Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

is it 4 votes away or 138

their 132 combined electoral votes amount to 49% of the 270 needed for the compact to take effect.

makes it sound like another 138 votes are needed for the compact to take effect, but later in the lede:

States joining the compact will continue to award their electoral votes in their current manner until the compact has been joined by enough states to represent a controlling majority of the Electoral College (currently 270 electoral votes.)

makes it sound like you just need 136 votes total so that right now we're 4 away. Which is it?--Louiedog (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

{A controlling majority of the Electoral College} = 270 votes.

We could write "a controlling majority (currently 270 electoral votes) of the Electoral College", but I think the text is clear as is... KarlFrei (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is Texas in the list of states?

Read the text above the list. Not all attempts are listed. KarlFrei (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

RI links are dead.

"dirac" server appears to be gone. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

David Gringer's "article" under Legality

It's not an "article." It's a student Note. Student notes are a particular type of publications in law reviews/journals. They are written by students (typically of the law school that publishes the law review). It is siginificantly easier to get them published and they are usually accorded less academic authority than the full "articles." Gringer's publication was a student "note," which can be identified by searching with proper citation in any legal database (WestLaw, LexisNexis, etc.). For example, the following link points to the Gringer note in LexisNexis, and it is evident that the piece of work is a "note" from the title that appears in the database: "NOTE: WHY THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN IS THE WRONG WAY TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE." You can't put in a citation for this kind of information, can you? This is for you, Oneiros.

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=108+Colum.+L.+Rev.+182&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=39e8116d14c192dfec2016e82f4720a1

I agree. We should fix this issue and possibly remove this citation. I was under the false impression that David Gringer was a serious legal scholar. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Uniform voter requirements?

It seems that if there is to be, effectively, one federal popular election, then there must be a uniform rule of who can vote. But, as far as I can see, the NPVIC has no provision for this.

Consider the following possible train of events:

• the Compact goes into effect. The President will now be decided by the nationwide popular vote.
• Democrats in California believe that they could increase the probability of a Democratic president by allowing immigrants (legal or illegal) to vote in the Presidential election in California. They believe that they would mostly vote Democratic and therefore would drive up the Democratic popular vote nationwide. Democrats control the California legislature and pass legislation allowing non-citizens to vote in the Presidential election, less than six months before the election
• Utah retailiates by allowing children to vote. Since Mormon families tend to have large families and vote Republican, this drives up the Republican popular vote.
• etc. etc.

This doesn't seem particularly unlikely. We have already seen something similar with Florida attempting to make it much more difficult for students to vote. The new wild card is that the relative influence of each state is fixed under the current system, but could potentially be dynamic under the NPVIC, since it depends upon the actual number of voters in each state.

Does the NPVIC do anything to prevent this? Grover cleveland (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Voting rights in the United States. There are already many federal rules about who can vote (in particular, only citizens can vote). If this compact would go into effect, no doubt additional federal rules would be created where needed. By the way, swing states that currently happen to be fully controlled by one party could try to engage in similar trickery right now (and indeed, you point out Florida as an example); the compact only changes which states have an incentive to cheat. All voting systems are vulnerable to cheating. KarlFrei (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware that no state currently allows anyone other than a US citizen over 18 to vote in Presidential elections, but as far as I can see there is nothing that would prevent any individual state from changing that. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would help if you had actually read the above article, which has a section about this (5.6) with a link to another article: Right of foreigners to vote in the United States, which explains this is a federal crime and cites the following source: [1] Is the DHS good enough for you?

Of course it remains true that cheating would be possible under the new system, like perhaps allowing children to vote etc., but cheating is possible (and attempts are made!) right now. So this is not an argument either way. KarlFrei (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Internal contradictions re number of states passed into law

This edit, which changed the number in the lead section caught my eye. I note that me map headed "Status as of 1 June 2012" seems to indicate nine states. I note also that the table in the State-by-state legislative history and status section currently lists nine states as having passed it into law. I've added a {{Contradict}} hatnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That was just vandalism. Feel free to be more bold next time :-) KarlFrei (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Was rushed -- didn't have time to check carefully, but did have time to flag a concern. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for that. Anonymous IPs changing numbers is almost always bad news though. KarlFrei (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Among to between

In the first sentence, I changed among to between. This is deliberate: see the Usage Note in the entry for between in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Donfbreed2 (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I see someone has already reverted you. The dispute would be between a state individually enacting a compact between itself and one or more other states, and states collectively enacting a compact among themselves. The distinction might involve one's hopes for success or other POV, and the choice of words might depend on whether one looks at the wording of the enactment or the campaign among states. Spike-from-NH (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-majority could still win

A good edit was reverted. [2] It was in the section that says, "The idea is popular for various reasons:". The idea is not that popular, as most states have refused to pass it. Somewhere this article should say that this is not a "majority win" proposal, because it will allow a president to win with a minority of the votes. Roger (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of mentioning that? It has always been the case (see also 1824). You might as well add that presidential terms will still be four years.

As for the popularity of this proposal, see [3] (with sources!). It seems it is mostly (some) politicians that are not so enamored of this compact. KarlFrei (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is obvious enough that the NPV will not change the length of the 4-year term. But it is not so obvious that the NPV eliminates the possibility of a repeat of what happened in 1824. Roger (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference between plurality and majority. This distinction, while valid, needn't be emphasized at arbitrary points in the article. There is no reason to belabor this point in the section "motivations for the compact" since it is not a motivation for the compact. If there are any claims in the article that NPVIC guarantees the election to a winner of the majority of the votes, that needs to be corrected to say that NPVIC guarantees the election to the winner of the most votes. There does not necessarily exist a majority winner and obviously NPVIC (and every other voting system) can't guarantee what does not necessarily exist. The notable aspect of NPVIC is that when a winner of the majority vote does exist, he wins the election. This is what distinguishes NPVIC from the current electoral system. I'm not sure why certain editors are harping on 1824 like it was some kind of problem election since that election did go the winner of the popular vote and still would have under NPVIC. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you are wrong to say, "The notable aspect of NPVIC is that when a winner of the majority vote does exist, he wins the election." There has been no majority in 3 of the last 5 elections, and the notable aspect of NPVIC is that it allows a candidate to win with a plurality of the vote. You are also wrong to say that every other voting system cannot guarantee a majority. The current system requires a majority of the electoral college, not a plurality.

Perhaps the "Motivation behind the compact" section needs a better title because all of those motivations are really considerations that could be arguments for or against the NPVIC, depending on your politics. I did not write the paragraph you deleted, but it has a good explanation of the plurality issue and how the NPVIC would have applied to past elections. Whether that effect would have been good or bad is up to the reader to decide. I say that the paragraph should be restored. Roger (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What?? See below. KarlFrei (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand your point. Originally I thought your quibbles about NPVIC not guaranteeing a majority (vs plurality) was regarding the popular vote and hence your reference to the 1824 election. Now it appears that your contention is that NPVIC does not guarantee a majority of the electoral votes in the way the current system does. Please clarify what these proposed edits are attempting to correct. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I made the initial edit to reinforce the point that this compact does not ensure that a majority candidate will be elected. I don't really consider it to be good or bad but much of the support for the NPVIC seems to be that it would ensure that the candidate with the closest ideologies to the majority of voters would be elected. While this may be a motivation (and that is why I put it in this section), this compact would not actually ensure that this would happen. The most recent example would be in 1996 when a plurality candidate had the most individual votes but candidates on the other side of the political spectrum had more combined votes. Of course this could be fixed by an alternate vote system (or instant run off) that you see in some countries. Justin Warrick (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the other side of the spectrum. Perot took away votes from both other candidates equally. Many Perot votes preferred Clinton over Dole in 1996. See [4] and in particular the sources mentioned.

