Why would the big states want to do this? It's like putting up a big "don't bother campaigning here" sign.

Plus, in 2004 New York and California both would have gone to Bush. Why would a state that heavily favors one party be interested in a new system that would potentially throw its votes to the other?

If we're going to make a change, it has to be nationwide. No state is going to voluntarily do this.

Why would it drive candidates away from big states? Wouldn't it do the opposite? I don't follow your argument, Ingen.

To me it seems like a good solution that could actually come to pass. I'm not sure about the argument against this concerning the possibility that presidents would stop campaigning outside of major urban areas- I'm not certain you could guarantee a win this way, I would need someone to prove it to me with census data. But even if that were the case, it's hardly worse than our current shortcomings, right?

The article makes clear that no one really campaigns in California or Texas right now anyway, since both states usually easily go to one party or the other, so I don't think that's a disincentive.

You *are* correct that they could end up giving their electoral votes to a candidate disliked in their particular state, but that's the point of this compact: to make a sacrifice in order to remove the Electoral College.

Because 75% of the states need to ratify an amendment, you're right that some states get too much of an advantage out of the current system for such an amendment to pass. But the beauty of this plan is that it requires a minimum of 11 states to be effective -- i.e., it could happen.

I don't even think I'd call that a sacrifice- it doesn't matter who California or New York go to if it all comes down to Ohio and Florida. It seems like a much bigger flaw that a president might be elected against the will of the national majority, than that a given state might be forced to give its electoral votes up to the will of the nation over and above the will of said state.

i think it's up for vote in califorina, without waiting for the other 10 states. i could be wrong...but this is not the first time i've heard of this, and at first I was confused but now it makes more sense.

"it doesn’t matter who California or New York go to if it all comes down to Ohio and Florida"
-oops, I don't really know what I meant by that.

I like the idea of making the system incentivize candidates to campaign more in large population centers. Why shouldn't cites get attention that's proportionate to their population? Of course, as an urbanite, I have some bias there.

And we're going to get around the collective action problem how?

I just don't see an end to the Electoral College. If you want to find another way to energize the Republicans (and get them back to one of the core principles they've left behind), take away "states' rights" to have a say in the election. This would be met with railing against the "Left Coast" and "Liberal Northeast" that would potentially be granted a greater say in the election. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying it mobilizes a pretty major constituency, and once again puts in front of that constituency a large target that they're rather fond of using. Real election reform is simply going to require an event that really pisses off enough people so much that they remember it the next time they enter the voting booth.

if 2000 didn't do that, what will?

California and New York would have to sign on for this to work. California and New York vote for Democrats. Why would they bother to change how their particular electoral votes are being allocated in a manner beneficial to Republicans if it's not going to be a national system change? There's no benefit to them or Democrats. It will only help Republican who, I assume, are not going to bother making such changes in their states and will laugh their way to electoral vote landslides.

(referring to comment #10): I truly don't know. Probably masked bandits caught on Fox News carrying out big boxes marked "ballots" and dumping them in the Ohio River.

You don't seem to under the concept, Angiven. If the 11 or more states got together to make the compact, whether Red states make the change or not is irrelevant. It would be enough for all elections to go toward the popular vote winner.

And, as you may know my thoughts on election policy, you might know very well that I think ending the winner-takes-all system is far more crucial than rendering the Electoral College imponent. Still, I think the later is important as well.

what do you mean, ending the winner-takes-all system?

hoo, boy. i'll probably blog about this at some point, but since i don't have the time to write something out at the moment, let me dig up a link or two:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/a_fairer_way.htm