Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Quincy Adams electoral vote winner?

There's a table on this page that claims John Q. Adams was the electoral vote winner. This is misleading, because nobody got a majority of electoral college votes (in fact, Adams didn't even get a plurality of electoral votes). Q. Adams was elected by the House in a contingent election. Prcc27 (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. I think the point in this case is that the popular vote winner lost because of the existence of EC, which requires a majority of electoral votes and in this case triggered a contingent election that the popular vote winner lost. But nevertheless, including Q. Adams in table under the columnn heading "Electoral College Winner" is indeed incorrect. Not sure how best to fix this though while still including it as an example where the popular vote winner did not ultimately win election. Maybe the column header needs to be something more like "Elected Candidate" or something. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, or "Election Winner". Prcc27 (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Colorado pending referendum

I really think this article needs to account for Colorado's "pending" status. I'm not sure what regard the Ballotpedia website holds here, but their article on this topic (https://ballotpedia.org/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) at least acknowledges the special status that the ballot issue places the state in regarding the legislative law (which is suspended in Colorado due to the referendum ( https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_National_Popular_Vote_Referendum_(2020) )). If you want to go all the way to the source, Ballotpedia cites a Denver Post article: https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/29/national-popular-vote-referendum-2020-colorado/ . At a minimum, I think this situation deserves mention somewhere in this wikipedia article. I also think the infobox map needs a fourth legend color for the "pending ballot referendum" or amend the yellow color to include referendum along with legislation and add Colorado to that category. Esjs (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added Colorado's repeal referendum in the "Initiatives and referendums" section. Adding colors to the map is not especially straightforward, and right now this is the only state with a repeal process underway – maybe the best solution is an asterisk and a footnote in the infobox? I would say the yellow is appropriate for pending referendums to join the compact, not referendums to overturn an already enacted law, even if that law is suspended pending the referendum. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 20:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits. Esjs (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I would argue it really closer to "pending" than "enacted": the referendum petition effectively un-enacted it *pending* another action (the referendum) to determine whether it will join. In other words, Colorado really isn't in the NPVIC now and green makes it seems like it is. Does that make sense? Of course either way there should be an asterisk noting its special state. Milhouse10000 (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Possibly unconstitutional in lead

I think it's very important that it is potentially unconstitutional without congressional approval. It is very possible that enough states could pass it, and if this article doesn't make that possibility clear, then people will think we are using the popular vote from now on. Especially with a conservative SC majority, it is likely they see it as an interstate compact (it's in the name) and therefore disallow it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Support. The fact that it is an open question whether the compact would be legal without congressional approval under the compact clause is important to briefly mention in the lead. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The legal questions do bear mentioning in the lead, but the specifics should be left to the Legality section; for one thing, there are questions that extend beyond the Compact Clause. I've added a brief sentence to the lead that strikes the right balance. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 15:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I replaced a long quotation from the NPVIC site with a brief sentence containing the main arguments for and against legality. The legality question (now a significant fraction of the article) seems important enough to warrant this, thoughts? Milhouse10000 (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Is a split in order?

Thanks to a lot of great work by CommonKnowledgeCreator, Perl coder, and others, the legality section has been expanded tremendously in the last year, and continues to grow in response to ongoing litigation. That content is certainly appropriate for the article, and I wouldn't want to lose any of it, nor any of the other excellent content here. But the article size with code is now up to 129k, and page loading is noticeably, sometimes painfully, slow. The size breakdown by section is roughly:

Section	Size	%
Intro, infobox, and top material	7k	5%
Mechanism	3k	2%
Motivation	6k	5%
Debate	22k	17%
Legality	30k	23%
History	27k	21%
Bills	32k	25%

