A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a “republican” form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

If a “republican” form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a “democratic” method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.

The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws(whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

If the only problem that you see with NPV is the problems of recounts, then I think you may need to re-read the issue. As Mr. Arrington said, “it strikes at the very heart of the founders’ conception of how the executive should be selected. The whole purpose of the second clause of Section 2 of Article II was to insulate the presidency from the very process the NPVC would establish.” NPV does indeed circumvent the intent of the structure of the U.S. Constitution.

I am not sure what you mean by “the only right way to do it” being a Constitutional amendment. Do you mean that the Constitution should be amended to enforce NPV, or to enforce some other system, or to remove the electoral college completely?

I will state that “the only right” thing to do is to teach the Constitution to our children. If a person reached voting age and does not understand the difference between a Democracy and a Democratic Republic (not to mention being able to describe each of the first ten amendments!), then we have failed them, and therefore we have failed the nation.

The one main drawback I see in the NPV is that there is no good way to do recounts in the states that aren’t NPV-signatories. For instance, if you had widespread voter fraud in a non-NPV state, but the race was clearly on one side, there would be no need for a recount.

Let’s say Texas isn’t in the compact. The Republican wins 55-45, but it should have been 56-44 were it not for “graveyard precincts” in Houston and San Antonio. Texas might not bother with a recount, but an extra 50,000 Democratic votes out of Texas gets tacked onto the national popular vote.

The only way to do it right is via a constitutional amendment, but that takes 38 states rather than a majority of the EC.

The constitution establishes two political branches (executive and legislative). The legislative branch is in turn composed of two chambers. Of these three components of the political branches (i.e., the president, the house and the senate), the founders allowed only one (the house) to be elected directly. Only in 1913 did the 17th Amendment provide for the popular election of senators.

The founders employed a number of devices in an effort to mediate the evils of unchecked democracy. One of those devices was empowering states qua states at the expense of strict democratic representation. That’s why, for example, Wyoming with a population of 545,000 has the same number of senators as California with a population of nearly 37 million.

How soon we forget the lessons of history, including those that informed the founders’ fear of unchecked democracy. In his/her posts above mvymvy illustrates perfectly the puerile modern attitude: “founders bad elitists; pure democracy good.” But they can keep their snake oil. The founders established a pretty good system that has stood us in good stead for 221 years now.

Thanks to mvymvy’s propaganda spam, I now know what to look for in governmental idiocy in my state.

WHY WHY WHY would a state give up its right to representation by allowing results from other states to determine its electors? (We may as well just join some world government agency in which, oh, perhaps someone would have the lack of vision to place China on a human rights commission! Hah!)

The all-or-nothing method in which states determine electors surely is flawed, but the NPV is the worst solution ever. How about just assigning an elector to each congressional district, one to the state popular vote, and one to the candidate who wins the most congressional districts? Nah, that’d keep every single congressional district in play in every state, who on earth would want THAT??? :/