[chickenbane]

I would be happy with laws clearly requiring a presidential candidate to disclose their full income taxes for the past 5 years, and also required them to put their assets into a blind trust / index fund when inaugurated into office. We should not have to question the president's basic motivations or allegiances.

Stronger anti-nepotism laws, restraints on the ability to pardon, and ending the electoral college also all seem helpful and would have bipartisan support.

[adventured]

Ending the electoral college would have nearly zero bipartisan support. Democrats have a popular vote advantage, and the demographics + immigration picture of the US guarantee that will remain for a generation at least (as far as one can reasonable project into the future anyway). The Republicans are fully aware of that problem, they'd never support ending the electoral college. Republicans broadly also do not believe in what would be closer to direct democracy.

If ending the electoral college had any meaningful bipartisan support, it would already be dead as a system, as changing that is overwhelmingly supported by Democrats.

[dahdum]

Public support for abolishing the electoral college also drops with higher educational attainment. It’s reasonable to assume as the issue is debated publicly overall support would drop as more become informed.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/2305/americans-long-questioned-e...

[oldgulph]

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Michael Dukakis (D-MA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL).

[djrogers]

And in 2013 a Democrat led Senate failed to pass an assault weapons ban. Times and opinions change, and expecting any politician to always vote the same way twice is folly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban_of_2013

[dahdum]

Is the list of those who oppose shorter? Back then the Senate killed it, and I doubt they wouldn’t do so again. Given the population growth of coastal cities it would be a hard sell for a state like South Dakota to ratify.

Each party would adjust their platform as a result, so there is fundamental advantage to either that I see. It would certainly save a lot of time spent campaigning in the middle battleground states, and result in a lot more pork barrel projects in cities.

[oldgulph]

The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House. It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5). The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

It changes state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

[dahdum]

> It has been enacted into law in 11 states possessing 165 electoral votes (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA).

So far only very blue states have passed it, which tells you something about what the red and competitive states think of it.

The campaign is cleverly structured in a way to avoid national debate on the matter, and delayed impact further reduces the discussion in each state.

I don’t see it going anywhere.

[oldgulph]

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House. It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5). The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

It changes state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.