A big portion of the page loading is also due to the many and intricate template calls used to generate our map and bar chart, but I'm not sure how to measure that. It's not obvious to me where, or even if, we should be considering a split to reduce page loading time. Maybe the "Bills" section could be spun off? What do you all think? —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 18:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Swpb: I don't have an opinion about splitting and would like to hear what other people think. I'm not sure which sections we'd want to split into a separate article in the event of doing so. Splitting the bills section alone would seem odd to me, but I'm not sure which other sections we'd combine it with either to create a full separate article. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Swpb: You are being too generous in crediting me - I've only made a few minor edits to that section. Kudos to @CommonKnowledgeCreator:, you and others

I'm running Chrome on a Macbook, and it reports the following times:

Time	Workload
37 ms	Loading
241 ms	Scripting
241 ms	Rendering
21 ms	Painting
116 ms	System

So it appears to be roughly 50/50 between scripting and rendering (I didn't turn caching off, so loading is quite short). Less text will improve loading and rendering, although rendering won't improve much if it's mostly text.

Turning to content, the Bills in latest session (12k) will get a good bit shorter in January when the new state legislative sessions start. Also, I was wondering if the first paragraph in Chiafalo v. Washington (1.5k) should be deleted - one old opinion seems irrelevant given the SCOTUS rulings.

In summary, I don't think we should split yet, but should keep an eye on it. Perl coder (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Perl coder and Swpb: Thanks for the kudos. The reason why I initially expanded the legality section last year was because, at the time, the article basically said, "Supporters believe the NPVIC is constitutional. Opponents believe the NPVIC is not constitutional." My reaction was, "Great. I'm much more informed now." I think we should keep the Brody argument even though Chiafalo may have made it a moot point now; I think it's worth noting the progression of both the legal opinion and the court rulings related to the compact. Chiafalo may also have other implications for the NPVIC, given that the text from the majority and concurring opinions seems to be in line with what the CRS report said about the state legislature's appointment power not being absolute. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator: Good points on Brody - I'm fine with keeping it. However, one drawback with the chronological order is that the section on Chiafalo doesn't get to Chiafalo until the second of three paragraphs. Would it be better to move the Brody paragraph to the end of the section (a bit like a historical footnote), and start with something like "Prior to these Supreme Court rulings there was debate about whether electors could act independently. In 2013..." Perl coder (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Perl coder: I'm not sure. I agree that it's a drawback to not refer to the subject of the subsection until its second paragraph. On the other hand, ~~I suppose~~ Brody's argument could still stand if the compacting state legislatures chose to repeal their pledge requirements to allow their electors the discretion to vote in line with the national popular vote if the NPVIC were to ever pass. (Although, I'd be willing to bet that the NPVIC would be challenged in court at that point like Drake, Gringer, Natelson, and the CRS report authors suggest). Chiafalo only reaffirmed that state legislatures are allowed to require pledges and ruled further that state legislatures are allowed to bind the electors to the pledges upon pain of penalty; the ruling doesn't itself require that state legislatures require pledges and penalties for breaking them.

Chiafalo only makes Brody's argument a moot point insofar as the compacting state legislatures retain the pledge requirements and the penalties for breaking them if the NPVIC passes. On the other hand, as of this writing, 11 of the 15 compacting state legislatures and the District of Columbia have retained their pledge requirements and penalties. Also, I'm not sure if there were other legal articles taking the position opposite to Brody's about faithless electors and the NPVIC; his opinion seemed a little idiosyncratic to me. But I'm not a lawyer, much less a constitutional lawyer, so my knowledge of the legal opinion with respect to the NPVIC is limited. My sense is that it's probably just best to leave the subsection as it is since we don't know what the future will bring. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator: I agree with your points. Since it's the political parties who nominate their slate of electors, and the state legislature simply appoints the slate nominated by the winner (whether state WTA, district in ME/NE, or nationally if NPV is in effect), the parties will be much more careful in vetting their slate of electors. So even in states without penalties, the rate of faithless electors are likely to be much lower. Anyhow, I've taken this discussion way off topic. Perl coder (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree splitting (and reorganization) would improve this article. Le v!v ich 17:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Missouri?

