if a state decided to give all its voters multiple cumulative votes for President (which it should be able to do under the plenary power of the state legislature to appoint electors) how would that be totaled nationally?

(3) Forcing a state to release its popular vote data or correct data. Particularly since states aren't required to hold popular elections for Presidential electors at all--for example--how do we prevent California's Democratic legislature (or Democratic Secretary of State as it were) from releasing vote totals that say there were 20 million votes for the Democratic candidate and none for the Republican. Since the individual votes have no constitutionally prescribed national significance, (just the electors California would appoint) would there be any way to have national oversight over that? and...

(4) ...as a corollary how do we get a non-party state to recount at all?

These are among the problems with this specific initiative that I would like to see addressed, rather than what is currently there which seems to describe only (or mostly) criticisms of national popular votes versus the current electoral college state-winners-take-all method. 128.252.78.82 03:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody looked at this section!

If there are citeable sources making these arguments, please cite them and add them to the chart.

In the interest of being concise, it would be nice if they can all fit into one grouping, for example:

Issue	Criticism	Response
Compact cannot provide national voting rules	Problems could arise from the lack of uniform nationwide rules governing voting and vote counting. Some states may try to boost their influence by granting more people the right to vote. Others could jeopardize the vote count by adopting an alternative voting system such as multiple cumulative votes or instant runoff voting. The lack of national rules could also create legal questions about the ability to challenge state vote totals or mandate recounts. (would need citations)	Though there are no uniform rules nationwide, the 50 states all maintain standards that are similar enough to allow the compact to work. It is doubtful that any state would take the provocative step of greatly expanding voting rights, or that any state would throw its own votes into question by adopting an alternative voting system after the compact has come into effect. As for legal issues regarding the election, they would be handled by the legal systems of the states, just as statewide election disputes are. (would need citations)

Or whatever. I hope at some point a kind writer will come along and transform the whole chart into proper prose...

Szu 10:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I decided to drop an NPOV tag on the section, which seems to be just a huge strawman argument in favor of the NPVIC, by, as I said, reacting only to relatively weak arguments against national popular votes rather than the compact mechanism itself. I'm hesitant to just delete the entire section and start from scratch, but these criticisms are intentionally weak and off-topic to skew the article favorable to the compact. Szu, you should fix the section up the way you wrote by making that the principal argument since it speaks to the compact itself rather than the threshold question of whether there should be a national popular vote at all.128.252.78.82 01:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not deleting the section. The arguments I included were not intentionally weak. (Please assume good faith!)  ;) Rather, they were simply the main criticisms made by du Pont in his WSJ piece, plus the illogical but oft-repeated one from the governors. Since these types of arguments form the vast majority of public debate surrounding NPVIC, I don't think it's inappropriate to feature them prominently.

The arguments you raised above are intriguing and may well make a good addition. In fact, I wanted to add them, but when I looked around I couldn't find any published sources to back them up. If you can get citeable sources for the arguments, then please go ahead and include them. I think they would enrich the article.

Thanks again for taking the time to look at this section!

Szu 11:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, sorry. Okay, not intentionally weak, but to me appearing to skew the article anyway. The problem with finding criticism on the subject is that it's so new legal scholarship hasn't gotten there yet, so the only things we can find are the statements by the people who have proposed it and on the other side, just the occasional opponent so extreme on other views as not to be taken seriously at all (including, I think, du Pont). I'd say the logical place to go would be the transcripts and exhibits from the state legislative (full or committee) hearings where this has been discussed. Surely some people are worried about things I mentioned, and if they aren't yet, it's time for me to set up a book deal.128.252.78.82 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can find citeable sources for the arguments (even if it's a committee hearing transcript) then please go ahead and include them. However, if you can't find any sources, then it would be a little strange to keep the NPOV label there just because the article fails to include the arguments of your future book... ;) just kidding.

One thought that occurred to me while I was searching for sources was that although the scary scenarios you bring up may be technically possible, they might not be politically realistic. This isn't the place to debate the issue, so I'll leave it at that. I just thought it might be a reason why I couldn't find anyone making the arguments. I don't know...

