Talk:United States Electoral College/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Public opinion polls

If the article says that polls since 1967 have shown that a majority of Americans favor the president and Vice President being elected by the nationwide popular vote, instead of by the Electoral College, what is the objection to reporting that the poll numbers since 2016 have shown a sharp increase in support for keeping the Electoral College. Is this misleading? Is it something that a reader of this article would not be interested in? Swood100 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

No one expects polls to say the exact same over 50 years - ebb and flow will happen and it's ridiculous to have year by year detail in the lead, especially one that stresses a focus on recentism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

But the recent change is described by Gallup as a sharp increase, not as a standard ebb and flow. This kind of a change has a significant political impact currently. WP:RECENTISM refers to the principle that in the overall scheme of things the long-term view is not to be supplanted by something that happened yesterday, which would inflate the importance of current events and result in an imbalanced focus. However, when the subject is public opinion concerning the Electoral College it is only current opinion that will have any impact currently. Are readers only interested in how this question was viewed in the past? A charge of recentism asserts that only the average public opinion of the past is relevant. Can you explain the imbalance that is created by referencing the sharp recent changes in public opinion? Are you saying, in essence, that current public opinion is an aberration that will not last and that the reader is better off believing that the public opinion of the past has remained with us and is unchanged? Is that supported by a secondary source?

WP:RECENTISM talks about “The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.” Is that what you think is going on here? Is there a Wikipedia consensus that public support for keeping the Electoral College remains at 35% as in the past? Swood100 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I prefer removing any reference to polling, as a poll is easily manipulated and so is unreliable. Alternately, include both polling references. Including one reference without the other would be POV. SMP0328. (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the status of NPVIC legislation in Georgia and Missouri?

For those driving by, here is the issue being discussed: This article says that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact “has been unanimously approved by Republican-led committees in Georgia and Missouri, each prior to the 2016 election, though neither bill was ultimately adopted.” The purpose of this is to show that this measure has strong Republican support even though (for some reason) it was not enacted into law. It mentions that such approval was prior to the 2016 election but without explaining why that should make a difference. I added that although it was unanimously approved...

…according to an opinion piece by political writer Jim Galloway in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, it hit “mysterious, invisible walls” that were ascribed by some lawmakers to “new data.” Galloway suggested that presumably the “new data” included Trump’s win in 2016, and that it perhaps also included polling data showing that support among Republicans for switching to electing the president by popular vote went from 54% in 2011 to 18% in 2016. The measure was also unanimously approved by one Missouri House committee in April, 2016, but was not enacted into law. It was reintroduced in 2018 but hearings were not scheduled. (References in the original omitted)

The purpose was to show (1) that the “unanimous” passage by Republicans happened prior to the national sea change in Republican opinion on this issue and is not representative of current Republican support, (2) an opinion by a highly regarded political analyst in a reputable Georgia newspaper as to the factors that kept and will keep such legislation from being enacted in Georgia, i.e., the massive change in public opinion on this issue among Republicans nationally, and (3) a reference to the fact that this measure has lost a startling amount of support in the Missouri legislature, having gone from unanimous approval to not even having hearings scheduled. This edit was objected to as WP:UNDUE and this talk section was started. Swood100 (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This article says that the measure has been unanimously approved by Republican-led committees in Georgia and Missouri. This raises the question as to the status of that legislation in those states. What happened in Georgia is the subject of an opinion piece by Jim Galloway of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Galloway is described by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution as “the lead writer and founder of the AJC’s Political Insider blog, the best-read and most influential political blog in the state.” https://www.ajc.com/staff/jim-galloway/

According to WP:RSOPINION, “Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.”

It is clear that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reliable. I had referred to the article as “political analysis,” which makes clear that it is not being presented as fact. I rephrased the edit to include the word “opinion” and added the name of the author to comply with WP:RSOPINION. Galloway gave it as his opinion that perhaps polling data was partially responsible for the legislation not succeeding in Georgia, citing the sudden and drastic decline in Republican support for a constitutional amendment to subject presidential contests to a popular vote.

Some may believe that polls that ask about support for a constitutional amendment are not relevant to the stalling of the legislation in Georgia, but Jim Galloway has a different opinion. He is the secondary source I am citing. You either have to provide a secondary source that contradicts him or you have to demonstrate that Galloway has no standing and his opinion has no value. It is self-evident that you cannot exclude Galloway simply by presenting your personal opinion that you disagree with him. Are you citing yourself?

As for Missouri, what is the objection to the observation that the legislation that passed unanimously in committee was not enacted into law, and that it was reintroduced but that hearings were not scheduled? Doesn’t this give the reader some useful additional information about the current prospect of that legislation in Missouri? Swood100 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Holy hell man, you can say what you want in about a tenth the number of words. This isn't about reliability of sources, it's about undue weight. It's clear neither of these bills went further than committee; if they had, we'd obviously say so. The extensive analysis of exactly why and how these two bills died is just too much unnecessary detail in the main article, let alone in the small summary section in this article. Bills with floor votes don't even warrant that level of detail. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 21:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

My post was not about the minutiae of the different stages of legislation. It was about the overall likelihood of passage in Georgia and the reasons therefor.

The thing the reader wants to know upon reading about the NPVIC is the likelihood of passage in enough states for it to go into effect. Factors that promote or inhibit its passage are therefore relevant and of interest to the reader. I supplied the opinion of a prominent political analyst from Georgia as to the factors that were proving a hindrance to the passage of this legislation in that state. In what sense is this undue weight? Is this a tiny minority view or grossly at odds with conventional opinion in Georgia? Is Jim Galloway some kind of an extreme or peripheral figure such that his political opinions (a regular feature in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution) should be considered presumably suspect? What is your source for that? Is Georgia an outlier such that we would not expect factors that influence passage in Georgia to also be influential in many other states, especially if those factors are not local to Georgia but rather concern national political party affiliation? Swood100 (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Read all of WP:UNDUE. Information doesn't need to disagree with the CW to be excessive. Galloway may very well be right about what he's saying (and I never said otherwise), but that doesn't make his statement important enough for inclusion. The premise of the paragraph is simply that, while top line results (state enactments) suggest the compact has only ever had Democratic support, a closer inspection shows that that isn't true. There is no reason to go into exactly why Republican support didn't carry forward in these cases, just as there is no reason to go into why it did carry forward in the cases where a bill was enacted - motivations for and against the compact are explained in great detail on the parent article. To include one here would necessitate including the others for balance, which would make the section massively longer – but really, neither is appropriate for inclusion here. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that if we mention the factor that a prominent analyst says is the major impediment in Georgia, we must also mention all other motivations people have for supporting or opposing the legislation, and perhaps assign some weight to them as well. But this is why we rely on secondary sources. Galloway considered all motives at work in Georgia and came to the conclusion that the change of heart by Republican Georgia legislators came down to two factors: Trump’s win in 2016 and the realization by those legislators of the drastic change in poll numbers among Republicans. Where is the undue weight?

According to WP:UNDUE, “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources , in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” Well what other significant viewpoint is there that explains this turnaround in Georgia? Do you doubt that it has been caused by a change in Republican public opinion, plain and simple? What would need to be presented in the way of balance?

I agree with you when you say that “The premise of the paragraph is simply that, while top line results (state enactments) suggest the compact has only ever had Democratic support, a closer inspection shows that that isn't true,” but the result (and purpose) of this is to leave a false impression as to current Republican support. You qualify the unanimous vote statement with the cryptic “prior to the 2016 election,” but people reading this sentence don’t know why that should be significant. It is as if the editor is trying to hide the facts, or for some reason wants to force the reader to connect the dots for himself because the editor doesn’t like the image that is created when the dots are connected.

If there is an identifiable reason proposed by a prominent analyst in a reputable publication for the failure of NPVIC in Georgia, and no competing reasons have been proposed, we should supply the reader with that reason, especially if the reason is not unique to Georgia. We should not state historical facts in such a way as to leave the reader believing that they represent current facts. Opinions by highly regarded political analysts in reputable newspapers as to the factors that will keep legislation from being enacted are important enough for inclusion. Why wouldn’t they be, especially when no other theory has been suggested? Swood100 (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I've reached the point that User:Perl coder reached with you on Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact on April 10th, which is that I've explained my position thoroughly (and certainly as much as I care to). I don't want to engage in argument by exhaustion. Your move at this point, if you want to keep pressing for the addition, is to invite other editors (NEUTRALLY, mind you) to weigh in. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

First let’s make sure that there is no misunderstanding between us as to the issues. Let me know if you disagree with the following as an accurate and neutral framing of our differences:

• Legislation in Georgia to approve the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) at one point was supported unanimously in a Republican-dominated committee but then suddenly lost support among Republicans in the legislature. An analysis was offered by a prominent nonpartisan political analyst in a reputable Georgia newspaper that this happened because of a national sea change in Republican opinion on the issue after 2016, as demonstrated by a Gallup poll. It was objected that to include this would be WP:UNDUE, since an overall analysis of the reasons for the failure of legislation is in the same category as an analysis in minute detail of the many committee votes that a piece of legislation will have, which is unnecessary trivia and of no interest to the general reader.

• It was also objected that if we included such an opinion by a prominent nonpartisan political analyst WP:UNDUE would require that all other opinions on the matter also be included for balance, making the section massively longer. “There is no reason to go into exactly why Republican support didn't carry forward in these cases, just as there is no reason to go into why it did carry forward in the cases where a bill was enacted.” But this is patently false when the bill has only been passed in states with legislatures controlled by Democrats. In any event it is the job of a qualified secondary source to evaluate the relevant factors and then explain which ones were determinative. Furthermore, no other opinions have been put forth to explain the sudden loss of support among Republicans in Georgia and likelihood of passage in the future. In response to these objections the previous declaration of WP:UNDUE was said to be sufficient, with no other explanation offered.