The article claims that NPVIC selects the candidate with the most votes. It does not claim to select "the candidate with the closest ideologies to the majority of the voters". That criteria is not even a defined or quantifiable metric. At a minimum, everything in the 'Motivations for the Compact' section should consist of a distinguishing property between the status quo versus the NPVIC proposal. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to argue the merits of the NPVIC. I simply think that the added paragraph is a useful clarification of what the NPVIC will or will not do. The fact that we are arguing about it here is just more proof that the clarification is needed. Roger (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing the merits of NPVIC. I am asking you to state what it is your are trying to clarify with your proposed edits. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I favor the good, accurate, and useful paragraph that you repeatedly deleted. Please put it back in, and then we can discuss how to improve it. Terms like "most votes", "majority vote", and "plurality" are confusing to a lot of people. The examples help show what the NPVIC would do, as opposed to what people might expect it to do. Roger (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Everybody knows what the term "most votes" means. The phrase "majority vote" is not present in the article. The word "plurality" appears only once and is hyperlinked to the plurality voting article. Furthermore, everybody already knows that election by popular vote goes to the person with the most votes even if that person doesn't have the majority. That has always been the case. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Greg, I used the phrase "majority vote" because you made a faulty inference about it. And you continue to make claims about what "everybody already knows" that are false. There are lots of local elections in the USA that are decided by the popular vote, but that winner has to have a majority. If there is no majority, then there is a run-off or some other way of deciding it. Again, please put the paragraph in and stop deleting good text just because of your misunderstandings and biases about election law. Roger (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's true that I've been puzzled and confused about your remarks, including trying to decipher what your general point is. Perhaps instead of accusing me of having "misunderstandings and biases about election law" maybe you could specify what it is that you are trying to clarify. Greg Comlish (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Roger, I fail to see how the points in this section can be arguments against the NPVIC, as you write above. Especially points 1 and 4 are clear motivations for the compact, as this is what many people don't like about the electoral college. Point 2 appears to be subsidiary to point 1. I confess that I don't see what point 3 is doing here. I guess the article is trying to say that the EC could be advantageous to some states (maybe small ones, maybe big ones) and this is bad for the others?

In any event, the text you keep adding clearly does not belong in this section, and the article certainly needs a section on motivation (to answer the obvious reader question: why are people doing this?). And BTW, the way to deal with situations like these is not to keep restoring the text and hope that this time it won't get deleted. First you discuss it on the talk page, then if people agree you can restore it. KarlFrei (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Motivation 1 is similar to the arguments given under "Focus of campaigning" below, where it is can be a point for or against. Motivation 4 says that the electoral college winner could be different from the plurality popular vote winner, and that can be an argument for or against the NPVIC depending on your opinion of the electoral college. So yes, all those points can be arguments for or against the NPVIC.

I can understand if you think that the disputed paragraph more properly belongs in the "Debate" section. But I fail to see any excuse for deleting this useful and clarifying info from the article. And please don't blame me for not discussing it; I started this discussion here and I am not the one censoring useful facts because of my political opinion. Roger (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Could any distinction between the two systems be construed as a argument for or against the NPVIC? Perhaps a clever person enough will always be able to make such an argument. But that's irrelevant to the contested edits. What those edits attempt to describe is the scenario wherein the person who obtains the most votes fails to get the majority of the votes. And since this scenario can occur under both the status quo and the NPVIC then it presents neither a motivation for or against the compact. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It is important to understand what the NPVIC will and will not do. Would you prefer that some other part of the article explained it? Roger (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is only about what the NPVIC is, not about what the NPVIC is not. Content that is not about the NPVIC should be moved to a different article. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that somewhere it should be emphasized that the plurality requirement of this compact is different than the current requirement of an absolute majority of electoral votes. If the compact came into force, wouldn't the presidential election never be sent to the House of Representatives, even if the winner won with 20% of the vote? Whereas now if there were enough candidates to produce a 20% popular vote plurality it would be almost certain that nobody won an absolute majority of popular votes. Obvisouly it's not super easy to compare, but this seems like an important difference that's not really clear from the article. AgnosticAphid talk 18:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Compact would change the election requirement from "majority of electors" to "plurality of popular votes", so the election would never be sent to the House of Representatives. But the electors themselves are currently already chosen by just a plurality of popular votes in their respective states. So your hypothetical "20% of popular vote" winner could certainly win a majority in the College under the current rules as well - to win the national popular vote, you will usually have to win the popular vote in most states as well. And such a split vote is quite improbable anyway - plurality elections tend to produce only two strong candidates, by Duverger's law. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: Since WW II, the lowest popular vote plurality in a presidential election (by far) has been ~43%, both by Nixon in 1968 and by Clinton in 1992. Both candidates won a solid majority in the Electoral College, so the Compact would not have changed anything there. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(Minor error corrected.) Yes, presidents have gotten 43% or better. But that is partially because candidates like Ross Perot have been frustrated by failing to win any electoral votes. If the NPVIC passes, we might never see a majority president again. The article should indeed emphasize the change from majority to plurality. Roger (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(Thanks for correcting.) I don't see any reason for your claim "If the NPVIC passes, we might never see a majority president again." Duverger's law would continue to hold; the disincentive for "third-party" candidates would not get any weaker by the NPVIC, maybe even stronger. (E.g. Perot might have become a "compromise" president in 1992 in spite of his 10-20% of the popular votes, if he had won a single electoral vote and if Clinton had narrowly failed to gain an EC majority; this would not have been possible under the Compact). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a good point that the electors are chosen by a plurality of each state's voters. And I wasn't aware of duverger's law. Also, honestly I think it'd be great if the house never decided another election because giving each state 1 vote isn't fair. Given that we have a 2-party system with a nomination process at the moment, maybe the change to a plurality requirement isn't that consequential. It seems slightly noteworthy that there's no provision for a runoff, because there are historical examples of electoral vote pluralities, but if youre astute you can infer that from the article already, I guess. AgnosticAphid talk 16:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can infer how the NPVIC works if you are astute enough, but why make it so difficult? The reader can decide for himself whether he likes plurality outcomes. Roger (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The plurality fact is already mentioned in the first sentence of the article ("guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes"), and again in the Details section. I wouldn't mind adding another sentence that the election is never thrown into the House, but that's a logical consequence of the plurality requirement (plus the mentioned rule for an exact tie in popular votes); not much astuteness is needed IMO. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Colors in the pending/enacted diagram are difficult to distinguish

I think changing the colors on the pending/enacted diagram would be a big help, particularly for those who are color-blind. I have real difficulty telling the difference between the two colors in the current diagram. Seeligd (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry about this, I had no idea. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have updated the figure and changed the color for pending. Is this better? I don't know in which direction I should adjust the color, please let me know. Maybe one color should be made lighter or darker?

