[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.