Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 11, 2008
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1 /Archive 2


[edit] GA fail

I'm sorry, but I cannot pass the article as this time. Here are some things for you to work on before renominating the article:

  • There are entire sections without references (Details of the proposed legislation, 2006).
  • There are sections that need to be wikified as they have few or no wikilinks (Details of the proposed legislation, Background)
  • The references need to be formatted properly using the Template:cite web.
  • Headers should have more than one sentence under them. Is there nothing else that can be said under 2006 and 2007? Maybe the two sections could be merged together?

Good luck. Nikki311 03:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other problems with the compact

This I found in comments in Ballot Access News: "You cannot have a national election without first establishing common voting requirements. Felon voting? Registration dates? Early ballot access?" [1] Perhaps we should include this in the article (if it can be properly sourced), since it is claimed to be the reason that the Washington House did not take up this bill. --KarlFrei (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's the reason the Washington house didn't follow suit -- more leadership decisions about priorities at the end of a short session. But it's a reasonable concern to include, although the formulation should not be "you cannot have a national election " but rather "you should not have a national election". The basis of the compact is that legislatures can decide to allocate electors on whatever basis they so choose,and there is an official national popular vote count generated from the numbers provided by each state and D.C. to Congress in the form of Certificates of Ascertainment. Note that the suggested changes could be done by federal statute if there was political will to do so.
RRichie (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is it important that states have more uniform standards? This issue of unform standards isn't unique to the NPV since our current system also lacks uniform standards. Also, I believe it is likely that quibbling about registration dates and felon voting arises from conviction that all votes should be treated equally; Certainly the NPV comes much closer to the equal treatment of "1 person, 1 vote", despite minor discrepancies about felon voting. Furthermore, by joining in NPVIC states facilitate the trend towards a uniform standard. The whole argument seems dubious. You can cite it if you can source it, but you might just be looking at nothing more than the naked assertion of some dude in a comments section. Greg Comlish (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought these issues were brought up in a previous discussion here. If anyone thinks the arguments are important enough to be added to the "Debate" section, they should go ahead and do so as long as the sources are good.
Szu (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for the use of Certificates of Ascertainment to certify the totals? If there is, this should be in the article, since it would probably clarify things a bit. — Swpbt & c 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The compact doesn't specifically say that states must use Certificates of Ascertainment to calculate their national totals, but it does say that they "shall treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate..." An official statement would be available for every state because Certificates of Ascertainment are required by federal law (see National Archives) and must include the number of votes received by each slate.
Szu (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The article states that "states wishing to join or withdraw from the compact after that date would not be able to do so until after the election." If a member state were to pass a bill negating the NPVIC after July 20th, what enforcement mechanism would prevent them from apportioning their delegates however they choose? — Swpbt & c 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume they would be sued in some federal court? Surely there have been lawsuits between states before. The law negating NPVIC could not be legal for a state that has joined the compact. (Also, there must be other interstate compacts, right?) --KarlFrei (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've been doing a bit more reading about this. States can take each other to federal court over violating the terms of interstate compacts. Now, the question of whether this compact would require congressional approval, that's much hairier. Supreme Court precedent on the Compact Clause indicates that a compact must only be approved by congress if it may increase the political power or influence of the member states. In White and Blackmun's dissent in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978), they claim that this test includes encroachment on the political power of non-member states, not just on the federal government (which, constitutionally, has no power in the area of elector selection). But it's unclear whether the Court would 1) recognize this part of the test, 2) see the NPVIC as encroaching on the political power of non-member states, or 3) reverse precedent anyway, making it all moot. — Swpbt & c 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how this compact could ever be seen as reducing the political power of the other states. It would be a different matter if the compact specified that the members would give all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner of the member states. But now, all votes still count. However, it is of course true that the smallest non-member states could see their "influence" drop by a factor of 2 (or something), because their number of electors is no longer relevant. From a strategic point of view, it is probably important to ensure that as many small states as possible join this compact before it becomes effective... --KarlFrei (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to the Courts, I'm not sure the degree to which political influence is shifted is going to matter as much as whether it is or isn't (or whether it potentially could be). You're right that voters in some states will see their influence drop (even voters in small member states will see their votes count for less, and voters in large non-member states would see their votes count for more under the compact).
The other factors affecting whether a state is seen to benefit from the compact include whether or not it is a battleground state (subjective) and whether the bloc of states it caucuses with benefits as a whole from the compact (i.e., a populous, non-battleground state like Texas should theoretically benefit, but if it tends to vote with the Republicans (who, let's not mince words, stand to lose from the NPVIC), then it could be seen to lose out. This is clearly also very subjective). So the set of states which benefit from the compact could be debated ad infinitum, and is clearly not identical to the set of member states. I see the compact as causing a political power shift toward equitability, but this could be debated as well, and would not necessarily cause the compact to pass the test.
Also, the Court test may not look at the political power of the citizens of the states, but of the states themselves (i.e., the state governments). Under the compact, legislatures of non-member states can still appoint their electors however they choose, but this choice is guaranteed to have zero effect on the outcome of the election. This may be a much stronger argument for the Court to require Congressional approval of the compact. — Swpbt & c 13:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There are legal articles, cited in this article, that address these points substantially. An argument as you've articulate, Swpb, is essentially what is made: that non-compacting states have worthless electors, because the compacting states' electors are sufficient to elect a winner without any help from outside non-compacting states. --Merevaudevillian (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, states may bring interstate disputes directly to the Supreme Court. --Merevaudevillian (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is perhaps off topic, but is it so clear that the Republicans stand to lose from this compact? They have won the popular vote in the most recent presidential election, and in many elections before that... Sure, things don't look so good for them right now, but who knows what will happen in four or eight years? --KarlFrei (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's likely off-topic, but I'll give it a shot. First, I think Republicans are relectuant to engage in "change" in this way, when the Electoral College was a cornerstone of the Constitution; and they are reluctant to engage in what is perceived as an "end-run" around the ordinary constitutional amendment process (e.g., requiring just a majority of electoral votes to approve, rather than supermajorities of Congress and 3/4 of the states). Second, and more practically, I think Republicans tend to prefer the Electoral College system in which the more rural Western states have a slight advantage in terms of electoral votes, even if they're not typically "swing states." Wyoming, for instance, may not be a stomping ground of political activity, but it's a relatively solid 3 electoral votes, which, as we know, is the margin of victory that Bush had over Gore, even though Wyoming was never in doubt. --Merevaudevillian (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Merevaudevillian makes the point well. The bloc that stands to lose is geographic in nature (rural, mostly western and some southern states), and at present, this bloc of states uses its Electoral College advantage to the benefit of the Republicans. The party benefiting from this situation could change, but the fundamental point (the one that could play with the Courts) is that a state which might be seen to benefit from the compact, based on having a high population, might in fact suffer politically, if it tends to vote together with a group of states that lose power on the whole. — Swpbt & c 14:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you justify your claim that "rural, mostly western and some southern states" stand to lose by joining the compact? Greg Comlish (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Republicans are more reluctant to change things. But I think the idea that they stand to lose in practical terms is a myth. The states most overrepresented in the EC are in fact an equal mix of red and blue: 1. WY, 2. DC, 3. VT, 4. ND, 5. AK, 6. RI, 7. SD, 8. DE, 9. MT, 10. HI. The states most underrepresented in the EC are also evenly split: 1. TX, 2. FL, 3. CA, 4. GA, 5. AZ, 6. NY, 7. IL, 8. NC, 9. VA, 10. MI. But IMO the states that would benefit the most from the compact are the 40 or so states that aren't swing states.
We really shouldn't be discussing this here though; this space should be for discussion about the article itself. Feel free to continue on my talk page if you like.
Szu (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map color key suggestion

