On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[email protected]> wrote: > Warren thinks, and I would be inclined to agree, that the compact would have > had a greater chance if it had specified "the popular vote within the states > that are part of the compact". Then states would want to join to balance out > the result from the states already in it.
It might have been better not to actually call it a compact. If it is a compact, then they need Congress to approve it. Ofc, if they tried to create an agreement any other way, the SC might declare it a compact anyway. Another problem is that it must remain balanced. For example, if the compact was 30% republican and 70% democrat, then a state with only 5% of the population has no reason to join the compact. If they are mainly democrat, then it doesn't matter if they join, as the votes will go democrat anyway. If the new state is mainly republican, then joining is just throwing their votes away, as their 5% isn't going to swing it. Maybe they could have a rule that only states which voted for the party that the compact voted against at the more recent Presidential election, including votes cast in members that weren't members at the time, are allowed to join. If the total votes in compact states was Dem: 60,000,000 Rep: 50,000,000 and a state which voted Dem: 5,000,000 Rep: 7,000,000 applied to join, it would be allowed, as it increases the votes of the weaker party. Once they join, the totals are updated. Dem: 65,000,000 Rep: 57,000,000 Eventually, as more Rep-leaning states join, the Rep's would have a majority and then Democrat states could join. Also, the 270 threshold is probably not that important. A compact which cast 200 votes for the NPV winner would likely swing the election. I wonder what the reaction of the SC would be if states representing 300 votes created a compact which only uses votes within the compact, and then refused to allow new members. It would be reasonable for Congress to block the compact unless the rules allowed any state to join. > but it was really about the mechanics of election integrity I think re-scaling the votes in each State so that they are proportional to population is reasonable. The votes for each candidate would be: (votes cast for the candidate)*[ (population of the state)/(number of votes cast in the state) ] This eliminates the incentive for states to pad their vote counts. Another issue is how to handle the senate bonus. If the large states start the compact, they could leave that provision out. Since there are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, each state effectively has a boost of population equal to two 435ths of the total population of the US (0.46%). The effective population of each State for re-scaling could be defined as actual population plus 0.5% of the population of the US. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