• It is claimed that the fact that NPVIC legislation in Georgia was once supported unanimously in committee by Republicans may be supplied in an article in order to show that such legislation has bipartisan support. However, including the dramatic political changes in Republican public opinion on this issue since that unanimous vote, which make it clear that such legislation currently does not have bipartisan support, is objected to as WP:UNDUE.

• During the same period as discussed above with Georgia, NPVIC legislation in Missouri went from being unanimously approved by Republicans to not even being scheduled for a hearing. The fact that it was at one point unanimously approved is asserted to be relevant to show that the measure has bipartisan support. The fact that it cannot now even be scheduled for a hearing is asserted to be WP:UNDUE and not relevant to the question of bipartisan support.

• The assertion that prior unanimous votes show that NPVIC legislation in Missouri and Georgia has bipartisan support must stand uncontradicted, according to some editors, as long as the article adds (a) that the legislation was not ultimately adopted in these states and (b) that the unanimous committee votes were “prior to the 2016 election,” without any explanation as to the changes in Republican public opinion on this issue after 2016 or why the 2016 election should have any bearing on the question. It is claimed that these two additional items of information give the reader sufficient knowledge about the actual support for NPVIC in these states (support which, notwithstanding these facts, is claimed to be accurately described as “bipartisan”). Swood100 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I propose just dropping the mention of the Georgia and Missouri committee votes. NPV is just a short section of this article, and it should stick to only the most salient points. For NPV progress, state enactments are the most important information by far. Notable legislature floor votes (but not enactment) are the 2nd most. Everything else (committee votes, opinions etc) just aren't important enough to warrant any mention in this short section. (Although unrelated to my suggestion, I wanted to observe that the vast majority of bills fail, and they fail for numerous reasons, most often due to the legislative session simply ending without action, which is what happened in GA when their 2016 session ended in March 2016. That's why the NPV page only tracks enactments and floor votes in prior sessions.) Perl coder (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed and implemented. The natural solution escaped me; thanks for seeing it. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This article says that the legislation has only passed in states with legislatures and governorships controlled by Democrats. Then in an attempt to show that it has bipartisan support it mentions Republican legislatures that have passed it. It is the same as with Missouri and Georgia: votes in state legislatures that happened prior to the sea-change in Republican public opinion on this issue (after the 2016 election), if supplied in order to imply that the legislation currently has Republican support, are misleading. Either there has to be a caveat disclosing the Gallup poll finding of support among Republicans going from 54% to 19% after the 2016 election, or figures prior to that cannot be included in an attempt to demonstrate current bipartisan support.

The same problem exists in the NPVIC article. That article also says that “Gallup polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a direct vote.” It’s true that the polls have always shown a majority but that majority has not been consistent. The Gallup poll taken in December of 2016 said “Americans' support for keeping the Electoral College system for electing presidents has increased sharply.” I propose removing the word “consistent.” The dictionary definition of consistent is “marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity : free from variation or contradiction.”

By the way, it’s not true that the compact has only been passed in states with legislatures and governorships controlled by Democrats. On May 1, 2008, both Houses of the Hawaii Legislature overrode Governor Linda Lingle's veto of the National Popular Vote bill and thereby enacted the bill into law https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state/hi, and Linda Lingle is a Republican. Swood100 (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason for a discussion of the (complicated) partisan politics of the NPVIC in this article, since that has exactly 0 to do with the Electoral College. I have removed it. --JBL (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

State population per electoral vote chart doesn't look right

The State Population per electoral vote chart doesn't look correct:

The large states should not be as different as shown. This was created by Fzxboy (talk · contribs) with this explanation:

State population per electoral vote for the 50 states and Washington D.C. States are ranked from left to right based on total population, listed at US States and Territories by Population as of October 28, 2012.

That version appears to be this one dated 28 October 2012. The most recent population estimate on that page is July 1 2011; CA is 37,691,912 and TX is 25,674,681. Dividing by 55 and 38 respectively gives 685,307 and 675,659 for CA and TX. The chart shows a much larger difference between CA and TX. Fzxboy (talk · contribs), can you explain what data was used for this chart? Perhaps you used the number of EVs from the prior census period 2001-2011? Perl coder (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Utah should be shown as 460,000 but it seems closer in the chart to 550,000, and the California bar should be taller than the one for Texas. The height of the bars relative to each other seems much closer to the numbers in the column listing the 2010 census population per house seat. For example, Texas there is larger than California and Florida is larger than both New York and California. But the population numbers on the Y axis are still off. Swood100 (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I confirmed the original chart is the 2010 census state population divided by the 2001-2011 EVs per state, which is wrong. Here is a corrected chart, which is the 2010 census state population divided by the 2011-2021 EVs per state:

Let's give Fzxboy (talk · contribs) a bit of time to respond before we update the image. And anyone should please weigh in if they agree/disagree with the new chart (eg, Utah is now 460,648, which agrees with Swood100 (talk · contribs)). Perl coder (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Well done. Swood100 (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the new chart to this article, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and Degressive proportionality Perl coder (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Make "NPV Compact" discussion a link in the "See Also" section

Joel B. Lewis removed a sentence noting the partisan profile of state legislatures enacting measures titled, The NPV Interstate “Compact”, as “it contains 0 information relevant to the subject of this article”. All discussion about the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” in this article should be reduced to a link in the See Also Section, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Readers of this article know that state legislatures have chosen to extinguish political minorities voice in the selection of presidents within their states since the rise of their 19th century spoils politics of “winner take all”. The disenfranchisement of state minority voters results from abuses by state legislatures, and not from anything inherent in the Electoral College as established.

Federalist anti-slavery Alexander Hamilton proposed a Constitutional Amendment in 1802 that would have required single member Electoral College districts in each state. According to slaveholder Jefferson-Democrat Madison, most of the Convention delegates anticipated that there would be single member electoral college districts in each state.

In 1824, Madison also supported the diversity of every state’s geography, economy, ethnic settlement and politics, to be reflected in the state’s e.c. vote in 1824. He did so standing on democratic principles amidst mounting grievances among the disenfranchised and gerrymandered Virginians living west of the Blue Ridge Mountains — half of whom would later become West Virginia on the principle of democracy against the state legislature majority and its “winner take all” policies of all kinds.

And to confirm Madison’s view of the Convention intent for the Electoral College, for the 1788 election, Delaware had three single member e.c. districts (5% of the total), and Virginia ten. In the 1792 election following the census reapportionment, Virginia had twenty-one single member e.c. districts (20% of the total), allowing its western region, with non-slaveholder anti-slavery voter constituencies to elect Virginia e.c. electors for Adams, the political opponent of the state legislature majority for Jefferson.

The widespread surge of widening enfranchisement for non-propertied enlisted militia followed the War of 1812 across the country, reflecting a national pride in democratic institutions. In the same period, the U.S. Senate even passed a bill proposing constitutional amendment for single member districts in the Electoral College, but it died in the partisan caucuses of the House of Representatives under the Democratic (then National) Republican Henry Clay. Only Maine and Nebraska now maintain a “District-at-large” selection of electors that by-passes the anti-democratic suppression of presidential choice in their states by "winner-take-all" elector selection by the 19th century legislation of political party machines.

“Reformers” in the name of democracy, who imagine their state majority legislatures can indirectly abolish the Electoral College without national standards enacted and implemented in every state for a) voter registration, b) voter machine maintenance, c) equal voter machine apportionment by registered population, and d) balloting safeguards, — are simply promoting an scheme to erase the constitutional provision for geographic representation in a democratic republic.

Democratically principled idealists should instead confront their partisan state majorities that gerrymander a permanent dominance for ten-year stretches between each census. (As opposed to frequent, two-year re-elections by geographic communities that are continuous, compact, and of equal population.) Those same self-serving state legislatures extinguish state minority presidential preferences in a “winner take all” elector selection. In any event, accounts about the National Popular Vote advocates are not relevant to an article on the “Electoral College of the United States” — as Joel B. Lewis so rightfully points out.

So, without objection, I will delete the irrelevant passages concerning the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” throughout the article, except as a link in the See Also Section, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

To clarify (?), I do not support removing the entire NPV section, since it is obviously on-topic for this article. --JBL (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not obvious that the NPV is on-topic for this article at all, whether you are for or against the NPV. The article "United States Electoral College" relates to a constitutional provision for selecting the U.S. president. ----- The NPV is neither a proposal to abolish the Electoral College constitutionally, nor a proposal for a national standardization of presidential selection under Congressional Article I Section 4 authority. Either one of which would make it "on-topic".

The meaning of Article I, Section 10, is clear: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State ..." On the other hand, at the official NPV website, it suggests that there may be a multiple-state compact to give over each of their state electors "winner-take-all" to oppose the majority in their states, whenever the NPV procedure is adopted by states numbering a total of 270 e.c. votes -- without the consent of Congress.

The NPV proposal is either (a) "extra-constitutional" according to proponents, or (b) "un-constitutional" according to its adversaries. ----- In both cases, NPV is not germane to an article on the constitutional selection of a U.S. president. ----- As a matter of special-interest movements among Democratic-led state legislatures, the NPV may indeed be of some interest to the general reader, so there should be a link in the See Also Section to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The obvious relevance is Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, the legislature of each state authority in choosing its electors, which is why this article spends time on what the states have done. The framers intended the legislatures to decide, and whether anyone likes what they decide or not, what the several states decide is integral to the workings of the College. At some point in the future the courts may well have to decide, whether this legislation is within the power of the states, but no matter how that case is decided it will still be relevant, perhaps extremely so, to the workings of the college, and forever after to the powers of the legislatures in choosing College members. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe NPV is relevant to this article and the current short overview should be maintained. While NPV doesn't change the Electoral College or amend the constitution, it does change the way states implement their plenary powers granted by the Constitution in selecting their electors. This article correctly devotes important attention to how states have chosen their electors over the years, and NPV is just another method they might choose. Since how the states choose their electors is important to the overall representation and effect of the Electoral College, NPV is most definitely relevant. Perl coder (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker and Perl coder: The intent of Art. II, Sec.2 is that state legislatures shall be bound by the Constitution in their selection of presidential electors. As provided in Article VI, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and … “any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” —— Constitutionally, “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government …” and, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” — those privileges include voting for president.