Szu 06:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll start with North Dakota and Colorado this weekend. They rejected the proposal for some reason. And maybe Maryland, which despite passing it entirely, probably has a good record of the opposition. Could take some time--it's been a while since I had to pull up state legislative committee transcripts.

It's true that some of the things might not be politically realistic, but I've got to think that there are purists out there who would (and have) argue(d) against the initiative on such grounds. However the one problem I mentioned that I think will prove easy to find source material on will be the treatment of felons--it's very obvious, it's very polarizing, and if memory serves, it's largely along a red state/blue state divide. There may also be some statement out there by one of the groups pushing for IRV or cumulative voting on how this affects their proposals. And of course if and when the system changes, states will do what they can to make themselves important again, but that's my speculation. Hearings first.128.252.78.82 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks!

Actually I'm not sure I understand the argument about felons. There are 11 states that still have some form of post-sentence disenfranchisement (only two of which impose a lifelong ban for all felons) but I don't quite see how that threatens the compact. Is the worry that some states might refuse to include the certified results of other states when calculating the national total because they have different rules about felons?

In any case, good luck with the hearings and thanks again for helping out!

Szu 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. So, for example, how would Florida or Virginia, each with very strict felony disenfranchisement laws count votes from states like Maine or Vermont where they let felons vote even while they're still imprisoned? Conversely, would Maine want to send ballots to Florida prisons? It's the general problem of lack of national voting standards, but the situation with felons is one place it's very obvious because most states have reasonably similar citizenship/residence/age requirements for voting. But the problem could be extrapolated if, for example, one of these youth rights groups successfully lobbies to lower the voting age to 16 (let's say) in some states but not others. Of course the biggest problem here is that there's no way to get rid of individual votes because of the secret ballot. I do remember at least one article talking about problems with this compact in establishing national voting standards with regard to felon disenfranchisement and those youth lobbies.128.252.78.82 22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm... but is it a realistic scenario? Given that the compact is a state law that requires election officials to include vote totals from every state, and given that (as you point out) the secret ballot prevents any individual votes from being thrown out, then I don't see any realistic option besides simply accepting the official totals from all states. But this probably isn't the place for such a detailed discussion, so... if you'd like to continue, we could do so on your user talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:128.252.78.82). But I understand if you have better things to do... like getting started on those hearings! Thanks again,

Szu 09:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A more informative map?

Current status of NPVIC legislation:

Passed into law:

  (1)

Pending in 2007 session:

  passed in both houses (1)

  passed in one house (2)

  introduced (5)

Failed in 2007 session:

  passed in both houses (1)

  passed in one house (2)

  introduced (30)

Not introduced in 2007 session:

  (8 + DC)

State shapes have been adjusted so that their sizes represent electoral strength.

Here's another possible improvement for the article. Unlike the current map on the page, the map at right (1) shows the progress of NPVIC legislation in the states where it failed, (2) adopts a more intuitive color scheme, and (3) adjusts the sizes of the states to illustrate their relative electoral strength.

Thoughts?

Szu 18:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Szu proposes an interesting idea which would perhaps be a truer indicator of the progress of NPV legislation; however, I don't recommend it for this article. Many people are "geographically challenged" and this proposed representation of the states is a contortion that would prove less helpful and more confusing to the average reader. On the color scheme, simpler (i.e., fewer colors) is better. In general, I like the current map because it reflects actual state boundaries and shapes recognizable to most people, and it limits the number of colors used. I'm not too concerned about which colors are used but I do recommend fewer colors to represent broad stages of progress, rather than many colors to represent fine points of distiction in progress. I would limit the map to six (6) distinct colors, keeping in mind that the map is intended to represent the status in the current year, and not a cumulation of historical legislative actions. The distinct categories I recommend are: (1)Not introduced, (2)Introduced (3)Passed one house (4)Passed both houses (5)Signed into law (6)Failed. I do not think that a favorable (or unfavorable) report of a legislative committee is significant to justify a separate color on the map.--Swingline2000 03:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Current status of NPVIC legislation:

Passed into law:

  (1)

Pending in 2007 session:

  passed in both houses (1)

  passed in one house (2)

  introduced (5)

Failed in 2007 session:

  passed in both houses (1)

  passed in one house (2)

  introduced (30)

Not introduced in 2007 session:

  (8 + DC)

State shapes have been adjusted in the second map so that their sizes represent electoral strength.