What about the table in section 5, is it better there? (E.g. New York is pending and should be colored different from surrounding states). If not, the global definition of the color for 'maybe' will have to be modified. KarlFrei (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Faithless Electors

Electors are partisans, named by the candidates' respective campaigns. How is it proposed that a state law requiring the national popular candidate to receive a state's votes will override the constitutional authority of the Elector who is affiliated with the candidate who won his state's popular vote?

For example, if Candidate Ryan wins a state, his chosen Electors are sent to DC. Is it proposed, assuming Candidate Ryan won the state but lost the popular vote, that his devoted Electors from the state he won will then go to DC and vote for Candidate Biden because Biden won the popular vote? It would seem this strategy overlooks exactly who electors are -- unless the law is simultaneously being written to eliminate partisan electors...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.133.4 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

All details of the compact are carefully explained in the book Every Vote Equal (http://www.everyvoteequal.com). In this case, the state rule for allocating electoral votes will be to select the electors affiliated with the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not the winner of the state (note that awarding electors to a statewide popular vote winner was not the early norm in our presidential elections). No faithless elector issue because every elector in the compacting states will be affiliated with the winner of the national popular vote. RRichie (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the terms, the usual "faithless electors" issue would remain as in the current system (i.e. hopefully negligible), but this is unrelated to the OP's issue. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You are assuming that if X candidate wins Y state post-compact, that "X candidate electors" would still be sent to DC from Y state. But as the other commenters said, under the NPVIC, Y state would designate electors based on the nationwide winner, not the state winner. So "Candidate Ryan electors" would not be asked to cast their votes for nationwide-winner "Biden"; a state would send "Biden" electors regardless of whether Ryan won that state or not. As the article says, the constitution provides that states can designate electors in whatever manner they want. I think the article is pretty clear on this, but since there obviously was a misunderstanding, maybe it should be clarified? AgnosticAphid talk 11:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Table sorting

The District of Columbia row is playing up. When sorting by State is ends up between Washington and Vermont, likely because of the flag file name. When sorting by Status it ends up separated from the other Law rows by all the Failed instead of being grouped with them. -Oosh (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

CT vs. RI?

The map at the top right says that CT is pending, but the table at the bottom says RI is pending and not CT. Which is correct? Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Now passed in RI, no longer pending in CT. KarlFrei (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The chart in the Adoption section should be amended now that RI has passed the law.--68.116.203.50 (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Legality question

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a method of choosing how a state allocates its electors, as per the Constitution. The relevant section is: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Notably, the Constitution makes absolutely no mention of the governor, allocating this power to state legislatures alone. Has there been any legal debate as a result, over the question of whether governors have the right to veto such legislation? 66.180.183.26 (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any legal debate on the issue. The NPVIC is more than just a method for a picking electors, it's a compact with other states. In particular, the clauses about when the NPVIC goes into effect, and the deadline for withdrawal distinguish it from being just a method of picking electors. I don't think there's any question that compacts require the governor's approval. Fitnr (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

State by State legislative chart updates to do

For those who do updates to the chart, note that NPVIC passed New York assembly in 2013 (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=NY) & passed Oregon house in 2009 (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=OR). 108.48.101.10 (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

NPVIC Cartogram

Someone needs to update the cartogram to turn OK, CT, and NE to yellow (#f1fa00). I already updated the elector numbers and percentages below it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.214.205 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

160 vs 136 electoral votes

In the lead, it says "As of March 2014, the compact had been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia (see map). Their 160 combined electoral votes amount to 29.7% of the Electoral College".

But in the body, there's a table and chart that clearly show just 136 electoral votes. Including New York's 29 electoral votes doesn't bring these numbers into accord. Not sure which number is correct myself. AgnosticAphid talk 17:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This was an editor's error. New York has not yet entered the compact.RRichie (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have a few suggestions

• Insert a new level 4 subsection header reading Legislative history above the second table in the existing level 4 Currently active bills subsection.
• Perhaps reverse the order of those two level 4 subsections of the level 3 State-by-state legislative history and status subsection
• In the Legislative history table

• Add one or more bill result categories (e.g., died, withdrawn, whatever) to support reportage of results for states with bills which were introduced but which are currently not reported here (e.g., the currently commented-out entries for Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, etc.), and report the results for those bills.
• Add a new row (where needed, state by state; currently needed for Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey) to report changes in electoral vote count subsequent to passage of legislation (see Electoral College (United States)#Current electoral vote distribution; probably just a number in the EVs column and a short explanation colspan'd over the columns to the right of that.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the table, it was felt that listing all attempts made the table too large (dominating the article). However, I now think that perhaps it is a better idea to only list failed and pending attempts in states where the bill did not (yet) pass. That would obviate the need for the final column, since we can just have two tables: previous (failed) attempts and pending bills. The successful attempts are already described in the text above. This would also make it clearer that this bill has in fact been introduced in every state, and also restrict the size by not showing the several attempts in California, for instance. Thoughts?

About your second point, I don't think it is necessary to report EV changes, I think it is sufficient to list the current number. The table is large enough as it is and the fact that some EV numbers were slightly different when the bills actually passed is only of minor historical interest. KarlFrei (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article has a number of busy tables in it. I can provide feedback from the point of view of someone who already read through once, and now is checking back once in a while to see if there are any updates / new information -- I do have to scroll through a lot to get to the latest status, the text at the beginning is just too much.

What is of highest interest to someone like me is the table of the passed / successful states, as well as the pending actions ("Currently active bills") -- these are the tables to which I want to get very easy; the laundry list of past unsuccessful attempts is much less important and quite long at this point!

So my suggestion would be to either 1. Move up the tables reflecting the current status as close to the top as possible or 2. split the article in a part providing the drawn out background and historical information and a 2nd part with the _current status_ only for the people checking for the latest update. Thank you! {DaemonischEngel (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}

Thanks for the engagement on this. This article is not a hot-button one with me but it is of interest and is on my watchlist, which drew my attention here. OK, in response

• I take your point about the table dominating the article. Regular editors of the article will sort that out better than I, but perhaps with some changes in the introductory text a table clarifying the history of so-far-failed attempts would do (a success is a success, hard to reverse; a failure is an opportunity to try again after having learned from mistakes).
• About the EV changes, I disagree. What is important today whenever today might be) is not what the the EV count was whenever the measure was passed — what is important is what the state EV count will be in the next Presidential election. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but isn't that exactly what I was saying? The current number is the relevant one, because that is the number that will be used in the next election. So in 2020, we will have to change the numbers again. Anyway, if we decide to indeed remove states where the process was successful from the table, this discussion is moot. KarlFrei (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The point I was trying to get at here is illustrated by Illinois. The table says 21 EVs, because (as I take it) Illinois had 21 EVs when the legislative votes chronicled in the table rows were taken. However, Illinois currently has 20 EVs. I think the table should have info about the current number of EVs. Perhaps the info about the number of EVs as of passage or failure of the legislation isn't very useful and the table should show (only) current number of EVs. If this is done, the table should probably have a note to clarify that the EVs column indicates the current number of EVs, and the EV cells for states which took multiple votes should probably be rowspanned to cover the whole of the entry for that state instead of (as currently) being given individually vote-by-vote. Alternatively, those states for which the EV count has changed since passing legislation could have an additional row entry giving the current EV count while retaining vote-by-vote EV count info. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This was the idea all along - see the text above the table! However, unfortunately, apparently we forgot to change some of the numbers after the 2010 census. Now they should all be fixed. (We prefer to avoid rowspan because it breaks the sorting by various columns that is currently possible.) KarlFrei (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I had that problem at Conscription#Countries with and without mandatory military service, and I slithered around it by using <dif>s instead of rowspans. There's still the issue (probably not a big deal here) of whether you want e.g. llinois to sort as 20 or 21. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did the progress of the current bills go?