The NPV is a proposed election scheme to influence the choice of a president outside the U.S. constitutional order. It is not meant to abolish the Electoral College. Even its proponents do not presume it to be anything other than a benignly extra-constitutional proposition, a political by-pass for presidential selection to avoid the unrepresentative suppression of state minority voters by gerrymandered state legislatures and their “winner-take-all” allocation of state presidential electors.

But a state’s presidential choice by its own state citizens is an inherent right held by each individual U.S. citizen, regardless of state legislature pretensions. To the contrary, the NPV purports to allow state legislature majorities the ability to assign state electors to presidential candidates other than those chosen by the people of their states. If expression of a state's regional, economic and ethnic diversity is the goal, why not single member electoral college districts?

When alternative schemes to select a president such as the NPV are irrelevant to either the Electoral College or the U.S. Constitutional order, they should be relegated in this article to a link in the See Also section when they meet the wp:notability threshold, which I concede that NPV has done. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, as I have said, how a court will or may decide the issue has no bearing on whether it is relevant (so, certainly, how a Wikipedia editor argues the issue will or should be decided, has not even a hope of having any bearing). The relevance of being widespread legislation that seeks to effect selection of College members, in relation to several issues with, and regarding the College, is more than enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Perl coder and Alanscottwalker. --JBL (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I now concur with Perl coder, Alanscottwalker, and Joel B. Lewis that the NPV can be admitted to this article, but passages representing it must not be written as advocacy.

The proposal should be placed in a neutral context of American politics today. The "widespread legislation” that Alanscottwalker has described is only adopted in states controlled by the Democratic Party. The partisan unanimity among enacting states is as relevant as the terms of the legislation itself.

We should restore the previously removed edit, but amended to read: “As of April 2019, the compact has only been enacted in states whose legislatures and governorships were controlled by Democrats. [Note: However, the compact has been passed by Republican-led legislative chambers in New York (2011), Oklahoma (2014), and Arizona (2016).]”

So without objection, I’ll restore the passage conveying the partisan nature of the NPV enactment to date. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I object, for the reasons I've previously articulated. --JBL (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: You have articulated no reason for the deletion of useful political and historical context for the NPV proposal. The partisan unanimity among enacting states is as relevant as the terms of the legislation itself.

The NPV passage as written is inadmissible. Material in a Wikipedia article cannot be merely an advocacy blurb promoting random proposals as it is now. I have agreed that the NPV legislation is wp:significant. And, so also, is the NPV legislation's political and historical context.

See also wp:conflict, "Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The partisan unanimity among enacting states is as relevant... It is not true that there has been partisan unanimity: as has been pointed out above, Hawaii passed the legislation with a Republican governor, so the previous sentence was wrong; and Republican-controlled houses of legislatures have passed the bill on more than one occasion. It is also not true that it's relevant to the EC: the sentence "NPV has been passed in states with Democratic majorities" has 0 content about the electoral college. People who want to know about the details of NPV support should look at its article, not here. The relevance of the policies you're quoting has not improved from your earlier attempt. -JBL (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: I don’t think that referencing the passage in Republican-controlled bodies prior to the 2016 election conveys the partisan nature of the NPV today without a mention of the massive change in Republican public opinion on this issue after 2016. Previous Republican legislatures are not representative of those today. Also, because of Hawaii I would drop the “and governorships” or add “or states in which the legislature had the power to override the Republican governor’s veto.”

@Joel B. Lewis: There has been partisan unanimity in legislatures of enacting states, and in power to pass this legislation. As for relevance to the EC, the issue of the NPVIC is relevant to the EC, as are any facts making the passage of NPVIC less likely. Swood100 (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Swood100: re: “any facts making the passage of NPVIC less likely”. The pre-2016 Democratic enthusiasm for honoring ballot counts reported among “red” states will probably reach a pause before “trip wire” state e.c. count to initiate the NPVIC proposal.

To take Georgia as but one example, even though under considerable media scrutiny, Congressional investigation, and judicial proceedings, irregularities casting doubt on its aggregate state-wide vote count persist. In a 2019 Georgia election, 80,000 electronic ballots were disappeared in Cobb County among other unexplained events, causing a runoff. In the 2018 Congressional elections, there were voting machine “problems” in large suburban Cobb, DeKalb and Fulton Counties triggering Congressional investigations. In 2018, a precinct in Habersham County registered 276, and reported 670 votes a vote multiplier of 2.5 for the Republican. When a federal judge asked for the documentation, none could be found.

States amounting to 145 e.c. votes have “national security risk” election systems as identified by Trump’s Homeland Security Administration and others. Primary polling equipment without paper ballots are found in GA-16, SC-9, LA-8, NJ-14, and PA-20. Although other state legislatures have expressed an interest in paper ballots, KY-8, and KS-6 are not funded for 2020. States such as IN-11, MS-6, TN-11 and TX-36 are taking no steps to replace paperless machines as of a [| March 2019 Brennan Center report].

Add to that the national security reports that not 20, but all 50 states had hacking attempts and some success by Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran, — to alter voter registration data to prevent balloting, to shut down operating voting machines to end voting during the day, or to alter aggregate reporting results among electronic voting counts.

Ninety federal district courts may have to use their best judicial judgement in deciding the outcomes, especially when lacking a paper ballot backup for the presidential race as the precinct by precinct court challenges roll in, allowing appellate courts to tally the count in states with more than one federal district court,

— or perhaps if there is no court-determined outcome by the January 6 counting of e.c. ballots as required by law, the House of Representatives, with one vote per state, will choose our next president based on a majority of each state delegation, less any “tied” state delegations not voting. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not a general discussion forum. --JBL (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Are you arguing that if “any facts making the passage of NPVIC less likely” is the standard for inclusion then there are a number of things that meet that requirement, such as election fraud? Maybe I overstated it, and I should have said “significant political factors currently operating to control the passage of NPVIC.” I’m not sure whether the election fraud you mentioned is sufficiently well-defined and understood to enable us to say much in a definite way about its effect on passage. Swood100 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• All this discussion is still rather perplexing - its relevance is it is an idea related to the college that people have noticed, seeking to address college issues (so a brief discussion here about the idea and the issues it seeks to address would seem all that is needed in this article) and moreover that is what is informative, here, because almost nothing teaches about something, like considering alternatives or variations of that something.

Imagine if an idea arose, where a considerable number of scholars, newspaper editors, or legislators, etc., bought into, let's call it, 'the conclave model, where 'all electors meet locked in one place and are forbidden from 1) making any prior pledges, promises, or any hint; and 2) they can't come out without an answer, and it was argued that this would address enhanced responsibility and seriousness of electors or other perceived issues with the college. Basically all that would matter for the EC article is 'this is the idea, and these are the issues it seeks to address. You, dear reader, now have an idea about how some people are thinking about the college, please feel free to think about the college yourself, and feel free to explore every other incidental thing elsewhere.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Point taken. Let me try again in good faith. Fourteen states and DC are reported as adopting the NVPIC, amounting to 189 e.c. votes. In 2016, Democrat Hillery Clinton won fifteen of the fifteen: MD, NJ, IL, HI, WA, MA, DC, VT, CA, RI, NY, CT, CO, DE, NM.

Two states are reported passing the NVPIC in at least one current house of a state legislature: Democrat Hillery Clinton won two of two: OR, NV.

In the current ME joint committee recommendation,”[Ought not to pass]” won a majority to preserve the political expression of diversity in Maine. Maine cast 3 e.c. votes for Clinton, her 48% vote translated into a 27% bump in the district plan e.c. vote. Trump’s 1 e.c. vote with a 45% vote was 25% in his Maine e.c. vote. Considering Clinton’s popular vote, Clinton got a district plan 27% bonus instead of an NPV 52% bonus. For Maine's popular vote, the district plan is twice as good as the NPV model.

The article should state the political and historical context, as amended from above: 

“As of April 2019, the compact has only been enacted in fifteen of the twenty states voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016, with enacting legislatures controlled by Democrats, including states overriding Republican governor vetoes. [Note: However, the compact has been passed by Republican-led legislative chambers in New York (2011), Oklahoma (2014), and Arizona (2016).]”

@Joel B. Lewis: please provide a reason --- not the phrase "previously stated" for unstated reasons --- but a reason to exclude relevant and encyclopedic information on the political and historical context of the NPVIC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This long discussion of the status of NPVIC contains no information about the EC, ergo it does not belong in the article about the EC. The political and historical context for NPVIC belongs in the article on NPVIC; this is why we have the template {{main}} being used in this subsection. (Probably the NPVIC section of this article could even be trimmed slightly further than it has been.) The essay WP:COATRACK is relevant. --JBL (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: I am persuaded by the essay. It is as you say in your last post, the NPVIC and any discussion of it in this article or on this talk page, has “nothing to do with the Electoral College”. The section that features the “coatrack” NPVIC item is “Efforts to abolish or reform [the Electoral College]”. But the NPVIC subsection is not germane to the Electoral College.

@Alanscottwalker: The link to the NPVIC for those who would “explore every other incidental thing elsewhere” can be given in the “See also” section. The NPVIC is a proposed interstate compact apart and besides any Congressionally sanctioned procedure to select a president for the United States.