Thanks for the good comments, Swingline.

Yes, there are many people who are "geographically challenged." However this cartogram does a remarkably fine job of keeping the states recognizable to anyone with a basic level of geographic literacy, and it definitely provides valuable insight into the true progress of the project. So how about having both? (see box at right)

As for colors, this version really has only four: (1) Passed = blue, (2) Pending = green, (3) Failed = red, (4) No legislation = black. A quick glance shows that the legislation is dead in the red states, alive in the green, and law in the blue.

The reason for separating the red and green into different levels of brightness is that it enables the map to highlight those states where the most activity has occurred in the current legislative session (Hawaii, Illinois, etc). Looking at the current map, in contrast, you wouldn't know that anything had happened in Hawaii this year, even though NPV was a major issue there.

This map isn't trying to show a cumulation or farthest historical advance in each state. It's just highlighting where NPV has been active and making news in the current year. A truly informative depiction of NPV in 2007 would show where the major activity has taken place in the current session, even if the measure ultimately failed there. No?

Szu 06:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Szu, I like your idea of placing both maps (conventional map and electorally weighted map) in the article. As for the number of colors, I still feel that 8 colors is way too busy to be of value in representing the current status of the legislation in each state. In an earlier discussion months ago, concensus was that historical actions detract from a map intended to show the current status. Once a bill has failed in the current session, it doesn't matter that it passed and was vetoed last session, or whether it got introduced this year, passed one house and failed to pass the second house before sine die adjournment. I think all states where bills have failed for any reason or at any stage should be the same color for the sake of simplicity.

I'd be curious what Nightstallion thinks of your ideas, as he has been the keeper of the map currently posted in the article. -- Swingline2000 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, Swingline.

This map doesn't try to show historical actions. It's meant to be a balanced portrait of NPV "status in the current year," as you've said. It just recognizes that any map depicting the current year should highlight the states where major action has taken place in the current year.

This map shares your goal of simplicity. Four basic colors is much simpler than seven. Even if one insists on counting the three greens and three reds as totally separate colors, it still has only one more color than the current map.

And with the exception of just three states, this map is exactly the map you proposed above. In other words, if we colored CO, AR and HI the same dark red as the other failed states, then we'd have your recommended ideal. Does giving those states a brighter shade of red really ruin it for you?

Not trying to intrude on anyone's territory here. Just hoping to help out.  :)

Szu 00:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

All your points are well taken. I'd like to see Nightstallion's comments. Thanks for your contributions, Szu. :-) Swingline2000 05:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mh, I think the map looks quite good, but I'd consider it complimentary to the current one, not replacing it. The current one very quickly shows you the basic status, while yours goes into detail regarding the fate of legislation in 2007. My map will be reset for 2008, while yours will stay for 2007 -- I'd say we simply add your map once the 2007 session is over in all legislatures. Good? —Nightstallion 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Current status of NPVIC legislation

Status of NPVIC legislation in 2006

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Nightstallion. Glad you like the map.

The idea of preserving the proposed map as a snapshot of 2007 is a very interesting one. Of course the map will look different once the session is over, since there will be no more pending legislation, only failures and successes.

However, such a snapshot will be much more useful if the current status map shares the same format, because it would allow for easy comparison between the current year and past years. For example, compare 2006 (at left) to the current status (at right). A pretty powerful illustration of NPV's advance, no? Comparing the current situation to past years would not be possible if the current status map retains its present format.

For that reason, it would be great to see this proposed map "frozen" and preserved at the end of each year, in addition to serving as the ongoing status map, reset each year.