The title is still there, but the table that showed the status of the various current bills is gone. I like to check this article daily to see if a bill is making any progress and now I can't. Just wondering where the table went is all.

````webling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.172.150 (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it went all the way to the bottom of the article!! However, in the source code it still appears in the correct place, so I have no idea what to do to fix this :-( Is there some tech support available? Does anyone know? KarlFrei (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have the same problem, I can see the info when I edit the section, but it is otherwise invisible in the main article. Can it be some minor coding issue (like someone forgetting to open/close a certain bracket)? [[[User:DaemonischEngel|DaemonischEngel]] (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)]

Almost! It turns out that there was a missing return (newline) character at the end of the table. Fixed and promoted as you suggested in your other comment. KarlFrei (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

New York

NPV was just passed in New York Legislature, currently awaiting governor's signature. We'll need to rework the cartograms and graphs within a day or two. Greg Comlish (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Official now, Governor Cuomo signed the bill this morning. Tylersalt (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

PS. Why is Louisiana in the table of past legislative activity? I thought we agreed that past activity was not considered notable unless at least one statehouse passed the NPV. Greg Comlish (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The current description: "The table below lists the status of past bills that received a floor vote in at least one chamber of the state's legislature". I guess it counts if it made it to the floor and failed.

Also, can you provide a source or two showing that the governor signed it? If so, the legislative history would need an update. Abstractematics (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Gov. Cuomo has taken no action on the bill.RRichie (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The ten days (not counting Sundays) appear to be up. Does that mean the bill is law now? KarlFrei (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

...Can it be true that the bill has not even been delivered to the governor yet?? The bill status does not mention "delivered to governor", in contrast to some other passed bills! KarlFrei (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

3 states have 2014 bills that aren't mentioned /

Examples from the NCSL database. Note that the Maine bill this week passed the state senate on 1st reading.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/2011-2013-elections-legislation-database.aspx

Wow, I sure wish I had known about that website five years ago.... KarlFrei (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

MAINE ME S 201 / LD 511 [5] 2014 National Popular Vote for President Status: Pending - Joint Committee on Veterans and Legal Affairs Author: Woodbury (I) Topics: Electoral College-National Popular Vote Summary: Proposes to adopt the interstate compact that is the agreement among the states to elect the President of the United States by national popular vote. Under the compact and the bill, the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia will win the presidency. Under this bill, all of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. History: Click for History 02/19/2013 - INTRODUCED. 02/19/2013 - Filed as LR 1605. 02/19/2013 - SENATE refers to JOINT Committee on VETERANS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS. 02/19/2013 - HOUSE refers to JOINT Committee on VETERANS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS in concurrence. 07/09/2013 - 126th Legislature -- First Regular Session Adjourned - 07/10/13 - Carried Over to Next Session. 02/27/2014 - From JOINT Committee on VETERANS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS: with divided report. 03/04/2014 - HOUSE commits to JOINT Committee on VETERANS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS. 03/05/2014 - HOUSE refers to JOINT Committee on VETERANS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS in concurrence.

MICHIGAN MI S 291 2014 Presidential Elections Status: Pending - Senate Local Government and Elections Committee Date of Last Action:* 4/10/2013 Author: Warren (D) Topics: Electoral College-National Popular Vote Summary: Enters into the interstate compact to elect the president by national popular vote, for related purposes. History: Click for History 04/10/2013 - INTRODUCED. 04/10/2013 - To SENATE Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ELECTIONS.

PENNSYLVANIA PA H 1182 2014 Presidential Elect by National Popular Vote Status: Pending - House State Government Committee Date of Last Action:* 4/15/2013 Author: Cohen (D) Additional Authors: Caltagirone (D);Fleck (R);Gibbons (D);Pashinski (D);Swanger (R);Boyle B (D);Brown V (D);Davis (D);Flynn (D);Parker (D);Wheatley (D);Goodman (D);Dermody (D);Hanna (D);Mundy (D);Roebuck (D);Sturla (D);Thomas (D);Vitali (D);Waters (D);Painter (D) Topics: Electoral College-National Popular Vote Summary: Authorizes the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to join the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote, provides for the form of the agreement.

RRichie (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

270

I understand that, as soon as states representing a majority (270) of the electoral votes ratify it it goes into effect, but in such a case, is the compact permanently in effect, or only as long as the states accepting it represent a majority? For example, let's say that at some point, the states adopting it represent exactly 270 electors, so it goes into effect. However, in the next reapportionment, those states collectively lose, say, two electors, so that those states now have only 268 electors, would the compact continue in effect or would it stop working? Also, what if a state withdrew from the compact causing the number of electors to drop below the majority? Admittedly, these probably aren't practical concerns, as it's unlikely that state ratifications of the compact would stop right at the point of just barely being a majority, but does the compact address those possibilities? XinaNicole (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The text of the compact is actually linked to in the article. The last line of Article III says it all: "This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes." KarlFrei (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

2015

Several bins have been introduced this year, some to introduce the NPVIC, some to repeal it:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/2011-2013-elections-legislation-database.aspx

In total 9 states. It would be nice if somebody with more free time than me could update the article (including the figure at the top!) and put in a new table with current bills. KarlFrei (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, that's very helpful. I found 13 bills: 6 failed (including OK and OR which are still shown as pending in the link), 2 pending in MI and MN to introduce the compact, 3 pending in MA and NJ to repeal it, and 2 pending in NY to make it permanent (did NY adopt it with an expiration date?). I added MI and MN to the article, including the map. Heitordp (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Possible partisan advantage"

Per wiki guidelines I will assume good faith of page editors. However, I will not extend that to supporters of the NPVIC. It is a partisan movement with partisan objectives that originated in a partisan perspective of an event that had partisan consequences and which offended partisan sensibilities about "majority rule".

That said, I am disappointed with what appear to be efforts to gloss over the partisan nature of this movement, and I suggest that if you honestly do not believe the NPVIC is a partisan action then you should check your own political alignment for a COI. Democrats (or "the left") have never benefited from the electoral college. Even if one can (nonsensically) argue that electoral margins have sometimes come in higher than the popular margins for a Democratic president, the electoral college model has never actually swung an election to a Democrat.

The NPVIC originated in the wake of the 2000 electoral college victory of George W. Bush, a particularly stinging defeat for Democrats. The compact was proposed by a liberal professor at a liberal university, and has been adopted exclusively by liberal stronghold states. This is a partisan proposition.

I am happy to admit -- as the article alludes in its Nate Silver reference -- that opposition to the NPVIC is decidedly partisan. How then is supporting it presumed to be nonpartisan? I submit that the popular basis for supporting the compact, "majority rule", is itself a partisan priority, and even NPVIC supporters on the right do so only because of the left's success at rebranding majority rule as a politically correct surrogate for the rule of law. I do not buy this argument, and I do not buy the popular portrayal of the compact as nonpartisan/bipartisan as objective or unbiased.

The authors of the compact have an agenda. Its supporters have no less of an agenda than those who oppose it. I intend to recharacterize the article's coverage of "partisanship", and I want to discuss those changes here instead of having an edit war about it.