To clarify a bit: The NPVIC would not cast elector votes as Constitutionally directed for the Electoral College as found in Amendment XII, but after elector choice is made in the state capital, their recorded votes are to be intercepted by the NPVIC state legislature BEFORE they can be lawfully transmitted to the U.S. Senate.

Having acquitted their “transient” duties and sent their results to the U.S. Senate as provided in the Constitution, electors then disband. But to the contrary, the NPVIC provides that every elector’s vote “in their respective states” is to be subject to nullification by a NPVIC state legislature. That NPVIC legislature is then to cast a “winner-take-all” bloc vote based on a STATE tally of electoral votes reported among both NPVIC and non-NPVIC states, with the intention of altering their state voter results, and superseding the constitutionally mandated count to be made in the joint session of CONGRESS.

However, the Electoral College in the several states is meant to be transient, removed from any standing body susceptible to foreign influence or corruption. “The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters Federalist #39. It is not to be made by state legislatures choosing candidates that their state voters do not choose, based on voter outcomes in other states, and apart from the Electoral College as constitutionally established. The NPVIC subsection has “nothing to do with the Electoral College”. JBL has given us the roadmap to drop it from the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The NPVIC does not work in the manner you claim. After the compact comes into effect, compacting states would appoint their electors based on the winner of the national vote tally (electors in each state would continue to be nominated by the party of the winning candidate, but based on the national winner rather than the state winner (or congressional district winner in ME and NE) as is done today), and all EC procedures occur unchanged under NPVIC. There is no interception or nulling of electoral votes. Perl coder (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It’s quite clear there is no consensus to remove the section, it’s very hard to see any reason to reraise the idea. —JBL (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Perl coder: I did not understand that NPVIC state residents would hereinafter be casting "votes" in a straw poll, a glamour contest for archival preference only, ---- and the state legislatures would then assume South Carolina's method last used in its presidential elector choice for Jefferson Davis without consulting the free suffrages of its people. After 1865, South Carolina conformed to the "winner-take-all" spoils system of 19th century machine party politics, voting its convictions for Grant with 58%.

Administratively, election night on November 3, 2020, will be a long one for the NPVIC legislatures in secret session trading information with media outlets for their election returns estimates. Federal law since 1845, now in 3 U.S. Code § 1. Time of appointing electors: "The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President."

It's my understanding that the intent of the Congressional legislation was to PREVENT states from holding elector selection AFTER others as they had previously bargained for patronage deals with candidates for their electoral votes, as the South Carolina legislature had done, independently of any alternative preference among the otherwise propertied, poll-taxed enfranchised population. ----- By the Congressional statute Article VI "supreme law of the land" the presidential elector selection cannot be made after midnight on "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November". But I am sure there is state-by-state legislation for a mandatory session that day, noon to midnight. --- Or not?

--- What if the vote total estimates available to NPVIC legislatures by midnight are not the certified totals from other states by 8 am the next day? If the NPVIC electors for the ACTUAL minority popular vote candidate goes to a Congress of the actual majority winner --- will Congress then de-certify the NPVIC elector votes at their Joint Session in December in the name of the actual popular vote?

Until the NPVIC is SUCCESSFULLY implemented, it is a pipe dream akin to @Alanscottwalker:'s "the conclave model". @Joel B. Lewis and JBL: There is NO reason given to keep the NPVIC passage ("previously stated reasons" is not a 'reason'), and there is no consensus not to note the NPVIC partisan history and political context, were it to remain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

States don't count the popular vote by midnight on election day, that has always happened in the weeks after, even more so with mail-in votes. The college itself does not meet until over a month later. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that the consensus resulting from this section is to maintain the status quo. --JBL (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: The individual determination by a citizen making their choice among the candidates is lawfully made on the date specified by Act of Congress, ----- not with variations arrived at among the days throughout the following month during bargaining negotiations with the top tier candidates by a state legislature. Mail-in ballots in all states and DC must be post-marked by the day appointed by Congress, or they are uniformly disallowed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: Two editors fencing on a Talk Page is not a "consensus resulting", especially when one of the two participants will not respond with any reasons for their position. 'Reasons' reported to be "as previously stated" is a haughty, arched tone of condescension, and --- when written without any previously stated reasons, either a) for keeping the NPVIC passage, or b) for deleting a brief reference to its partisan history, is not wp:goodfaith. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Problem with non-sentence and reference in "Current proposals to abolish" section

At the time of this writing, the first "sentence" of the section entitled "Current proposals to abolish" reads:

Since January 3, 2019, joint resolutions proposing constitutional amendments that would replace the Electoral College with the popular election of the president and vice president.

This is not a complete sentence. The subject is "joint resolutions". The verb appears to be "proposing". But "join resolutions proposing" isn't a sentence.

I think the problem here is that the statement doesn't tell us anything about the joint resolutions. What about them? Were they merely introduced? Voted on?

Secondly, at the time of this writing, there are two references for this statement, both of which have been cited as being authored by the same reporter, one "Victor Morton". However, neither citation was written by Victor Morten.

At the time of this writing, the first citation is credited to George Brown on the link provided. Similarly, the second reference provided is credited to Erin Corbett on the link provided.

Additionally, the George Brown link is dated January 5, 2017 and contains no evidence of revision or editing. As such, there is no way this reference could provide any information about an event that occurred over two years later. ProfessorTom (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Criticism and support

Instead of "criticism" and "support" sections, it should have sections for each argument, with criticism and support of that argument inside them. — Omegatron (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Breaking the arguments into groups of "criticism" and "support" makes for easier reading, because people want to arguments for and against the EC. Eliminating those labels would simply result in readers trying to figure out which arguments are criticisms and which are supporting arguments. We should not make it harder for the readers to know what is being said in an article. SMP0328. (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

--On the more trivial side, the Wikipedia page for Criticism reads "to criticize does not necessarily imply "to find fault," but the word is often taken to mean the simple expression of an object against prejudice, no matter positive or negative." ... Merriam Webster defines criticism as "the act of criticizing usually unfavorably."

I recognize the conventional use of "Criticism" (in the US, at least) is the opposite of "support." I leave it to more experienced WP editors to consider if this merits change in this particular article. Kind regards, Gprobins (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

How about splitting relevant content into an article like Debate on the United States Electoral College as we have similar articles such as and I notice a lot of content on National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Debate which have little to do with the compact itself (i.e. would still be relevant in the case of a constitutional amendment). - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Argued that the EC may improve the chances of third-party candidates in some situations

This edit with a summary saying: adding a new source does not solve the fact that the opinion is not attributed to anybody; and the google books link does not have either e-book or text search options so I can't look it up myself... caught my eye. First, WP:V requires verifiable sources, but does not require that cited sources be conveniently verifiable by everyone reading the article. That said, though, the cite should have specified a page number or a small range of page numbers as it is not reasonable to expect many pages to be searched looking for verification of support for a specific article assertion.

I looked back, and was surprised to see in this July 25, 2012 edit, the source cited to support this assertion was changed. The previously-cited source did specify a small range of page numbers, but I found only one page in that range to be previewable here, and could not verify the assertion on that one page. That source previously cited in support of this assertion is still cited in the article, but not in support of this.

For now, I've added {{pageno}} and {{fv}} tags. This is not a topic of great interest to me, and I will not be monitoring developments. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason I tagged that particular statement is since it appears to be flagrantly counter-intuitive: most plurality voting systems, such as the "first-past-the-post/winner takes all" system typical of British-style parliaments (UK, Canada, ...) and of the vast majority of US state and federal elections including the US Electoral College, are criticised precisely because they tend to favour a two-party system (of which the US Electoral College is probably an extreme...) and systematically under-represent third parties. (see First-past-the-post_voting#Criticisms) If it is "argued that the Electoral College is not a cause of the two-party system, and that it had a tendency to improve the chances of third-party candidates in some situations", then this (likely) minority viewpoint requires solid sources and proper attribution, otherwise it probably falls under WP:UNDUE. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree this should perhaps be cited more convincingly, but I think the premise is something like this: If a third-party candidate can garner enough support to win any electoral votes (say, by winning their home state), then in a close election this amount of votes could deny anyone a majority in the electoral college, forcing the election to the House of Representatives, who can choose among the top 3 candidates with electoral votes. It's possible, though unlikely, that the House could choose this 3rd party candidate as a compromise choice. The argument then would be they have a much higher chance of being elected in that case then they would simply by having weak minority support across the country in a popular election. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

A simple table with numbers?

Hello. I am somewhat frustrated having been unable to find in this article a simple, clear table indicating to how many electors which state is entitled. BAD! 195.171.186.130 (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

How about the map image at the top right of the article showing (presumably current) number of electors by state or the far right-hand column of the Number of presidential electors by state and year table in the Chronological table section of the article? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Show 2024 allocation?

I'm surprised that, what with having dozens of graphics, there is no state map with the expected reallocation based upon the 2020 census. I would regard easy reference to this data as rather important. WHPratt (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A 2022 reallocation map is not included because the apportionment for 2022–2032 has not yet been made. When expected reallocation becomes established (codified) congressional reapportionment, sometime in 2021, the new map will be included. It would, I believe, be appropriate to a couple reliably-sourced sentences after the chart in the Current electoral vote distribution section stating something like, "When Congress reapportions representatives among the states following the 2020 census, it is anticipated that ..." Drdpw (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Anticipating the new apportionment of Representatives and electoral votes would be crystalballing. When the reallocation is announced we should add it to this article, not before. SMP0328. (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at the article page history and found that prior to the official announcement of 2010 Census population figures in December 2010 the previous map remained in place and no prior mention of projected/anticipated changes was made. For the record, projections from the Brookings Institution, which are based on the U.S. Census Bureau's 2019 U.S. population estimates, show the following estimated changes:

• +3 seats – Texas;
• +2 seats – Florida;
• +1 seat – Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon;
• −1 seat – Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia.[cnn.com][270towin.com]

Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Protective function

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact page has a nice paragraph about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact#Protective function of the Electoral College. I think something along these lines should be included here in the Support section, as it is was an original argument for the value of the EC. It would be important to point out that it has never served that purpose historically, and the recent ruling in Chiafalo v. Washington that upheld faithless elector laws prevents any protective function in those states (of which there are currently 32, with some believing that number will grow following the ruling). Mdewman6 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

'Evolution of selection plans' section seems to conflict

This section generally doesn't make very clear the evolution of elector selection by states over time. A table could be more useful. Dates move forward and backward in time.