Currently, the "red" set of colors indicate bills which did not pass into law in a given year — but they do not differentiate between states where the bill was killed that year, and states where the bill remained pending after the end of the calendar year (as in states with a 2007-2008 legislative session). My original impression from the map was that the bill was killed in a lot of states in 2007, but a look through the state-by-state status chart shows that 12 of these states carried bills over from 2007 to 2008, and 9 of those bills are still pending today (NJ and IL passed, VT vetoed).

My suggestion is to use the green set of colors for all 12 of these states on the 2007 map (and in future years). The green colors would then represent "pending at the end of the year" (except in the current year, where they would still mean "pending currently"), and the reds would then exclusively mean "killed during that year". It will then become clear at a glance how many states actually killed the bill in a given year. You could always add a third set of colors (yellows?) to indicate bills that remained pending at the end of the year, but my solution would hopefully be visually simpler. — Swpbt & c 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion makes some sense, but the way the table is worded doesn't leave room for weather the bill was killed or remained pending. Fact is, the legislation in those states did not pass in 2007, and therefore they go in the section labeled "Did not pass". I would support using a yellow for states that did not pass in a certain year while the bill itself was still pending, however. Nevermore27 (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, obviously the wording would have to be tweaked as well, "Did not pass" would likely become "Killed" — Swpbt & c 13:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Swpb makes a good point: the maps don't show whether a bill was pending at the end of a year, or whether it had failed during the year. However, I wouldn't want to add an additional color to the maps. So... I think the challenge is to use green, but find a good way to word it. How about something like this:
Status of NPVIC legislation December 31, 2006 December 31, 2007 Current status
Image:NPVMapKey2.png
Participating states 0 1 (MD) 4 (MD, NJ, IL, HI)
Electoral votes 0 (of 270 needed) 10 (of 270 needed) 50 (of 270 needed)
Szu (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I really like the "Dec. 31, 200X" approach - it presents each map as a snapshot in time, which makes the "pending" label more intuitive. And you've avoided using a label like "killed" or "died", which would probably be too vernacular-sounding. In this setup, one can infer from "did not pass" that the bill died or was vetoed. I think this is an excellent way to present the same map with more information but without sacrificing readability. Kudos! — Swpbt & c 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll put it up!
BTW I'd also been wondering about what happens to these maps on Jan 1 '09... I think shrinking them a little is probably the best option:
Status of NPVIC legislation December 31, 2006 December 31, 2007 December 31, 2008 Current status
Participating states 0 1 (MD) 4 (+NJ, IL, HI) 4
Electoral votes 0 (of 270 needed) 10 (of 270 needed) 50 (of 270 needed) 50 (of 270 needed)
Szu (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Shrinking would work for 2009, but by 2010 a second row might become necessary. We've got a while before that becomes an issue, though. — Swpbt & c 23:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

At some point we will have to ask whether we really want such a detailed history, with a map for every year. We could also show only maps for even years (since no legislative session appears to continue after an even year). However, two years from now, when most of the legislative sessions will again have concluded, the ultimate result of this compact will probably be clear. States will not continue to debate this legislation every single year (or session), I think. --KarlFrei (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A map every two years would be a good idea. I do think (some) states will continue to bring up the bill as circumstances change. For one thing, as more states pass the bill, the likelihood of it coming into effect (and thus the value of debating it in the legislature) changes, and for another, there has been very little in the way of public outreach on the compact thus far, and as it becomes a more mainstream issue, states may become more or less inclined to do something about it. — Swpbt & c 13:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah we'll see how it goes. At least we don't have to worry about it for a while. Szu (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)