Thoughts? Cpurick (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there are partisan motivations, but it is not so clear who benefits. Contrary to what you say, Democrats did benefit from the Electoral College in 1960. Roger (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The "flaw" in the electoral college is that occasionally a president is elected who lost the popular vote to the other candidate. That flaw has never worked in the Democrats' favor. Kennedy beat Nixon in both the popular vote and the electoral vote, with the point being that nobody was left feeling that their more popular candidate was cheated on a technicality. You could argue that the electoral college allowed Kennedy to win an electoral majority while having only a plurality of the vote, but nobody thought Nixon lost despite having a higher vote count nationwide. (They mainly thought he lost because Richard Daly had delivered Cook County cemeteries to JFK, which is different.) Cpurick (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As User:Schlafly said, it's far from clear that the NPVIC would consistently favor one party or the other. We've already included numerous quotes from opponents who suggest it would, but to take those quotes at face value would not be supportable by fact. To my mind, the failure (thus far) of deep-red states to pass the NPVIC, against their best interests, is a result of bandwagoning and spitefulness, not carefully considered electoral calculus. —Swpb<sup>talk</sup> 20:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As a historical matter, a lot of Nixon supporters did feel that they were cheated in 1960. According to them, Kennedy could win by stealing just 2 states, I think. Whether Kennedy won the popular vote is debatable. See [6]. Also, the electoral college also worked to the benefit of the Democrats in 1992 and 1996. Bill Clinton failed to win a majority of the popular vote both times, and only got 43% in 1992. Because of the way the E.C. works, Perot could get millions of popular votes, but no electoral votes. Clinton could claim the legitimacy of a majority, because he got a majority of the E.C. votes, and also a majority of the states. If he had been elected by the NPVIC, there would have been a lot of complaints about his legitimacy. Roger (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

New section suggestion

I would like to suggest that the following subsections be grouped into a separate section as they focus specifically on the history and progress of the NPVIC: 4.3-Academic plan; 4.4-Organization and advocacy; 4.5-Adoption; 4.6-Currently active bills; 4.7-Bills in previous sessions. Drdpw (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The "History" section itself ought to focus on the NPVIC; earlier reform attempts are an aside. Thus, I have instead subsumed the subsections on the two previous attempts at amendments into a level-3 subsection "Proposals to abolish the Electoral college by amendment". This maintains the section structure that has long been in place. —Swpb<sup>talk</sup> 18:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008855
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080328222321/http://www.oup.com:80/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/?view=usa to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/?view=usa&ci=9780195307511
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040626011736/http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov:80/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=SB2898 to http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=SB2898

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—<sup>cyberbot II</sup><sub>Talk to my owner:Online</sub> 05:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120626092433/http://www.nationalpopularvote.com:80/map.php to http://nationalpopularvote.com/map.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—<sup>cyberbot II</sup><sub>Talk to my owner:Online</sub> 10:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Graphic error

The text in the lower-right corner of NPVIC participants.svg reads '06 when it should read '16. 108.246.204.20 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ends of 2016 sessions

Since the legislatures of AK, AZ, GA, and MN have all already adjourned their regular sessions (https://legiscan.com/schedules/2016), I think I'm going to move those bills to the "Past bills" section. I'm not entirely sure if this is how passing bills works, though, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. Blippy1998 (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Compatibility with alternative voting systems

I undid the insertion of this new section: <<Compatibility with alternative voting methods[edit] The NPVIC assumes that all states use the current choose-one plurality voting (COPV) method. This would be problematic if any states were to implement one of the many alternative voting methods (e.g. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or Approval Voting (AV) that are often promoted as solutions to the problem of vote splitting. The results of most voting methods, in particular the ranked voting methods like IRV, are not summable with the results of others. It may be acceptable to sum AV with COPV results, but without counting rules defined in the NPVIC verbiage signatory states could have grounds for protest.[48] On the other hand, it would be equally problematic to implement alternative voting methods without either an interstate compact or a Constitutional change to the rules of the Electoral College: alternative voting methods could lead to more than two candidates receiving electors, while the Electoral College assumes a two-party system, with some candidate receiving a majority.>>

The contributor may want to explain this more, but my initial reactions are: 1) NPVIC assumes vote totals are generated from states, but does not assume plurality voting; 2) approval voting generates vote totals, and instant runoff generates 1st choice totals that are easily summable; 3) the final section about the "Electoral college assuming a two-party system" is not true. RRichie (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Rob, you have a strong interest in both IRV and NPV, so you must have thought about this, and should have an article yourself somewhere. 1st-choice totals could of course be "easily summable", but that method would have to be defined and recognized by the NPVIC. I cited an external reference. Why don't you cite an external reference about how IRV would fit into NPV? That would be a worthy contribution. Simply deleting this section is not a contribution. I will grant you 3) that the final section about the "Electoral college assuming a two-party system" was oversimplified, but not false. The Electoral College's decision must be by majority, and there is only one round; if electors represent more than two candidates it becomes likely that there will be no majority, transferring the decision to the House of Representatives. Simplulo (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Despite the source provided, there it a lot of synthesis going on in the removed text, which is not appropriate under WP:NOR. If and when issues with other voting methods arise and we can report how they are actually handled, we can discuss them; until then, this is very speculative. As for "Why don't you cite an external reference about how IRV would fit into NPV?", that gets the burden of evidence totally backwards—if you want to introduce new material, you need to provide all the sources necessary to support it; if you don't, there is no obligation to provide sources countering that material in order to remove it, especially as such sources may not exist. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 13:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Describing the compact vote totals

There's been some back and forth edits on how to describe the national popular vote. What I've witnessed is that vague phrases like "votes nationwide" or "national popular vote" is that readers may interpret that differently. They might think it's just the states in the compact or might think it includes territories of the United States like Puerto Rico that currently do not have votes in the Electoral College. Saying something to the effect of " the most popular votes overall in all 50 states and DC" is designed to answer those questions.RRichie (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

While I prefer "nationwide", I understand the possible source of confusion. To avoid an edit war, I'll make sure all relevant sections say "the most popular votes overall in the 50 states and DC" instead of "the most popular votes overall in all 50 states and DC" because I think it further removes confusion. Blippy1998 (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Commented-out bills w/o a floor vote; why include at all?

Currently, we comment out bills that died without a floor vote, but why keep them at all? They're never going to be made visible to readers, and they don't provide any useful function for editors. Any good reason not to get rid of them? —swpb<sup>T</sup> 12:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking six days without dissent on a heavily-watched page as license to proceed. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 20:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Addition of problematic material

A single-purpose account, Usfairvote, has repeatedly added the following statement to the fourth paragraph of the "legality" section:

Opponent Doug Nickle, President of Make California Count, disagrees. Nickle contends that an interstate compact comprised of the minimum number of electors to win the presidency effectively nullifies the 12th amendment rights of every other state not in the compact. Nickle believes the U.S. Supreme Court will agree.

It is my contention that this text adds nothing of value to the article: the main positions on the constitutionality of the compact are already attributed to more reliable, academic sources; meanwhile, there is no reason given for why this person's opinion matters enough to warrant inclusion. The SPA is apparently willing to war over it, so I'm bringing it here. Opinions? —swpb<sup>T</sup> 19:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree that that text does not belong in the article. The account should probably be warned (if it wasn't already).KarlFrei (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Image is not to date

Any idea why it hasn't updated to the WikiMedia version? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Refresh your cache. Ctrl+F5 in most browsers. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 13:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

partisan advantage