In particular, the second paragraph isn't quite clear:

"By 1832, only South Carolina chose their electors this way, and it abandoned the method after 1860.[42] States using popular vote by district have included ten states from all regions of the country. By 1832, there was only Maryland, and from 1836 district plans fell out of use until the 20th century, though Michigan used a district plan for 1892 only.[43]"

This seems to indicate that in 1832, only South Carolina chose electors by popular vote per district, if "this way" is in referring to "popular vote per district". Abandoning this in 1860 would mean 1860 is the last year "popular vote per district" was used anywhere. Second line indicates the same year, 1832, as only Maryland using "popular vote per district", which was eliminated in 1836.

I'm uncertain if changing this paragraph to the following would be accurate:

"By 1832, only South Carolina and Maryland chose their electors via popular vote by district. Maryland abandoned this method in 1836, and South Carolina abandoned this method in 1860, both in favor of winner-take-all system. Popular vote by district would not be used again until the 20th century, with exception of Michigan only in the 1892 elections. States using popular vote by district have included ten states from all regions of the country."69.121.219.27 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I cleaned the wording of that material so now it should be much easier to understand. SMP0328. (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This is clearer, but I think it has an error with "state legislatures chose":

In 1789, at-large popular vote, the winner-take-all method, began with Pennsylvania and Maryland; Massachusetts, Virginia and Delaware used a district plan by popular vote, and in the five other states participating in the election (Connecticut, Georgia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina),[41] New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island did not participate in the election. New York's legislature deadlocked and abstained; North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution.[42] state legislatures chose. 69.121.219.27 (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That was a remnant from material removed in my earlier. I removed it now. SMP0328. (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

voting power comparison in the lead

Here, I've changed "as much as four times [...] as" to "more [...] than" in the lead section. The wording I have changed appeared in this 2018 edit. Some of the cited supporting sources are on pay sites and I was not able to check them to see whether or not they support the assertion I have changed. I do note that it does not appear to be in agreement with what File:US 2010 Census State Population Per Electoral Vote.png shows. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Change to 4th Summary Paragraph

Hi. I propose to add a change (italicized below) to the 4th summary paragraph, as it is missing from any statements in any portion of the summary, despite being the predominant concern of most opponents of the electoral college. This is commonly referred to as direct democracy.

Opponents of the Electoral College argue that it can result in different candidates winning the popular and electoral vote (which occurred in two of the five presidential elections from 2000 to 2016); that it causes candidates to focus their campaigning disproportionately in a few "swing states"; that its allocation of Electoral College votes gives citizens in less populated states (e.g., Wyoming) as much as four times the voting power as those in more populous states (e.g., California).[11][12][13][14][15] and most significantly, that it does not represent the actual total vote-getter of the election outcome, and thus is not a direct democracy.

Please comment. Thanks. Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Stevenmitchell: My problem with your addition is that it creates a run-on sentence and just restates the point. That said, you got me thinking about the paragraph and how it conveys and could better convey the "opposition to" point of view. Here is what I've come up with:

Opponents of the Electoral College argue that it is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of "one person, one vote." The system can produce an outcome where one candidate wins the popular vote but another wins the electoral vote, thus thwarting the will of the majority of the nation's voters (which has occurred five times in American history). The system also makes it easy for candidates to focus their resources disproportionately on a few "swing states", and its allocation of Electoral College votes gives citizens in less populated states (e.g., Wyoming) as much as four times the voting power as those in more populous states (e.g., California).

How does this look? Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• The initial short sentence of Drdpw's revised version summarizes a relevant controversy, and such a summary belongs in the lead section. The rest of this seems to argue one side of the controversy. The details of the controversy do not belong in the lead section, and material about it meeds to comply with WP:NPOV (particularly its WP:DUE section). It seems to me that something like that initial short sentence belongs in the lead, perhaps along with a pointer to details located elsewhere. Also, see the talk page section above re "as much as four times the voting power" vs. "more voting power". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The 3rd and 4th paragraphs could be combined for balance:

The suitability of the Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate. Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it is fundamental to American federalism, that it requires candidates to appeal to voters outside large cities, increases the political influence of small states, preserves the two-party system, and makes the electoral outcome appear more legitimate than that of a nationwide popular vote. Opponents argue that the system is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of "one person, one vote," in that it can thwart the will of the majority of the nation's voters by producing an outcome where one candidate wins the popular vote but another wins the electoral vote and thus the presidency, makes it easy for candidates to focus their resources disproportionately on just a few "swing states", and that it gives citizens in less populated states more voting power than those in more populous states.

Alternatively, I suppose the two paragraphs could be trimmed to: The suitability of the Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate. Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it is fundamental to American federalism. Opponents of the system argue that it is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of "one person, one vote." Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that further rewording is needed -- something like: The suitability of the Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate. Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it is fundamental to American federalism. Opponents of the system argue that the U.S. is a democracy that strives for a standard of one person, one vote, and that the system is antithetical to this.", putting the "striving" argument re chusing P & VP into the mouths of the opponents. This summary is not incompatable with detail contained in the Efforts to abolish or reform body section, I think. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

NOR, BURDEN, and V

This edit caught my eye. My eye was immediately drawn to the change which appeared first there, but both that change and the one lower down seem to be make substantive changes in article assertions while still citing sources which were in place supporting the changed-from versions. The changed-to assertions may be supportable, but the mechanics here seem to be flouting WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN.

The source cited there is long and complicated, though, and I don't find easy to pinpoint support in there for either version. The closest snippet I found is

Electoral college supporters defend the system on the grounds that it is a federal election rather than a national plebiscite, and further note the system has delivered “the people’s choice” in 49 of 54 elections since ratification of the Twelfth Amendment, a rate of 90.7%, as noted earlier in this report.

Looking back for changes in what the article asserts re arguments of supporters, I found this. It goes back further than that with different wording, but the assertions at that point are unsupported, so I looked for where support came in. I found that here, but in support of an assertion saying only: "Supporters of the college have made arguments on its behalf. ", without describing the arguments made. The very next edit adds: "These arguments are widely regarded as specious.", citing this page in this highly opinionated source (see the last paragraph in the page linked there).

Has all this produced anything useful? I'm not sure, but it has made me wonder about NOR and V here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This is very helpful. I want to look into it further later on today. It is well to abandon the assertion in one of the links, that small states have four times the power as the large states. “citizens in less populated and economically unproductive rural states with as many as four times the votes as those as those in more populous and economically productive urban ones.” - BECAUSE, the Electoral College weighs population over states at a ratio of 4:1 (438:100 = 4.31:1.00, deflated to 4:1 by rounding). Small states amount to 5% of the E.C., NOT the previously purported 80% - wp:error: small at 4x the big. Very misleading, I'm happy for Wikipedia reliability that it’s gone.

At my last edit, I added some wp:common knowledge, that the eight smallest states added all together on one side have a relatively small weight in the E.C. compared to either big-state California [55] or Texas [38] alone (or, more precisely, 3 e.c. votes in small states x 8 small states = 24, then 24 e.c. votes in small states / 538 total e.c. votes = 4.46%, inflated to 5% to show their potential cumulative power all voting the same way amidst an election with 24 faithless electors – -- though nothing like that since Virginia 1836 for Vice President, and assuming the pattern of a 3D-5R party split over the last 30 years would abruptly end, they could then weigh as much as 5% all together in the balance.) The placement of the citation may be at issue, because I do not know that any references used that wp:common knowledge yet; but I will also run a search. I would appreciate more guidance from Wtmitchell in this. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have much to offer in the way of guidance here. I look at a lot of articles, and all that was mostly an expression of frustration over changes in article content without regard to support which I have seen pretty widely; it just came out here because I happen to have some topical interest here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead section and proportionate voting power

INSERT: Lede, last paragraph includes: "Individual citizens in less populated states have proportionately more voting power than those in more populous states with 5% of the Electoral College." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This edit caught my eye. Initially, I was wondering whether the phrase re 5% ought to be set off by commas, but then I had the thought that the 5% assertion (which, offhand, seems reasonable) ought to be clarified and/or supported. I looked at the supporting source cited ([1]), and didn't find support there. Looking back, I see that it appeared as an unsupported insertion here.

Also, I'm wondering about support in the source cited for the focus here on proportionate voting power. The closest I see there is Myth #2: Rural areas would get ignored, which isn't at all the same thing.

This appears in the final para of the lead section. Taking a step back from that tree to sneak a peak at the forest, it seems to me that this para, with some reworking, would be better placed in the Contemporary issues#Criticism section than in the article lead. I haven't made an edit following on this, but thought it ought to be mentioned here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Only commenting on the last 'move paragraph' issue: presently it is one paragraph pro, and one, con. Whatever is in the lead, it will still need pro/con but I was fine with it when pro/con was combined in one paragraph. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: reply part one: The 5% assertion (which, offhand, seems reasonable) ought to be clarified and/or supported, was at first without support. Now it is supported here ([2]). I don’t think you would be alone with the seek-and-find nature of an article citation, so I added the quote to the footnote: the added quote at the citation reads, “Rural states do get a slight boost from the two electoral votes awarded to states due to their two Senate seats … And there is no legitimate reason why a rural vote should count more than an urban vote in a 21st-century national election.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed the "And there is no legitimate reason why a rural vote should count more than an urban vote in a 21st-century national election" portion of that quote. It seemed more than a little bit POV to me, and it was not necessary to support the content for which the source was cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

CONCUR with redaction. It may be that we may become clean-up collaborators on this page. The POV sentence, that you pointed out and properly removed, was a direct quote from the Time Magazine wp:essay that is used as a source to justify the N-Popualar-Vote-I-C position without wp:reliable sources.