Szu 11:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, that sounds like it's quite a good idea. We'd likely employ the <gallery> feature for that, then... Mh, I like it. How about I simply turn over the image upkeep to you? It seems you know your way around, anyway. ;) I'd upload the maps at the Commons, then, BTW, so that other language editions of Wikipedia can use them, too -- apart from that, I'd say go ahead! :) —Nightstallion 10:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the idea was half yours, Nightstallion! I hope there's support for it.  :)

(As for image upkeep, I browse Wikipedia a lot, but I've never done any image upkeep. So if you'd like to continue as keeper, that would be fine by me. On the other hand, if you'd rather I did it, then I'd be willing to try. What would be your preference?)

Szu 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

To Szu and Nightstallion - congratulations on working out a process on the maps! Whatever you two settle on sounds good to me. Nightstallion has done a GREAT job keeping the 2007 map up to date following my changes to the tables the past few months. I particularly enjoy following the legislative activity in each state, and keeping the tables up to date as the bills are introduced and voted on. I have begun to draft a version of what the tables could look like at the beginning of 2008. I hope that either Nightstalion or Szu will continue to closely watch my changes to the tables throughout 2008 and update the maps accordingly. Good job everyone! -- Swingline2000 02:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as your kind of map is rather complicated compared to my simple attempts, I'd prefer it if you'd do the honours of keeping the image up-to-date; the actual activity on the Commons would be rather simple, you only have to upload the images, tag them with {{GFDL}} and then simply keep them up-to-date. :)

I'm looking forward to seeing the two of you keep this little part of Wikipedia up-to-date in the future! —Nightstallion 12:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help also, Swingline! I will try to check in every few days to see if you have made any changes in the tables. If you have, then I will modify the image and upload it, rewriting over the old one. (Does anyone know if I upload it to Wikipedia only? Or if I have to upload it to Commons also?)

And thanks Nightstallion for putting the images in the article. I was trying to figure out the proper way to do it when I suddenly discovered that it had already been done! Thanks!

If either of you have thoughts about the idea for expanding the criticism section (above the map discussion) please feel free to contribute there, too. After all, that was the real reason why I got drawn into this article!  ;)

Szu 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Szu. There will be very little change in the tables for the remainder of 2007 because most legislatures have adjourned by now. Illinois and North Carolina will likely wrap up within a month. Most bills that are alive in the few states still in session on 12/31/07 will carry over to 2008.

On January 1, 2008, there will be a major change in the tables and map. At that time the table for bills passed into law will contain one state, Maryland. The table for states that have not voted on legislation in 2008 will contain 43 states plus D.C. The table for failed legislation in 2008 will be empty. And I recommend a new table listing the six states which do not meet in 2008 because there will be no legislation introduced and thus no votes will be taken in those states. I am building these revised tables now in anticipation of posting them on January 1, 2008.

Szu, if I understand the new map conventions, the map for 2008 will contain only three colors on January 1: blue for Maryland; various shades of green for states where legislation is alive and has carried over from 2007; and black for states where legislation has not yet been introduced, or where the legislature is not meeting at all in 2008. On January 1 the map will be mostly black in color. As bills are introduced in the various states, the color should be changed from black to dark green for those states.

Does all this make sense to everyone? -- Swingline2000 01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. You're right about how the map will change on January 1. Maryland will remain blue and the carry-over states will remain green. All the red states will revert to black. As legislation is introduced, those states will become green again. The map of December 31 will be saved as a snapshot of 2007.