Today's edits include remarks about the 2000 and 2016 elections, in which some of us who are paying attention know that the winner of the pop vote lost at the electoral college. Given that half the electorate did not vote in 2016 I don't believe this fact is so manifestly obvious that we can just assert it. Unfortunately. So that needs a citation if it is included. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It really didn't need a citation, but now it has one. Another editor went to the effort of solving a "problem" that only bothered you. The next time you're the only one with an issue, FIXIT yourself. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 13:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

If you always pick up after your kid, they don't learn to do it themselves.... but on long standing text, I usually opt SOFIXIT. Have a great day, and spread some smiles, eh? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure you fully considered who the kid is in your metaphor. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 15:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Does it matter? Newbies can benefit from experiential education about WP:Verification requirements, and such education will often benefit experts as well. Now, since under the Talk Page Guidelines, we're supposed to talk about improving the article and not each other, can we agree to move on now? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Two As Of templates in a row

In this diff, an ed has restored their preferred version of a lede paragraph, in which we use Template:As of in two places to refer to the same date. The clear text, with bold added to the AS OF rendered text, reads as follows

As of 2016, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 165 electoral votes, which is 30.7% of the total Electoral College and 61.1% of the votes needed to give the compact legal force. Each of the jurisdictions which have adopted the compact as of November 2016 typically vote for Democratic candidates; the compact has not been joined by traditionally Republican or swing states, leading some to believe that ultimate passage is unlikely.

The reason offered in the edit summary is that "(Reverting pointless and harmful change again...";

The prior version was a product of tweaks by at least two other eds, and reduced the AS OF template to just a single instance. That clear text read

As of 2016, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia, all of which typically vote for Democratic candidates. Together, they have 165 electoral votes, which is 30.7% of the total Electoral College and 61.1% of the votes needed to give the compact legal force. Some commentators have opined that it is unlikely to be passed in enough states to go into effect.

• We know the reverting editor thinks version 2 is "pointless and harmful", however we don't know the basis for their subjective declaration because they haven't yet defended their assertion.
• Version 1 (with 2 AS-OFs) = 80 words
• Version 2 (with only one) = 67 words
• There is some information in Version 1 that is missing from Version 2, and the missing info is this - in the body of the article one of the commentators specifically opined the compact needs support from at least some "purple or red states" to pass. quote is from the RS cited in the article. Version 2 now just says "not enough states". Other than that, I don't perceive any information contained in Version 1 that is missing from Version 2. Maybe I'm overlooking something. I would favor using Version 2 but adding that bit about GOP/swing states being needed.

IN SUM, Version 2 appears to better fulfill the instruction in Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Be_concise and should be restored, maybe with the tweak I just suggested, but even without it, it's still better than clunky as-of Version as-of 1 (redundancy intended)..... UNLESS the reverting ed can win a consensus that those changes are "pointless and harmful". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

To your last sentence first: that's not how any of this works. You need a consensus for the change; in the absence of that, the older version stays. Maybe you're new enough not to know that, but now you do. Now:

The original version is better because it presents the salient points in an expected sequence: 1. how many have joined it (both as an absolute number and a percentage); and 2. the nature of the joiners, and it's relevance to the outcome. The altered version presents an awkard, disjointed sequence of the same information: 1. how many have joined, in absolute number only; 2. the nature of the joiners; 3. Back to fact 1, here's what that represents as a percentage; 4. Back to fact 2, here's what the nature of the joiners means. Moving the fact about the 10 states being Democratic before even saying what percentage they comprise is backwards. The party leaning is clearly the secondary fact; it's a "happens to be" fact that modifies the reader's understanding of how to interpret the percentage, and so belongs after the percentage. The desire to jam it in before its place reads to me like POV pushing: "This compact, WHICH WILL FAIL, has been joined by these states, and did we mention IT WILL FAIL?" The editor's shot-down attempt to put a blatantly POV "only" before the ten suggests the same POV. Now, the second {{as of}} is neccessary, because it has a different referrent than the first. The first is the date at which the number "10" was valid, the second is the date at which the statement about Democratic leaning was valid. These will not necessarily remain the same date. On top of all that, the word "opined" is unnecessary and precious, and the original text had no need for it. The new version on offer here isn't wrong, it's just worse writing. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 21:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RE POV claim.... When there is ambiguity AGF requires giving the benefit of the doubt. "Only" is likely my Upper Midwest colloquial way of talking, and was only intended as a verbal version of a venn diagram: DEM have signed up, GOP/Swing have not......... period. Please AGF, I have already thanked (before your revert) the other ed who deleted that word but also read it the same as youoops, I started a msg at their talk but deleted it when real life interrupted. Just went back to check. Oops. Not so. But figured I should admit the mistake here since there seems to be a penchant for leaping to conclusions in my direction. Honest brainfart. I can understand how one not perceiving ambiguity would leap to the wrong conclusion, but in your words.... now you know. And please focus on content not behavior on the talk pages. Next time you want to ASK if you correctly see POV in my wording please ask at my talk page. I will look at the balance of your reasoning soon, but not at the moment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I hate these WP:RIGHTVERSION things.... the disputed text for which you claim BRD sanctity is itself brand new (less than 10 days old). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Does This Art Rely on Unrel. Sources or No Sources on "States Have Electoral Votes"?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't find any reference to states having "electoral votes" in the constitution. Please tell me where that is, if it exists. What I find is that states have electors, & the electors vote. Also the legislatures are free to name whatever method they want of choosing electors, but I find no mechanism in the constitution to force the electors to vote some way. Thus it seems to me that all references to states having "electoral votes" as fact, should be eliminated from this article, as based on unreliable sources. It would possibly be a reliable source if it spoke about "votes of electors," or states have so many electors who vote. The states do not vote; electors chosen by legislated means, vote. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC))

Please provide a short quote from the article to serve as an example. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is one example: "As of 2016, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 165 electoral votes, . . . ." You may do control F or w/ mac command F to find references to "electoral votes." (PeacePeace (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC))

Thanks for the example. While your technical assessment of the legal folderol is interesting, it makes for complicated verbiage and I don't think anyone would come away with a different understand, much less an improved understanding, if we cluttered up the article with more precise verbiage. So I'm opposed to the change because it isn't really an improvement or produce a different take home message. Second, you suggest any source that speaks the same way is (obviously) unreliable, since they disagree with your technical read of things. Oopsie daisie.... simply being wrong in the eyes of any given Wikipedia editor is not what determines reliability of sources for Wikipedia purposes. I've seen many sources that speak of states having electoral votes, rather than states having electors who have a vote. If you think they are wrong, fine, but that doesn't render them "unreliable" under our policy. See WP:Verifiability, not truth. For both reasons I'm not convinced there's a problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that if you Google, you find a lot of references to states having electoral votes, but they are obviously wrong as a simple reading of the Constitution tells you. (You could call it an urban myth or a hoax.) And the issue of whether STATES have electoral votes (so they could make agreements about them with other states) vs only persons who are electors having electoral votes, is very important. This is not a matter of some individual's eyes or an individual read, but of any rational person who reads the short section in the Constitution, which is a very good standard by which to judge the reliability of the Secondary Sources. The Constitution says nothing about states having electoral votes -- or if it does, let me know where so I am corrected. How do you read the Constitution? Do you find that States have electoral votes? Do these secondary sources actually say that STATES HAVE electoral votes? And if they do, do you agree that the secondary sources are unreliable at that point?