Many citations on this page are not scholarly RS, but essays, magazines, press releases, advocate websites, and popular-press books ranked 'best-sellers' in airport newsstands. These are selected, RATHER THAN, and OPPOSED TO, professional scholars in monographs by wp:peer review academic presses, and selected in scholarly journals for review. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: reply, second part.

At mention of "proportionate", I'm not sure if that’s a mixup of cites on my Word document draft, but commentator Katy Collin in the Washington Post as previously article-cited at the Intro or elsewhere, "The electoral college badly distorts the vote. And it's going to get worse". “Each state gets a minimum of three electoral votes, regardless of population, which gives low-population states a disproportionate number of electors per capita,” -- better said than my earlier effort.

- Population is not voters. The E.C. allocates votes by population from the House 435+1-DC added to 100 from the Senate+2-DC. Choosing two states to pair from our existing sources in the article Intro, I looked at CA and ND for comparison of their "voter-performance-as-states" in presidential elections. At Election Project’s “2016 November General Election Turnout Rates”, North Dakota 2016 voted 61.7% of eligible population, while California voted somewhat less at 58.2%. Their populations are comparable for "voter incidence in eligible population".

• Somehow even apparent California advantages in the Electoral College are lost from what could otherwise be a well-rounded discussion of the matter within the article scope.

- The CA-55-Electoral vote was cast regardless of any 'Act of God' interfering. In California, it is possible for spreading forest fires to effectively disenfranchise voters by displacing substantial populations on election day, as in November 2018, “150,000 wildfire refugees”. For relative scale in the 2016 elections, that number was half that of North Dakota's total vote at 349,945. (Earlier defenses of the E.C. sometimes included noted unchanging state-weight during New England snow storms.)

• ISSUE: Should voters in states with large immigrant populations be allowed to continue "virtually representing" the interests of their geographic neighbors in the Electoral College?

- The Voting Eligible Population (VEP) was the big difference between ND & CA. North Dakota voting totals excluded only 2% as alien residents over 18, while California-VEP excluded 16.4% of its total population. Without taking the time to redistribute VEP across the entire E.C. apportionment, it is likely that California gains AT LEAST nine (9) electoral votes over "voter-eligible-population". The California Electoral bonus from its “non-eligible” population, amounts to more than 21 state total Electoral vote, only eight of which are “small” as North Dakota. Observation: The nine (9) California ineligible-alien "Electoral bonus" is larger than the two (2) North Dakota "each state plus-two" "Electoral bonus".

Not to be overtly "politically correct", but I would like to see more Spanish-surnamed authorities in the "popular vote" side of the Bibliography, as the article narrative touches on (a) CA (Mexicans, Central Americans), (b) TX (Mexicans, Central Americans), (c) FL (Cubans, Central Americans, Haitians), and NYC-SMA: (d) NY (Puerto Ricans) and (e) NJ (Puerto Ricans). Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Chronological table/Psephos(Adam Carr)

Psephos/Adam Carr is not a reliable source. His electoral college maps are riddled with errors. 68.101.113.185 (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What errors have you observed in the table? Drdpw (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"One man one vote" questioned

The final paragraph of the lead, saying: "Opponents argue that the system is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of 'one person, one vote,'" seems to me to flout WP:DUE in that it gives undue weight to an implication that this standard is striven for in U.S. federal elections. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the following argues otherwise: "The inclusion of the electoral college in the Constitution, as the result of specific historical concerns, validated the collegiate principle despite its inherent numerical inequality, ...". I quoted that from the text of Gray v. Sanders -- 372 U.S. 368 (1963) and was reaffirmed, it seems to me, when requoted in Reynolds v. Sims -- 377 U.S. 533 (1964). Have I got that wrong? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The sentence says a democracy strives for 'one person one vote' not the system, the system according the the critique does not strive for that, and that's a problem for those who hold that view. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That phrase "a democracy that strives for a standard of 'one person, one vote'" which caused me to start this section still bothers me; it appeared in this edit. I am wondering whether it is supported by the sources cited or was original research. I don't see support in a quick look at the three cited supporting sources I can see (the other two are pay sites).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtmitchell (talk • contribs)

@Wtmitchell: I have replaced a reference, dropping "Critics Move To Scrap The Electoral College, But It's Not Likely To Work" for "One Person One Vote? Depends on Where You Live." I hope this allays your concern. Drdpw (talk)

One person, one vote does not seem original to Wikipedia editors, nor one person one vote being related to democracy, nor both being related to the electoral college. But in writing Wikipedia we must generally write in our own words (due to among other things copyright and plagiarism), unless quoting, so I am not seeing it as original but as ordinary Wikipedia writing (or to put it another way, one person one vote, generally conveys people's vote, popular vote, etc.). At any rate, I take it you can't see the NYT article, which is one of the sources cited? It says, "To its critics, the Electoral College is a relic that violates the democratic principle of one person, one vote, and distorts the presidential campaign by encouraging candidates to campaign only in the relatively small number of contested states."[3] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)]]

You take it correctly. The NYT has a paywall between me and that article."To its critics, ..." is not quite the same thing as "a democracy that strives for a standard of ...". I got called away as I was writing that and rushed it off when I should have postponed publishing it. On second thought, I observe that, according to that source, "a democracy that strives for a standard of 'one person, one vote,'" is a view of its critics, and the paragraph in the article seems to present that view as a more universal view. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I see your point; perhaps Opponents of the system argue that it is antithetical to the democratic principle of "one person, one vote." would be better. Drdpw (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the sentence begins "Opponents argue", but I have no particular view with respect to any other emphasis on it being their view, if someone wants to do that.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The Electoral College is weighted

The Electoral College is weighted 4:1 for the people over the states. The population-to-state ratio in 1796 was 111:28, or 4:1 a democratic-leaning formula by 400%. At the time, both Madison and Hamilton publicly declared for single-member E.C. districts to allow for in-state geographic distributions of population and their occupational industries. For 2016, that ratio was 438:100, or nearly 4.4:1.0. Only now the suffrage allowed by law is inclusive of men, women, untaxed Indians, blacks and others of color . . . wherever they are allowed to vote equally statewide by proportionate numbers of voting machines per 1000 registered, and 30-minute public transportation access four times an election day.

The Federalist Papers explain the Constitutional system as a federal mixture of national and state, state and democratic elements on 'republican principles'. As they relate the Electoral College, key 'democratic' features are: (1) the largest number of voters can elect Representatives to the House, as allowed in your state (I.2); (2) In the House, equal population representation of inhabitants by state proportion is ensured by a national decennial census (Including all those taxed directly or indirectly, men, women, and children. Initially, all citizens and Indians, and 3/5 'servants', the indentures north and slaves south.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So, it's not one-person-one-vote system. The population distribution is not exact, because it's not possible for the 435 house seats (which translate to electoral seats) to be divided exactly, then 2 more for each state is not based on population, at all. The point of the critique is that even when democracy might be one part of the formula which is sacrificed to be among several others considerations, it does not strive for the one-person-one-vote formula the critique associates with democracy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make there relates to the U.S. being, at the federal level, a union (U) of individual states (S). The collegiate principle in the design of the US EC system is reflective of that. Both of the SCOTUS decisions I mentioned point that up in the content around the snippet I quoted ([4][5]). We're not talking here about electing representatives of voters in a voting district or in an individual state; we're talking about electing federal executive officials representative of all the States in the Union -- officials to represent that Union of States monolithically to the rest of the world. My point was not to assert that one between the individual vs. collegiate voting structures is "better" in some way but that only mentioning what opponents of the US EC argue in the paragraph at issue here fails to give due weight to the other side of that argument. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the article has long been structured to give the support side one paragraph and then the oppose side one paragraph, and not mix them together. At its most elemental, the debate does seem to revolve around federalism vs one-person-one-vote democracy. (Besides, in issues of due weight, it's not a matter of whether any Wikipedia editor agrees with the critique). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I backed off one step from that particular tree and had a glimpse of the forest. Quoting the immortal Emily Litella, "Never mind!" Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The existing paradigm sets up a false dichotomy that editorially steers most reasonable readers of good will to conclude the one-man-one-vote alternative is the choice to make for good governance. Here, "The debate does seem to revolve around": Either Proposition #1 federalism of neo-Confederate 'states-rights or state-party machines, of winner-take-all; against Proposition #3 an abstract ideal imagining 'one-person-one-vote' democracy, of individual free choice: However, that leaves out point-by-point, paragraph-by-paragraph, the third, middle ground in Proposition #2, a mixed system of place-and-population, wide enfranchisement with diversity-and-virtual-representation.

Critiques: #1: "Winner-take-all", whether awarding power to states-rights or party machines, violently skews Electoral College results to small states. In the modern era, the effect is to strip most urban 'metropolitan areas' of their proportionate weight, and therefore their reasonable voice in presidential selection. The echoes of 1830s Jacksonian 'unity-and-pro-slavery' national coalition giving power to local party bosses of the newly expanded 'democracy of the [white men] people', no longer applies to our contemporary populations who have the franchise by law.