Szu 11:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I'd simply replace the criticism section in the article with yours, Szu; and I think it's better if you upload them at the Commons, but it's good enough if you do it only here, as well. —Nightstallion 12:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Hopefully someone will see the criticism section there and improve it. Szu 04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

States which have not yet voted on the compact in 2007

So why is, say California, in this catagory? They clearly voted on it. Blah42 22:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this section could be better described as "States where legislation is pending or may be introduced in 2007." I'll make that change if there is no objection. --Swingline2000 14:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Illinois

Anyone have an idea of the timetable for Illinois? If I've been reading this page correctly, it has been on the governor's desk for quite some time. For that matter, whats the best place to look for updates (other than having the governor update the wiki)? Thanks. --Cms479 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this link, but I dont really understand why the deadline for action in the house has been extended for so long.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1685&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=30508&SessionID=51 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.168.37 (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it needed to pass the house again because of some technicality, and it just has. Its going to the governor. Hopefully both Illinois' and New Jersey's governors sign this thing into law.--Cms479 (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Compatibility with Instant Runoff Voting

I went ahead and posted this content:

The compact's compatibility with Instant Runoff Voting has not yet been assessed in a court of law. One way in which states could attempt to implement a partial national instant runoff popular vote for President would be by allowing their own citizens to cast a ranked choice ballot, and then counting the votes for President from other states as being ranked choice ballots with only a first choice selected.

What do you think of this approach, could it be legal? Captain Zyrain 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think it looks a little weird as a separate section. Can it become an item within the Criticism chart? For example:

Issue	Criticism	Response
Compatibility with Instant Runoff Voting	The compact's compatibility with Instant Runoff Voting has not yet been assessed in a court of law.	One way in which states could attempt to implement a partial national instant runoff popular vote for President would be by allowing their own citizens to cast a ranked choice ballot, and then counting the votes for President from other states as being ranked choice ballots with only a first choice selected. (would need citation)

Szu 10:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding Zyrain's observation that:

"The project's early momentum ... appeared to have mostly petered out by late 2007."

The reason for less activity in recent months is simply because most state legislatures have adjourned until next year. No?

Szu 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That was my read on the situation as well. Also, isn't his statement fairly subjective? Should we axe it? --Cms479 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Are there any objections to removing the statement? Szu 01:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and axe. We'll see where it stands a year from now. Captain Zyrain 19:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here are some interesting charts showing the state legislative sessions:

http://www.statenet.com/resources/pdf/2007_Legislative_Session_Calendar.pdf

http://www.statenet.com/resources/pdf/2008_Legislative_Session_Calendar.pdf

Szu 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Major reorganization

Just did a major reorganization of the article and I think it seems better organized now. Most of the text is just moved around, but I also added a fair amount of content where it seemed to fit.

I'm new to this, so please go ahead and fix any problems. Thanks as always.

Szu 07:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the reorganization, it seems more logical to me. It would be nice to find a place for your map that you found that has spending from the 2004 election- maybe where we talk about reasons for change?

A minor point, you put in double bullets in one section, I'm going to fix that.--Cms479 16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that!

I tried putting the map in that section, but it seemed to make the section too long, too detailed... After all, the "Reasons for change" section should be just a quick overview, not a detailed catalog of Electoral College criticism. So... I slipped the map into a few other articles where it seemed more central, such as swing state and United States Electoral College. I think it'll be a better fit there.

Szu 05:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Congressional consent required?

There should definitely be a section on this question in the article. When I saw the words "interstate compact" I immediately thought that this would be subject to Congressional approval. According to some of the commenters above, however, this is not the case. Please add some referenced material on this to the article. Cheers. Grover cleveland 05:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, congressional approval is not required, because states can apportion electoral votes however they chose, even if this would include some of them banding together to effectively make it a popular vote election for president. See, for example, Maine and Nebraska which vote for electors by district, not by a states as a whole.--Cms479 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this have much of a chance?

I admire the ingenuity of this proposal, but something about the "hacking" of the Constitution doesn't sit right with me. What kind of chance do you guys think this has of ultimate success? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.140.50 (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the compact is signed by the IL governor, and if it gets past gubernatorial opposition in CA and HI next year, then it would have 1/3 of the votes it needs. Adding, say, NY, NJ, MA & PA would make it almost 2/3.

I don't know if NPVIC qualifies as "hacking" the Constitution, since the current system of state-by-state voting is not mentioned anywhere in that document. All it says is that each state legislature has the right to decide how to appoint its own electors.