But you know, on reconsideration: I was assuming that the footnote citations actually supported the claims in the text of the article. I just did a check on footnotes 17 & 25. Footnote 17 goes to a site that does not say that states have electoral votes. Footnote 25 goes to a dead URL. So perhaps the writer of this article manufactured the expression "states have electoral votes," and the secondary sources do not support it at all! -- I rechecked this article and find that the claim about states having electoral votes is not supported by any secondary sources at all, so far as I can tell. That being the case (& in view of the conflict with the plain words of the constitution), IMHO such statements should be deleted from this article. (PeacePeace (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC))

When discussing US politics, it is normal to say "State X has N electoral votes" as shorthand for "There are N electors in State X's delegation to the electoral college". —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Motivation for voters in certain states

I came here wondering what the motivation in "smaller" states (DC, VT, HI, etc) is for essentially reducing their own resultant power in the election - and thus risking candidates not worrying about representing the interests of said voters in future elections - I am left assuming the voters choose for their state to join the compact "for the sake of pure democracy" or something, but I'm not finding any sources to verify or refute this - I'd be interested if this has been studied somewhere(?) - I'll keep my eye out, but I'm currently still confused :-/ Brettpeirce (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I believe it is relatively straightforward: the voters in these states currently have no power at all, in that nobody cares how they vote, since these states are "safe" (see the section in the article on advertising dollars spent per state). Texas (as a random example) should actually be very interested in joining this compact as well, since at this moment, no presidential candidate has to worry about Texan interests, Texas being a safe state as well. But... KarlFrei (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Every statement about "motivation" must pass WP:Verification by citation to what Wikipedia calls a 'reliable source'. Declaring other people's motivation in WP:Wikivoice does not cut it, because statements without references boil down to original research by Wiki editors, and we don't do that. Brett asks a good question about certain states, and if we had refs that report from those states it would be a good addition. Meanwhile, Karl's speculation is interesting, and I enjoyed it, but it's still rather forumish. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I do apologize. I have actually been around on Wikipedia for quite a while and I would not dream of putting any of the above in the article itself. I was merely attempting to alleviate Brettpeirce's confusion. Next time, I will be sure to prefix an explanation like the above with a sentence like "this is only my opinion and I have no direct sources for this, but ..." I am terribly sorry if I have misled anybody or wasted anybody's time by making them read my opinion. KarlFrei (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If anyone should apologize, I suppose I should. I didn't mean to slam anyone, it's just hard to know where everyone is at and that's a good policy you've described. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

new gallup poll

Mx. Granger "Except for a few weeks", is WP:CRYSTAL , and makes no sense for a poll which is taken annually. "In 2016" is the only thing we can say for now. Next year we will see if the opinion returns to the prior mean, or if there is a more permanent change. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added "As of December 2016" to avoid any possible implication of the article trying to predict the future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Mx. Granger While better "except for a few weeks" is still problematic. Is the answer going to change a month from now? definitely not, because there will be no poll a month from now. This answer is going to be the answer for until the end of 2017. It also clearly implies that there is going to be a reversion to the mean. We have no idea if there will be so or not.

As of December 2016, Gallup polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a direct vote, except a few weeks but/however/until after the 2016 election, when they found support for the popular vote at 49%, an all-time low, with 47% wanting to keep the Electoral College

ResultingConstant (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think it's important to explicitly mention the contrast between the 2016 results and the other results, because the source focuses so strongly on that contrast. I've tried rephrasing the sentence again, using your suggestion and adding some detail to highlight the contrast. The mention of "a few weeks" is supported by the source, which says "In a poll taken weeks after the election". (I'm about to leave the house, so I won't be able to respond again until several hours from now.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah! I see what you are going for. Well, I would say there is a very big difference in meeting between "a few weeks after" and "for a few weeks". One identifies the time the poll was taken, the other gives the duration of the poll's validity. However, I am satisfied with your most recent changes. I agree the contrast is quite important. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand the issue—the previous phrasing was indeed (unintentionally) ambiguous in just the way you describe. I'm glad we resolved that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Out of date or bogus information

Current CBS poll indicates a small majority support (54%) for election by popular vote, contrary to the old data and biased poll cited in the article. No reason for this article to be presenting unbalanced or incorrect or old information. See: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-more-americans-believe-popular-vote-should-decide-the-president/ There should be one conservative and one liberal polling company cited in an article as clearly politically charged as this one in order to maintain and encyclopedic NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0w8st8s (talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

A gallup poll taken a month or so ago is outdated? ResultingConstant (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"one conservative and one liberal polling company cited" is not how we do things. WP:NPOV requires more thought than such formulas allow. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 22:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Partisanship of bills

Due to the recent polarization of this topic between the Democratic and Republican parties, a bill's chance of passage would logically be linked to which party introduces and sponsors it in the legislative chambers. So, awaiting consensus, in order to give readers a better idea of which bills may be likelier to pass, I propose we add to the currently active bills table a section for partisanship of each bill as it appears on legiscan.com. If no one objects within a week, I will consider it okay to start adding it myself. Blippy1998 (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems very unnecessary. It's as if you're already predicting the bill's outcome. To name the party affiliation is truly unnecessary and is irrelevant to the table. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by it seems I'm already predicting the bill's outcome? If such a section is added to the table, yes, that's effectively what it would serve to do, to an extent. Blippy1998 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"[...] a bill's chance of passage would logically be linked to which party introduces [...]." Again, mentioning the party affiliation is really irrelevant to the status of the bill. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the current status, but it may be relevant to the future status. If you think information about the possible future status is outside the scope of the table, I won't add the section. Blippy1998 (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a bad idea if the chart were to show which party proposed the bill, actually it would probably be more beneficial that way. Also, some of the EV values of some states aren't correct such as Indiana's which should be 11 but in the chart it says 16. -- sion8 <sup>talk page</sup> 07:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. I think so too, by the way (obviously). We should probably hold off on doing it until we get more opinions. I'm not sure if this'll alert them, but I'll tag User:Callmemirela. Blippy1998 (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Here, this should work. @Callmemirela: I'll also tag @Prcc27:, @Swpb:, and @Transportcatch:. Blippy1998 (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to include the sponsor's name, district id, and party affiliation, but I don't think that will say much about the likelihood of success. I'd say that the partisan control of the chamber is much more likely than the party of the sponsor to indicate whether the bill will pass, but even then, that may not say enough; Oregon's state senate president is a Democrat and he has blocked NPVC bills with majority support for over a decade. If the interest is in showing which bills might pass, I think it would be better to find an external source that estimates likelihood of passage for bills based on all relevant factors (akin to, say, rankings of which House / Senate elections a likely to be competitive), then this table could reference that. Transportcatch (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the sponsor's name, district id, or party affiliation would add to a holistic understanding of a bill's status; it would just clutter the table. That level of detail is available in the sources for anyone interested; it's too trivial for most readers. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 16:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. A bill's prospects are based on a more complicated set of factors than sponsor partisanship; a reasonable assessment would need to consider at least the (potentially mixed) partisan makeup of the sponsors, the partisan makeup of the committee(s) and the legislative chamber, the rules and practices of the legislative chamber, and the partisan makeup of the state's voting populace currently and historically. To weigh these factors appropriately would entail original research; to present them without comment would suggest an implicit weighting, or beg the question of why they are being presented at all. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 14:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think I'll add it then. Blippy1998 (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep bills that failed in committee until the end of current session?