- #3: Proposals for "One-man-one-vote" system do not include key elements necessary to become anything other than a sham-extension of state-party machines (sending the same unrepaired machines to the same majority Democratic precincts every general election, etc.). Proper implementation requires attaining standard practices nation-wide, especially among the largest 30 states with the most population diversity, multiple industries, and variable geography. (a) For all subdivisions statewide, working voting machines per 1000 registered voters to national paper-backup standards, rotating machines among Congressional Districts; (b) timely delivery of mail-in ballots for all registered voters who did not vote in person the last general election (usually 50% or less); (c) registering all public school citizen attendees at age 17 (using registrar staff, deputies, League of Women Voters); purging register rolls of any name not voting for six consecutive years of eligibility. Australians fine their universally registered citizens $20 for not voting in a general election for three elections, then stop.

Proposal #2: "Diversity-and-virtual representation" across populations and regions in every state can be either existing and previous Congressional District plus two at-large, or by the Founder's E.C. single-member district. While districts are (temporarily) subject to gerrymandering for state delegation count by party machines, (a) Urban areas gerrymandered by 'packed' districts will be able to vote independently of their state majority, such as Omaha, Nebraska has done in its E.C. District system. (b) Sister cities in different states lying across the same river will be able to vote independently of their state majorities. (c) Residents separated by state coastal-upland divisions with diverse populations and industry can vote independently of one another for the most part.

- (d) Voters in adjacent districts across state lines who are working for the same regional employer will have the opportunity to vote independent of their remote state majorities. (e) Interstate regions like Appalachia or the Rockies/Sierras will finally be able to effect the outcome of presidential elections. Their votes can be counted independently of states lines, not only in the districts encompassing a region, but also votes of resettled family members in adjacent districts.

Currently in the article, none of these aspects are reflected among each section, alternating among three paragraphs, due to the 'false dichotomy' paradigm. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What sources are there for this proposal? But backing up from that, why? Why do this? If it's because it better reflects the will of the voters, than that's an argument the individual one-person-one-vote is sacrificed too much, to other considerations, in the current EC system. As Madison is reported in this article to have said at the time of the EC's construction, one ideal would be popular vote. But that's not what was agreed to, so various overlays were constructed to give us the EC system which has evolved, and so your reform or evolution proposal would be to get more toward a popular vote system. (One is of course free to criticize what states have done but 1. it was the framers who gave it to the states to do what they will, and 2. if the basis for the criticism is the states obstruct the people's vote, then that argues for stripping the states of power to get in the way and get more toward popular election). And the counter is the moving away from the EC system, as argued above by WM, sacrifices in whole or in part, the federal system (something along the lines of, 'it's not a country of regions, it's a country of states'). So the poles of debate, regardless of degree is between the current EC, based at least in part in values of federalism, and a reformed system that moves the needle more toward one-person-one-vote (popular election). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of a reply, but I am afraid you have once again insisted on a False dilemma. WITHOUT tinkering with the federal system as explicitly required in the Constitution as adopted, a uniform state district system for the Electoral College would provide for ‘diversity in virtual-representation’, not a move ‘toward a popular-vote system’; my critique only mentioned how direct-vote might be fairly implemented, with prerequisite reform in place for 86% of the Electoral College, before it initially took effect (top 31 states = 85.9% E.C. vote), 100% state federal election standardization to follow within four years.

Consider the defining characteristics of E.C. Districts as existing Congressional Districts, or single-member E.C. districts as occurred in 1792-1796 for the largest state Virginia (21), and the smallest Delaware (3). (Once Massachusetts broke for ‘winner-take-all’ to take away Jefferson’s 1796 western MA vote(s), Virginia followed suit to take away Adams’ western Virginia vote(s) for the 1800 election.)

(a) Populations have an equal weight by an all-resident census count, whether persons are taxed directly by federal income or indirectly by federal retail gas tax (Patriot: 'No taxation without representation'). (b) Cultural and geographic diversity within each state is proportionately reflected by population alone (not wealth, income, real estate or property in slaves). (c) Those equal numbers are virtually represented regardless of variable turnouts by weather (sleet & snow), culture (Reservation First-Nation), or voter suppression (unconstitutional registration procedures, voting systems without auditing capability, biased voting places per 1000, biased machines per 1000, targeting unreliable machines).

- Federal election districts are to be drawn with equal population, contiguous compact boundaries, and respecting localities. That will end party gerrymandered snake-districts drawn by precinct-partisanship. And, that’s Constitutionally and Supreme Court-allowed by federal law for federal elections (plaintiff cases arguing 'my side didn't get enough' have failed). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I have never said anything is either/or, so there no false dilemma, I have said it is multi-factor - there is the people's vote and overlays on the people's vote. Beyond that, what you have described is not the current EC system, so this is probably not the place to blog about or discuss it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

All of that deserves discussion, but not here. Perhaps there ought to be a new subsection under One man, one vote#United States; perhaps named #Federal elections or #vs. electoral college.

Also, this article is very long. I'm thinking that this is a peripheral issue here and it would be better if peripheral issues were split off into other articles in summary style; perhaps all of this belongs in an article titled Criticism of the United States Electoral College, in a section #Alternatives#One man, one vote, with a {{main article}} of One man, one vote#United States.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtmitchell (talk • contribs)

Agree, this article should be split, with the daughter article named, 'Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College' per discussion at Spin off above. ‘Great minds run in the same track.’, or something. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, not only does a simple google search for electoral college and one person, one vote have all manner of sources - what we have been talking about is already a summary (the lead is always a summary), it would be very strange to have this the main article on the E/C not examine and critique it, since examining and critiquing it has been probably going on for 230+ years. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

No, Wtmitchell, you are not wrong, in a way

@Wtmitchell: Okay, I think I follow, the answer to your question is no, you are not wrong. (a) Gray v. Sanders (1963) said people are to be weighed in their populations for electing state and federal legislators, not polities as legal constructs, the cities and counties. (b) Reynolds v. Sims (1964) said in choosing members of a legislature, populations shall be proportionately represented, without weight given to polities as legal constructs, the cities and counties.

You observe that selection of executive officers who are to be the national representatives of the ‘one people of the US’, are the outwardly facing ‘heads of state’ for the international state (USA) in the international community. You note by the snippet, states are an element in selection of the president in the E.C., a ‘collegial principle, despite its inherent numerical inequality”.

So to answer your question as first posted in this section, No, you do not have it wrong, in a way. The mixed federal system in the E.C. to select the president-head-of-state. DOES include Part A: the states, and it includes Part B: the national ‘one people’ of the Declaration living in the states.

Now we come to my point(s) . BUT THE TWO PARTS are not meant to be equal factors. THE TWO PARTS ARE NOT TO BE THE SAME. States and population remain in a ratio weighted about 1:4 as intended by the designers of the E.C. skewing the results toward the ‘one people of the US’, as virtually represented by those voting in each state who weigh into the decision-making balance based on census apportionment of the House of Representatives (with six states plus DC as three-E.C.-vote as statistical outliers).

WITHOUT ADVOCATING FOR POPULAR ELECTION of US president, I observe that the diversity of populations in places across each state can more nearly reflect the actual residents of the ‘one people of the US’ if their diversity is not artificially collapsed into a monolithic winner-takes-all.

The founders sought to reflect the diversities of settlement in each state (including Euros catastrophic 100-years’ war biggies with their petty little Germanies: religion and national origin), because THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN EACH STATE ARE NOT THE SAME. As explained at Gray and Reynolds ([6][7]), in both federal and state contexts, the diversity of populations in each state are to be (a) found by voters weighted by their population count, and (b) expressed by votes proportionately represented among equal populations across the state.

That can be achieved in single-member districts. So it follows that the Electoral College cannot function as intended, with a 4:1 lean into the diverse American people without districts to reflect their voice in the same way their diverse voices are heard in a state legislature or state Congressional delegation. Their diverse voices cannot be heard when they are swallowed in a ‘majority’ legally constructed by making their answer THE INVARIABLY THE SAME AS THE STATE’S LARGEST FACTION (achieving an artificial majority in the state legislature by gerrymandering). See Federalist #10 for the evils of faction in a democratic republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Precedents in US history for districts in the E.C. vote

@Alanscottwalker and Wtmitchell: Yes here, or another sub-section here. But first, the third variation is not “my reform”: BESIDES current party machine winner-take-all that locks in the same party majority for a decade in Congressional delegations and state legislatures, from census to census, THERE CAN ALSO EXIST in the EC system, variations within a state by district, either (1) the single E.C. districts, found practiced in both VA and DE in the 1790s, then proposed nationally in the 1800s with public endorsement by Madison and Hamilton, or (2) existing District Plan in Maine and Nebraska, previously in use by MD, VA, KY, NC, and MI once.

If Alanscottwalker “never said anything is either/or, so there is no false dilemma”, then I misunderstood the following closing sentence: “ So the poles of debate, …is between [horn] (a) the current EC, … federalism, - and [horn] (b) a reformed system … more toward … (popular election).”

BUT I SAID, were an editor to imagine only (a) state-party-boss ‘federalism’, or (b) a reformed system toward ‘popular election’, THEN ONE MIGHT-COULD be blinded to my observation that the THIRD ALTERNATE to party-controlled state “winner-take-all” - CAN – be – found - WITHOUT Constitutional reform in the current Electoral College system – by using EITHER OF TWO alternative constitutionally accepted precedents.

And so you have both been distracted from my post, believing the Electoral College HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS must be editorially questionable, including one state E.C. Elector selection system currently in place, to be relegated to a ‘reform’ sideshow: (a) it’s “your reform – don’t blog about it”, or (b) they “deserves discussion, but not here”. But I will try to be more clear in the future. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Between is not usually hard to understand. Editors certainly seem capable to imagine all kinds of plans. But it's not within your competence as a Wikipedia editor to hold forth on constitutionality and on top of that your posts went on and on without RS, so that looks like blogging. The plan you have gone on about is not the current EC system, and it certainly does not matter that the changes from current you set forth are constitutional changes, statutory changes, regulatory changes, or customary changes, it is reformulation any which way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. I say Maine and Nebraska have a 'District Plan', E.C. electors chosen from each Congressional District, plus two at-large. Thus they can break with an Electoral College vote four ways: 4-0, 3-1, 1-3, and 0-4. You say I 'held forth' on their constitutionality without RS, so it looked liked blogging. Sorry, I thought it was common knowledge, see wp:US Electoral College # Selection process, second paragraph, citing The Electoral College - Maine and Nebraska at FairVote.org.