Szu 14:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't violate the letter of the Constitution, but there's certainly an element of deviousness to it. The Founders obviously didn't intend the Electoral College as practiced circa 2007 but more certainly they didn't intend that states find some way to circumvent the prescribed amendment process.

Another question I have. What of equal protection concerns using this system? I know that the Electoral Votes would still "officially" decide the election, but the de facto vote would be the nationwide popular vote, which raises the issue of different voter elegibility standards state-by-state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.171.155 (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a published source raising concerns about equal protection, please share it!

As for the founders' intent, it was for the states to decide how their electors are chosen. If this Wikipedia article makes NPVIC seem contrary to that intent in any way, then that's a flaw in the article. Perhaps it should be rewritten to say that although a constitutional amendment was often imagined to be the only way of instituting a national popular vote, NPVIC has made states realize that no such amendment is needed because they already have the right to decide how their electors are chosen.

Szu 04:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

removed material sourced with advocacy organization

I've pulled the following pieces from the Reasons for Change section, because they are sourced with FairVote, an advocacy organization, which is not considered a reliable source. In some other cases, I was able to find, in the time I had, original sources. I also left a bullet point sourced with NPV, which should likewise be replaced with an original source. I think that is also the same NYT editorial, but it should be replaced with direct quotes or more direct paraphrases. I'm pretty sure that the following can be put back with the proper sourcing. (One of the problems with sourcing documents from advocacy organizations like FairVote is that they may be framed with analysis that leads to desired interpretations; thus the reference becomes advocacy, in effect.)

Polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a popular vote, for the following reasons:

• There is debate over whether the Electoral College favors small states or large states. Many argue that it favors small states, pointing out that such states have more electoral votes relative to their populations. Some scholars, however, believe that the potential of large states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more actual clout.

--Abd 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Abd. I am adding sources that allow us to restore much of the original version:

• The Gallup source for the 1944 data will now be included.

• The argument about campaigns focusing on swing states can indeed be found in a number of published sources, not just a single New York Times editorial. I am adding some of these sources, so I think it's safe to revert back to "Many observers believe..."

• Ditto for the argument about voter turnout. It isn't just mentioned in a lone NYT editorial, but rather can be found in multiple published sources. I am now including some of these sources, so I think it is safe to say that "many argue" instead of just the NYT.

• I am now providing more sources to back up the contention that "there is debate over whether the Electoral College favors small states or large states."

Thanks again for helping out!

Szu 13:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Many remaining references are to the NPV site, which can't be used as a "reliable source" except for *arguments* originating there or as a report on the site itself. Thus, if some other source is cited on the NPV site and then used here on that basis, the text must say something like "According to National Popular Vote, So-and-so wrote that ...." This is obviously less desirable than directly reporting the source for what So-and-so allegedly wrote. Facts (other than the narrow exception mentioned) cannot be sourced except under narrow conditions that an advocacy site can't satisfy, generally. Arguments must be attributed, and the attribution must be reliable. I'm leaving those references alone for now, trusting that those more closely involved with this topic can and will find and edit the original sources in.

To be sure, original documents stored on an advocacy site are a grey area. If those documents are presented straight, with no editorial comment, allowing them for sites which are generally accurate in presenting such things and not suspected of altering documents *might* be allowed, but clearly presenting the original sources is preferable. The FairVote references were framed by FairVote, and these frames have been known to, shall we say, emphasize what favored the agenda of FairVote and not aspects that might be contrary to that agenda. --Abd 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, several more sources have now been replaced. The only remaining advocacy organization links should be:

• The FairVote study on presidential campaign visits and advertising, now clearly marked as the work of an advocacy organization.
• A copy of the LA Times endorsement, not available elsewhere. I have included an additional article referencing the endorsement.
• A copy of the Star-Tribune endorsement, not available elsewhere. I have included an additional article referencing the endorsement.
• Two of NPV's arguments in the "Responses" section, which are clearly marked in the text as arguments originating there.
• There are links to NPV in the legislative details section; I'm not going to mess with those.

Thanks again!

