@oldgulph: (1)The NPV update was worthwhile and brief, thanks; looks like things are going well for you. (2)2000 wasn’t the closest EC vote in history, 1876 was. (3) Reasonable people, e.g. Mr./Ms. 9IB, can differ on whether EC or NPV are better for our federal system, I think. We’ve both used examples to illustrate our points; I think many of yours (e.g., “1 fraudulent vote deciding 55 electors”), while certainly possible, are much less likely than mine (e.g., 1876). Your point about the temptation for fraud and the need for smaller numbers of illegitimately cast/suppressed votes in swing states is well taken; there are bad scenarios for both EC and NPV. What I like with EC is that I have some influence on keeping *my* influence on the election intact (by insisting on clean elections in my state). I don’t with NPV. But others will decide for themselves.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

[repeats points made here -- TN]

National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

The closest popular-vote election in American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

I recommend you read the novel, “Nine Inch Bride,” contact through the site, or follow @nineinchbride. A slew of tweets from the book on “democracy” just this morning…

Put more succinctly, NPV absolutely requires a uniform, federalized voter registration and election process (in my view), EC does not (in my view).

Thanks. Read the book if you’re curious about the name. If you’d care to review it, I’ll send along a complimentary copy.

As far as 3d party formation goes, I agree: winner-take-all is a huge obstacle for the presidency, state-wide office and even smaller-region office. As far as Congress or legislatures are concerned, I’d prefer proportional representation within states for exactly the reason you give, as a way of encouraging third parties, and diversity of political opinion. (I think there’s actually no textual prohibition against that in the Constitution; states get representatives based on population but are not directly commanded by Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution to assign those representatives to particular geographic areas.) I also agree that it’s moot in the short run; the two major parties work together and on their own to prevent 3d party formation.

But I think electing a single executive/commander in chief, charged with 24/7/365 decisions defending and implementing the laws of a democratic, continental-sized federation is a different issue. One needs a selection process that satisfies the federation’s components, so that they willingly join the federation, and don’t later organize to leave, and that likewise gives their populations a sense of both electoral autonomy and say-so in the presidential selection.

Obviously, the alternative is choosing the head of the majority legislative party, a prime minister or chancellor. It seems to me that usually works in the long run only if you either (1) have a relatively small, relatively homogeneous electorate that accepts the leader rather than finds him/her +/- a foreigner or (2) the executive is weak.

The changes needed to the electoral system will never come about from the two party system which it serves.

If the NPV does what you say — preserves state control of elections — then I think it’s fatally flawed because groups of states (e.g., the former Confederate States) could well engage in systematic voter suppression to affect the popular vote, and my state’s electoral votes (and hence my own) would be burned on the bonfire of illegitimate results elsewhere.

Your mantra is “every vote would be equal.” I’m far less concerned with absolutely precise equality of votes than with ensuring voting processes that are accountable to the voters involved. NPV by its very definition is not such a process: I have no effect whatsoever on voter registration or election policy in any state other than my own. My suggestion to remove Senate-based electoral votes makes votes substantially equal from state to state. One could further refine the EC so that state electoral votes were precisely proportional to population, meaning every vote would be more equal yet. But that is not the only goal of a fair election in a federal democracy.

We disagree about the likely effect of NPV on campaign behavior; perhaps it’s unknowable in advance. I think the link you provide — Campaigns Blitz 9 Swing States in a Battle of Ads — demonstrates what I’m saying more than it does what you’re saying, because the reason the candidates are in those states in the first place is because of the EC effect. I’m not surprised the campaigns then gravitate to relatively small towns like Des Moines — that’s as big as it gets in IA.