It seems that the current practice is to remove bills from "Currently Active Bills" if the bill failed in committee. I think it would be valuable to keep them until the end of the current session, so that readers have a complete picture of the status of the compact in the states - live in 17 states, dead in 3 (VA, MT, CO). I recommend changing the title of the section from "Currently Active Bills" to "Bills in Current Session" and highlighting the failed bills in red. Transportcatch (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's fair, with the caveat that if a new bill is introduced in the same session, it supplants the dead one. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 15:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hawaii

Shouldn't a bill that passes in a house be colored green in the table even if they don't override a veto? It seems inconsistent that most houses that passed a bill are colored green while some are colored red. Another possibility is to divide it into two columns: one that says if the bill passed and another that says if the veto was overridden. Prcc27 (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

IMO, two columns would be overcomplicating the table, and the color should continue to represent the final outcome in a chamber. If a chamber fails to override a veto, it has failed to cross the threshold to pass the bill, even if it had succeeded at meeting an earlier, lower, pre-veto threshold. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 13:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer a special color for cases like this. A bill passing in a house but failing to overturn a veto is quite different from a bill failing in a house outright. Prcc27 (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

How about we use these status templates the way their names suggest – use {{partial}} or {{partial success}} for these cases, and use {{pending}} for bills that are pending, which are currently using {{partial}}? I think the colors are different enough:

Partial

Partial success

Pending

—swpb<sup>T</sup> 18:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea.KarlFrei (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. Prcc27 (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

For consistency we should probably apply this to the other states that failed to override governor vetoes. Prcc27 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that post-veto votes took place in those states. Do CA, RI, and VT have a mechanism for overriding vetos? —swpb<sup>T</sup> 15:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If the vote didn't take place that means they failed to override the veto. All three of those states have a mechanism for overriding vetos. Prcc27 (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, then that's fine, so long as the house in question is actually empowered to take that vote, which could be complicated: in all three of these states, for instance, a special session for an override vote can only be called by the governor ([7]) — so depending when in the session the veto occurred, it may not have been possible for the legislature to take an override vote on its own accord. I don't think I'd consider that a failure in the legislature. So before we say that a house "failed" to override a veto, we need to be sure the house had the opportunity to do so in the first place. Also, if a house did pass an override, but the other house in that state didn't, the former should (obviously, I think) stay green. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 13:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Florida

I have no idea if this belongs here, but apparently Florida is on the list of pending bills. Source Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Both NPVIC bills have been "indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration". I'm unsure of how to reflect this on both the U.S. map vector and the current session table. Frevangelion (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor Frevangelion: "Not pending" on the map; "failed" in the table. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 15:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=%2FCM%2FContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12542
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108225248/http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_37_cfa_20070503_145220_sen_floor.html to http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_37_cfa_20070503_145220_sen_floor.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101216084241/http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/lims/searchbylegislation.aspx to http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/lims/searchbylegislation.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080609160506/http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1695007 to http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1695007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

New Mexico

Why does it say adjourned for NM? Shouldn't it just say failed like we do for the other states ? Prcc27 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This really confused me -- sion8 <sup>talk page</sup> 19:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It is simple: I fixed this after seeing this comment, but neglected ro reply on the talk page.KarlFrei (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Other Data and Unconsidered/Unresolved Arguments

[Copy/paste of material removed by original poster]

• https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-622.pdf

Frontier teg (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Frontier_teg

This talk page, like all article talk pages, is for discussion of the article and how to improve it. It is not a place to promote or advocate your own opinion on the topic. —swpb<sup>T go beyond</sup> 20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It is also not a place to introduce borderline copyright violations of other sources. If Frontier teg would like to suggest how this Cato Institute source could be used, with attribution, to improve the article, that would be fine, but copypasting sources isn't productive, either. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The article does not include any data (table of states and effects) regarding the transfer of influence in the presidential election from smaller states to larger states under the compact. I've added the following link to the "Populous states versus low-population states" list of references * https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-622.pdf

The article does not include the concept that the compact eliminates State level electoral districts and creates a national electoral district thus 1) effectively eliminating federalism in Presidential elections 2) eliminating Congressional power to resolves election disputes without a Constitutional Amendment.* https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-622.pdf * https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc808162/m2/1/high_res_d/R43823_2014Dec12.pdf The article would be better if this concept was explicitly stated. If anyone could suggest a way to include this point and reference in the article, I would appreciate it.

Frontier teg (talk) Frontier_teg

The Cato Institute is controversial, and its status as a reliable source is debatable. As a baseline, any controversial conclusions made by the Cato Institute (which is most of them) should be clearly attributed to the Cato Institute, not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Whether or not those conclusions should be included at all is also up for debate. Cato is raising valid, but contentious, concerns which reach some very bold, or even extreme, conclusions. For this reason, independent sources about Cato's conclusions should be found to provide a neutral overview.

You may want to review talk page guidelines, also. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The Cato Institute article brings forth significant minority views not covered in other sources which I would like included. I'd like to ask straight to the point, who decided that the Cato Institute is controversial and the American University Washington College of Law or Gallup isn't, or the demonstrably far left leaning Washington Post, Denver Post and New York Times isn't? If you're going to accept these sources then I'm scratching my head as to why you would suggest that Cato is less reputable and unacceptable. The only thing I can come up with is your own personal bias. Is there a Wikipedia moderator that can settle this? Frontier teg (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't tell people who've been doing this way longer than you what the rules are. All significant minority views are already included. That doesn't mean citing every party stating those views, particularly a think tank that is explicitly paid to state that view in the most hyperbolic way possible. I'm sorry that the most respected papers in the English-speaking world are boogiemen in your reality, but that doesn't change everyone else's reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.167.80 (talk • contribs)

Appeal to authority fallacy much? Who died and made you the arbiter of what significant means? The significant minority views that I have included HAVE NOT been covered in the article. You getting angry and aggressive toward me is not solving anything. You say it's not significant, I say it is. So I wrote wikipedia and they said ALL minority views CAN be included and WHEN multiple reliable sources are given THEN the minority view that is being debated SHOULD be included. The fact that you don't agree that something is significant has no bearing on what the rest of the world thinks. And Wikipedia is for EVERYONE, not just you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontier teg (talk • contribs)