Szu 22:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional basis

Mentioned constitutional basis for NPVIC in the general explanation.

Szu 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The tables with states

In several states, there has been more than one attempt to get this passed, and some of them are still pending. Either we should put some states (New York, Illinois) in two tables, or we should label the tables "current attempts" and "failed attempts".

Another solution that is perhaps nicer is to have (besides the table with Maryland of course) a table "States where legislation is pending or may be introduced" (the year should probably be omitted at some point anyway) and "Failed attempts". The columns with "final outcome" could be removed, I think, since it follows from the table headings.

Finally, Massachussetts appears to be simply misplaced.

Thoughts? --KarlFrei (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think MA and IL are still pending in the 07-08 session (which is why I haven't changed the map) but for scheduling reasons they can't be passed this year, which is why Nightstallion moved them to the "did not pass as of 2007" table. ...?

I think I'd prefer a single table with all 50 states in alphabetical order. Then we wouldn't need to move states from one table to another, and it would be easier for people to find their own state and see all the info about past and present attempts in one place.

I understand that having separate tables makes it easier to see the current status of the legislation, but the maps already highlight that info. To make current status more visible within a unified table, perhaps we could change the "Outcome" column to "Status" which would allow us to add color-coded options of "pending" and "not introduced" in addition to "failed" and "passed"...?

Szu (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! --KarlFrei (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and combined the tables into one. I do not understand why many states have a "failed" status although a bill has only been introduced there. I guess this should be changed to "pending"? --KarlFrei (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, remember that each row in the table records an separate attempt to pass NPVIC in a certain year, such as 2006 or 2007. (See the "Year" column.) So the "Status" of those rows should be "failed" because although the bill was introduced in that year, it was never voted on, and so it died in that year. So that's why those attempts weren't listed as "pending"...

Of course, once the 2008 sessions start, we'll probably see a number of legislatures make another attempt to pass NPVIC. For each bill that is introduced, a new row with "2008" in the "Year" column will be created and its "Status" box should say "pending" until it's either dead or signed into law... Does that make sense?

A few people here have been maintaining the tables... but I'm not one of them. It would probably be good to hear their thoughts on this, if they're around...?

Szu (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that each row represents a separate attempt, but surely just because a bill has not yet been voted on does not mean that the attempt failed? They might still vote on it in January 2008 or whenever. It seems strange to make a new row just because the entire process was not concluded in one year. --KarlFrei (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if a bill is not passed by the end of the session, it is usually considered to have failed, and so lawmakers in the next session must start the process all over again with a new bill. Maybe it's a little misleading to say "failed" for all those attempts when another attempt could be made next year... Is there another phrase we can use that sounds less final than "failed"...? ("did not pass"...?)

Szu (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticing this debate -- yes, they have indeed "failed" for 2007, as the session is over for this year in many of those states. "Did not pass" would be fine, too. I'm afraid I don't have the info on which sessions are already over for 2007 at hand right now, though... —Nightstallion 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case I think a text like "did not pass" is much better. The text "failed" should actually be used for bills that were voted upon and rejected. --KarlFrei (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrases "no vote was held" or "was not voted on" might be even more accurate, especially if they're going to be contrasted with "failed" in the states where the bill was actually defeated in a vote.

BTW Nightstallion, here are a couple of PDFs that contain all the legislative session dates:

http://www.statenet.com/resources/pdf/2007_Legislative_Session_Calendar.pdf

http://www.statenet.com/resources/pdf/2008_Legislative_Session_Calendar.pdf

I'm not an expert on legislatures, so I don't know what they mean by the "Carryover" column. But it seems to imply that a large number of the legislatures have a "2007-08" session while the others consider each year to be a separate session. Does it mean that the legislation introduced in the "2007-08" states is still pending until the end of 2008?

Szu (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed -- someone should correct that, then... —Nightstallion 13:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I just did. —Nightstallion 13:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll update the map.

Szu (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Constitutionality

The editor who added the blurb about Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution conveniently overlooked Article 1, Section 10.

