AHC: US Presidency based on the popular vote

Simple, is there any way of making the Presidential elections of the United States become popular vote based i.e. the abolition of the Electoral College?
 
IIRC, six states so far have joined an interstate compact whereby individual states agree to allocate their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The state legislatures of the joining states would then establish a direct election, thereby effectively circumventing the Electoral College, when they collectively have a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes. The proposal centers on Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which gives each state legislature the authority to determine how its state's electors are to be chosen. Bills to join the compact also pending in DC and New York according to Wikipedia, and was vetoed in three more states (so they could possibly override the veto). One of the states where it failed was California; between CA and NY you'd a strong foundation for such a compact to become effective.
 
IIRC, six states so far have joined an interstate compact whereby individual states agree to allocate their electors to the winner of the national popular vote.
It's Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawai'i, Washington, and Massachusetts for a total 73 electoral votes, or 27% of the Electoral College. So, not a small deal at all.
 
The National Popular Vote bill ... would take effect only when ...

Only when (and if) all Constitutional hurdles impeding the implementation of this multi-state compact are overcome will it go into effect.

What did the progressives & populists of a century ago say about the EC?
 
I thought it only went into effect once all states have ratified it.
It's only enough states to get over 270 because then the rest of the states don't matter anymore in terms of electoral college votes but their populations DO matter in terms of raw votes.

Anyhow, I think you'd have continued focus on GOTV operations and boots on the ground. You might also get more support for something like a day off from voting since actual numbers will matter as opposed to just getting enough to win in each state. You might get more viable third party candidates though I think that would lead to paralysis if one actually won.
 
I thought it only went into effect once all states have ratified it.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

---

It's Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawai'i, Washington, and Massachusetts for a total 73 electoral votes, or 27% of the Electoral College. So, not a small deal at all.

Those states combined actually amount to 27% of the 270 electoral votes needed to form a majority. 73 electoral votes only amounts to 13% of the total number of electoral votes possible. As I mentioned before, if NY and CA join the compact, that raises the total number to 159, or 59% of the electoral votes required to put the compact into action. Most likely that would be enough to push the moment forward in several other states where it currently is being debated.
 
huey long could probably do it if he lived long enough. It is unlikely, iconoclastic and absurd, but then again, being unlikely, iconoclastic and absurd is what he was all about.

the longer he would have gone on riding a wave of depression fuelled populism, the weirder and more outlandish his schemes would have gotten. It would not be out of character for him at all to attempt something like dismantling the electoral college if the electoral college ever got in his way. in lousiana at least, he had the state legislature passing any bill he proposed without them even reading it. While he probably could never have gained that kind of control on a national level, it is at least likely that he would be able to enact direct election. He could probably have made it very popular in the depression, convincing people that the college represented the interests of entrenched elites, telling them that every vote should count the same, and that it is just common sense, etc...



oh! I guess that would take it out of the "before 1900" category though.
 
Those states combined actually amount to 27% of the 270 electoral votes needed to form a majority. 73 electoral votes only amounts to 13% of the total number of electoral votes possible
Ah yes. That's what I meant at first, but then I confused myself and thought that was right. Thanks for the correction!
 
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11).


It will be interesting to see how quickly this legislation is reintroduced in these bodies and elsewhere when new legislative sessions begin next month and how far those bills progress.


The most likely time periods for this to happen would be either during Woodrow Wilson's or FDR's presidencies.

Why specifically?
 
IIRC, the election has only gone against the popular vote twice. (Harrison and Bush '43 IIRC)

Not much changes, but the butterflies would be interesting.
 
Top