Destroying the Electoral College would be one more step in destroying the federal nature of the Unites States. Perhaps you think that's a good thing, but I think it's a terrible idea: I think that we should be more, not less, federal. What works for the people of Massachusetts is not what works for the people of California, or the people of Wyoming.
I'd like to see state legislatures selecting electors again.
Also, the Constitution states, 'No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.' Has Congress consented to this interstate compact?
> Destroying the Electoral College would be one more step in destroying the federal nature of the Unites States. Perhaps you think that's a good thing, but I think it's a terrible idea: I think that we should be more, not less, federal. What works for the people of Massachusetts is not what works for the people of California, or the people of Wyoming.
The electoral college is a net-negative contribution to the federal nature of the US because it allows a tiny, extremely unrepresentative minority to decide for the whole country while eroding the legitimacy of the executive branch, a legitimacy that is a key component of our system. Californians deciding policy for MA or WY due to sheer size is bad but that's how democracies and republics are supposed to work. A single precinct deciding for the entire nation is a perversion of the process that does nothing but destroy faith in our electoral process.
Besides, the executive branch is largely irrelevant to American federalism. We can eliminate the top layer of the executive branch today and the US government would still be as federal as ever because that's how our state and national legislatures are structured. The president has little power over the day to day of the average citizen and all of the hierarchies that do have that power are headed by people confirmed by the Senate.
> Also, the Constitution states, 'No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.' Has Congress consented to this interstate compact?
This issue is actively being debated by constitutional scholars precisely because of the popular vote compact. The general consensus is that Congressional consent is needed only if the interstate agreement is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" (emphasis mine), which was a precedent set by the Supreme Court in the early 1800s. That last part means that Congressional approval is only necessary if the agreement threatens the superiority of the federal government. Furthermore, a state's right to choose how its electoral votes are allocated is a right enumerated in the Constitution and the only power Congress has is to set how many electoral votes each state gets.
All of that is irrelevant anyway because there is no actual treaty or official agreement due to how the legislation is structured. Every state that has joined the compact has legislation to the effect of "All of the electoral votes for this state will go to the winner of the national popular vote if and only if similar legislation is active in enough states to tie 270 or more electoral votes to the national popular vote." No one from the federal government can stop them from doing this.
> The electoral college is a net-negative contribution to the federal nature of the US because it allows a tiny, extremely unrepresentative minority to decide for the whole country while eroding the legitimacy of the executive branch, a legitimacy that is a key component of our system. Californians deciding policy for MA or WY due to sheer size is bad but that's how democracies and republics are supposed to work. A single precinct deciding for the entire nation is a perversion of the process that does nothing but destroy faith in our electoral process.
But that's nonsense: no single precinct determines anything, any more than a single precinct within a popular-vote election would. Each state votes, and the states send electors, and those electors as a whole elect the President. Obama didn't win because one precinct voted for him; he won because thousands of voters across dozens of states voted for electors pledged to him. Likewise Trump.
And likewise Bush. Regardless of Ohio or Florida, plenty of people across the nation voted for electors pledged to him.
Yes saying a single precinct is a bit hyperbolic but claiming that all states have an equal hand in electing a president is also nonsense. The entire presidential election is decided by a few states that are poorly representative of the country. Just look at where presidential candidates campaign: The vast majority of their time is spent in less than a dozen states, who have a total population less than that of New York and California combined, just because the race in those states is neck and neck.
I am in full support of federalism but its purpose is to strike a balance between national, regional, and local representation & interests. When the system elects a candidate who lost the popular vote by hundreds of thousands that isn't a balance, that's small states getting power they should only have in the senate. The executive branch isn't bicameral so applying federalism to it is just depriving the majority of their choice. The national and state legislatures is where our federalism belongs, not in our executive branch.
> The vast majority of their time is spent in less than a dozen states, who have a total population less than that of New York and California combined, just because the race in those states is neck and neck.
Those are the swing states, which are the most politically-balanced — this means that they are the most-centrist states. Campaigning to win them is campaigning to win the centre.
> The executive branch isn't bicameral so applying federalism to it is just depriving the majority of their choice.
Why should 50.01% get their choice and 49.99 suffer? Why not build a system which encourages centrism and attempting to appeal to all? That's the one we have.
Note that no candidate got a majority of popular votes in the election.
> The national and state legislatures is where our federalism belongs, not in our executive branch.
That makes no sense: the federal executive is the federal executive, and should be just as federalist as the rest of our federal government (hence my support for returning to state legislatures appointing electors, and getting rid of the popular vote altogether).
I'd like to see state legislatures selecting electors again.
Also, the Constitution states, 'No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.' Has Congress consented to this interstate compact?