Can anybody explain what is going on in Missouri? Look, it is very nice and all that they are introducing new NPVIC bills in December, but the legislature has adjourned for the year, so what is the point? KarlFrei (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

These bills are introduced for 2021. I clarified the table. Heitordp (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Guarantees popular vote? Almost

Since each state (and DC) has two electors more than their population provides, this would give smaller states a similar advantage to that provided by the electoral college. So it would still be possible (though less likely than now) for the E.C. vote to differ from the popular vote.伟思礼 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The compact requires that all participant states allocate all their electoral votes to the same candidate with the most popular votes nationwide, considering all states and DC together (including states that don't participate in the compact). This way, as long as the participating states comprise most of the electoral college, the winner of the electoral vote is necessarily the same as the popular vote, and the number of electoral votes per state is irrelevant.

A different system would be to require each state to split its electoral votes proportionally to its own popular vote. Such system could still result in a different electoral winner due to the higher weight of smaller states, although less likely, as you say. But such system is not what the compact proposes. Heitordp (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

External Link

Hi David O. Johnson! I noticed that you reverted my edit to National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I also note that you marked my edit as spam.

I added an external link to a video which describes the subject of the article very well. I did this as there was no video explanation of the subject. I have seen such links to YouTube videos on many pages before, especially when the video in question supported the subject.

Would you mind explaining your reasoning for reverting the edit? Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a fringe viewpoint, besides YouTube isn't a valid source. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well I watched it and yea that was a great explanation. Very entertaining . . . Does not belong on Wikipedia. Violates WP:OR and WP:SELFPUBLISHED. If the people who push the compact endorsed it and put it on their website, that would be a different matter. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect citation link text

Hi all, for GA SB 37 the table shows the bill as "SB 37", and the link and page go to "SB 37" which is correct, but the link text reads "SB 39". Since the page is protected I cannot edit it. Can someone please fix this? Thanks!

2600:1700:424D:145F:0:0:0:D5 (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Unsortable table

Thanks for the great work. I noticed the table here is not sortable. The issue appears to be related to the use of different numbers of rows in each column, as attempting to sort by any column will cause additional rows to appear in the first column (but no sorting occurs). In any case, it would be useful in particular to be able to sort based on the "latest action" column. Can table format be repaired to be like the one below it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenveils (talk • contribs) 02:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed by editor Deadfrog43. There was an unnecessary "rowspan" parameter that wasn't affecting the view of the table, but was messing up the sorting.--Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

New map

So I thought that the map in the introductory section of the article is a bit improvable. I am new to Wikipedia, so I do not know how to edit that section of the article. I would appreciate it if you can review this map and update the article with these ones. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proudroundearther (talk • contribs) 12:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The current system we have allows us to update all templates throughout the article in one place. This includes the map, the cartogram, and the "completion bar" in the infobox, as well as text throughout the article and another chart in thee Adoption section. Replacing these with static images would make it much harder to update when changes happen (which is fairly frequent). The Bills section of the article also already gives the information your new maps would provide. Seoltoir22 (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Michigan

Apparently bills have been introduced in the Michigan Senate and House today[1], but I can't find them yet on the Michigan Legislature website. Perhaps I looked wrong, so I'd appreciate anyone double-checking. DFlhb (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Florida isn't pending anymore

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

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

Minnesota

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

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

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

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

Maine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should the map have another color?

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

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

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

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

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

Enactment prospects

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

Check your attitude Robert. I'm going to insist you follow WP:BRD and respect the WP:STATUSQUO, meaning you'll need other editors to support the disputed changes you want to make. Each of the sections you're so worked up about has been the way it is for a long time and for good reasons. The prose about adoptions in red states is specifically relevant to Nate Silver's point and belongs with it. I'm not aware of anything there or anywhere that's out of date; there are a number of editors who are incredibly on top of all legislative actions on NPVIC bills. All the details on those bills and referendums appear in the clearly named "Bills and referendums" section, which is hatnoted in Adoption. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 16:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)