Since that argument will be twisted and shot down by the Wikipedia Wordsmiths, just read the this, after which there should be no doubt in your mind that the Electoral College is vital.

Those of us who live way out in the boonies, hundreds of miles off the beaten path, would prefer not to have our lives dictated to us by the likes of New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The EC was put in place to protect us, the minority voice. This whole subject only became popular because Gore lost in 2000. All arguments in favor of a direct popular vote come from the stung pride of the Democratic Party, and perhaps a few fringe groups like the Ku Klux Klan, who love the idea of direct democracy -- that's what a lynching is, after all. I'm disgusted with Bush too, but you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The answer is to educate the people so they vote on the issues rather than the soundbytes. Yes, there will be times when you will get "burned" by the system. But it can happen to either side. And it's not as if Gore won a majority; he took 48.38% of the popular vote to Bush's 47.87%. So they both got 48%, give or take. Not exactly a heart-stopping theft of office. Get over it, it's been nearly a decade.

Bottom line: Stop questioning the brilliance and foresight of the Founding Fathers. They were way, way smarter than you, on every conceivable level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinions, but this is not a forum for discussing NPVIC. This is a place to discuss the Wikipedia article, which is based on the consensus that NPVIC is a type of agreement that does not require Congressional consent. If you can find published sources that cast serious doubt on that consensus, please let us know!

Szu (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

I can't quite put my finger on it yet, but the article seems to read in a bit of a negative tone towards the subject matter of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Does anyone else get this feel? Lawrence Cohen 08:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at this article so many times now it's hard for me to tell. If you can find something specific, feel free to bring it up here or tweak it yourself. Szu (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it seemed POV in a positive direction (especially the section with the "Criticism" and "Response" pairs, with the second always getting the last word and the former never rebutting what the latter says). The whole format of that section seems dubious (see Wikipedia:Pro and con lists). I'm not as sure what should be there instead, but perhaps some links to articles like Voting system and Election administration in the context of this proposal. Unfortunately, I don't expect to have the time to implement any of these ideas or think about it more :-(. Kingdon (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii status?

What color should Hawaii be now?

Szu (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you've got it exactly right -- it's got a two year session, and in this session the bill has already failed, so it's red. —Nightstallion 09:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but NPV now has Hawaii in two colors on its map (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com)... and when I found the status of Hawaii's HB234 (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=HB234) it says "Carried over to 2008 Regular Session"...???

Szu (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the relevant bill was SB1956 -- which I can't find any longer on the official website...?! —Nightstallion 14:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss this, Averyisland:

Here is the disputed text:

• The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency while losing the popular vote, as happened in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. This scenario can affect both major parties. In 2000, Al Gore lost the election despite winning the popular vote. Four years later George W. Bush would have faced the same situation himself, if John Kerry had received 60,000 more votes in Ohio.

How is it a violation of NPOV to mention the fact that both parties are vulnerable to losing the election while winning the popular vote?

Thanks!

Szu (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this disagreement as well. Avery, the text you want to put "Advocates of direct election view this [the winner of the election not being the popular vote winner] as a drawback" is misleading. What reasonable person wouldn't view this as a drawback? Those who are in favor of the Electoral College may be willing to accept this as a flaw in a preferable system, but they too would have to admit its a drawback.--Cms479 (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is POV to assume everyone views such a situation as a "drawback", or even a "flaw", and worse to say "What reasonable person wouldn't view this as a drawback?" Not everyone does, or there would be no objection here to the passage, and objecting doesn't mean that one is unreasonable either. - BillCJ (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Szu points out that the winner of the popular vote could lose the election, while Avery uses language that suggests that only those in favor of direct election would view this as a drawback, which is not the case. I suspect most people, even those in favor of the electoral college, would admit this is a flaw/drawback in the system. But this is not up for debate, my point is the same as yours, lets not use words like flaw or drawback, certainly not to suggest that only certain groups of people would use those words. And while my preceding comment is indeed POV, its not a part of the article. Lets focus on the two proposed wordings.--Cms479 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)