You say, a plan used for 50 years continuously in modern US history is not the current EC system. Rather, their selection process is, in your wp:POV view, a 'reform' apart from the existing US Constitution, a a reformulation. But that is manifestly wp:error, plain and simple. The Constitutionally mandated "mixed system" of selection envisioned and attained at 4:1 ratio with (a) people voting in their communities weighted FOUR to a weight of ONE for majorities in state legislatures. But your apparent wp:POV 'winner-take-all', UNIT-RULE enables the dominant faction in a gerrymandered majority to effect a 1:0 ratio in the selection process. That is not a 'mixed system' of federal principle. State legislature majorities are weighted ONE, to a weight of ZERO for American people each state community: the people in this application of the Constitution, A NULLITY.

At Federalist No. 68, (1) “It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the [president]”. (2) Electors are to be “Chosen by the people for the special purpose” to choose a president, [not give voice solely to a winner-take-all, state-only majority]. (3) “The [president] should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves," [and not entirely reliant on state majorities in a 1:0 ratio for state majorities over and above, extinguishing the diverse voices of American people living in each state].

That is NOT a federal balance between state legislature and national people: that's a one-sided allocation of power to states over people. Your insistence that the article continue to relegate the two district systems of actual American history to the list of 'proposed reforms' under consideration at one time or another, is a violation of wp:due weight. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You can stop your run-on blogging now, and also saying false things. I have not insisted on anything with respect to the content of this article, except that it should cover the sourced examinations and critiques. As for the two states, I thought it was common knowledge that they are already covered in the article and that 2 states do not make 50 (and I have not even remotely suggested relegating the article's discussion of the two states, moving the discussion of the two states, or taking the two states out of the article.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, accepted. But you did once say that both the district plans of 2016 Maine & Nebraska and those of 1792 Virginia & Delaware, were "not the Electoral College system".

- "Beyond that, what you have described is not the current EC system, so this is probably not the place to blog about or discuss it." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 9:17 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

And, btw, thanks for mentoring me (ah, rather, boxing my metaphorical ears) a decade and more ago when I first got started. I noticed the first critique you had of my post here was, once again, Where is your RS support ? - Yes, sincerely thank you. Good advice for all wp:editors, we owe you a debt for your many contributions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We have never been a one vote republic. Tom Lasswell (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I would argue this segment gets removed completely as it offers no facts about the EC but just opinion. Depending on the state this opinion can change dramatically and typicality does. The references are all from late 2016 when large numbers were upset about the EC. Let's go further back if we really want to discuss opinion and publish facts about how this opinion has changed throughout history. The argument that this is now somehow a bad system that's justified by everything said above in this post. Additionally saying that the populous states basically don't count and aren't counted is biased based on the weighting. Just because CA votes blue every year doesn't mean their votes are any less valuable. Swing states vary election by election and yes are typically the states with the lower populations but that's due to their voice being more abundant because they're smaller states. Saying that all of a sudden 3 states in a 50 state republic have the vote that would make all the other states not have an equal vote in our republic. Tom Lasswell (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The suitability of the Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate

This always has been. But all references are bias liberal references. This section should be removed as it doesn't provide any real context to the EC and is opinion. Tom Lasswell (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The article contains reasons for abolishing the EC, as well as reasons for keeping it. SMP0328. (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Spin off

Is it worth spinning-off the criticisms section to it's own separate article? I feel like it has the potential to grow a LOT and it may be worth creating a dedicated article linking back to here. Checking through the logs I don't see it ever being created (and therefore never deleted). It would certainly pass GNG. Thoughts? Giraffer (munch) 09:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Pinging SMP0328. as he is a recent contributor.

Support. AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY for the Electoral College, "Contemporary reform" is a coherent theme found in three major sections. The need is established in "Contemporary issues", the urgency is reflected in "Public opinion", and the alternatives are found in "Efforts to abolish or reform". I just can't suggest a name for the spin off, yet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Support. A fine article dealing with proposals/ideas for reforming or abolishing the Electoral College could be made. It should not be framed a criticism article and proposal/idea must include opposition to it. Suggested name of article: Reform Efforts to United States Electoral College. SMP0328. (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral As long as summary points are kept in this article per wp:split, no objection from me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreeing with you all. Will create an article titled 'Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College' which (obviously) will list the various attempts. We should be careful to keep it an article and not a list.

I think it would also be good to have a background section detailing the various perceived flaws (will/will need to be careful with NPOV) but of course keeping the focus on the reform efforts. Thanks, Giraffer (munch) 15:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with this spin-off, but I see that the bulk of Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College is copied text that remains here in the parent article. Are there plans to reduce the relevant sections here to concise summaries, or add significant content to the new article? Otherwise the duplicated material cannot stand long-term per procedures described at WP:SPLIT, WP:SPINOUT, WP:SPINOFF, etc. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

History section about two different things

The current History section conflates what I believe to be to distinct things that would be much better discussed separately:

1. the formation of the Constitution (how the US ended up with a body of electors what we now call the Electoral College)
2. the evolution of how it was used - how states went from legislatures choosing electors to popular vote (and more). The chronological table belongs close at hand.

Currently facts such as "the first year most states used popular vote was 1824" and "every state used popular vote from NNNN to 1972" have nowhere natural to go. They don't fit in the history sections since that almost immediately goes from #2 above back to #1, and "Modern Mechanics" is better off only discussing the current situation.

It would be natural, I think, to introduce a "Formation" or "Development" (or even "Genesis") section to discuss everything that too place in the 1780s (#1), and then a History section that takes it from there, with sections covering the admission of states and the 20th century (#2).

That would make things easier to find in the Table of Contents, at least from my perspective. CapnZapp (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary

There is something incomplete or wrong about this:

Since the election of 1824,[80] 48 states have appointed their electors winner-take-all, based on the statewide popular vote on Election Day. Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions as both use the congressional district method, Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1996.[81]

What this says is that prior to 1996 there was another state that joined Maine in not using winner-take-all appointment. And that this third state stopped the practice at exactly the time Nebraska started. Either that, or the initial statement is simply not true.

Also of course, from Hawaii's entry in the union up until 1972 there must have been two other states (not Nebraska and Maine) not using winner-take-all appointment. Which ones? CapnZapp (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly tweaked the article prose there. I think I've got it right, and I'm pretty sure that otherr editors will correct me if I don't. I've also added a {{cn span}} re slated electors.

Thx. My natural follow-up is if EVERY state during the period before 1972 used the popular method, I find that notable enough to warrant a specific mention. But where? Modern Mechanics it ain't. See next talk section. CapnZapp (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

State laws to "enforce" the electors' pledges. (if faithless)

Is this not exaggeration? I read an article in today's news from a reputable outlet that increasingly states have fines for faithless electors. Surely rich electors could just take the legal consequences if it just a fine. Plus this article confirms the intention originally was that electors would with some proficiency ensure a non-partisan, sensible, expert choice was made when they convene, and take into account their presupposed choice dying or losing permanent mental capacity. These kind of ideas that emboldened some in the past to be "faithless" hence the ad nauseam coverage of it. Enforce, to legal minds, will really strongly connote in regard to nominees (like share dealers) or any other kind of nominees a mandamus, a positive injunction. Lay Americans will get the idea from a "subpoena" what I mean. It is better to just write "fine" if that is all they can do. Often we reach for far too sophisticated a verb and simply end up exaggerating what authorities can do.- Adam37 Talk 19:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Source? --Jennycourt (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Not only fines, some states remove faithless electors and replace them. See eg. [8] (And if I recall correctly such removal and replace was employed in Minnesota and Colorado in 2016.) See also Colorado Department of State v. Baca -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Most faithless elector laws call for removal/replacement of the elector or have no specified enforcement mechanism- check out the FairVote reference in the article. I believe only a few call for fines like Washington in 2016, though Washington has now moved to a removal/replacement law. The constitutionality of these laws continues to be a bit nebulous after Colorado Department of State v. Baca I would say, even with the precedent for the fines from Chiafalo v. Washington. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, much election law is regulatory, so the mechanism may be administrative rule adopted by the whatever state election office under the statutes, at any rate whether fine or removal, some states are trying to enforce (and so far the SC has said they can). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2020

Change "As of July 2020 fifteen states" to "As of November 2020 sixteen states"

This is because as of November 3rd, 2020 Colorado has joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Nsgriff (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The NPVIC page shows 15 states PLUS D.C. (16 total) and Colorado is counted. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead format

Why is there now a section header within the lead? This is inappropriate article format. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that has been technically fixed, but I do think this content that used to be in the lead should be moved back there. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

You didn't say why you think it should be part of the lede. The lede was too long and this "Pros and cons" section is easily split. UserTwoSix (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The lead isn't too long, compare to the lead of other long parent articles (take 2020 United States presidential election, for example). Four paragraphs are a good limit for such articles. I'd be interested in more discussion on this, but the ongoing debate and efforts for reform are an important part of the article and this should be summarized in the lead, like it used to be. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the length of the article, I restored the summary of pros/cons and public opinion to the lead paragraphs. UserTwoSix (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Right this minute, the lead is five paragraphs - I see no particular reason why this article requires an exception to MOS:LEADLENGTH that suggests four paragraphs. I suggest we combine the paragraphs starting with The appropriateness of the Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate and Critics argue that the Electoral College is less democratic:

The appropriateness of the Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate. Supporters argue that it is a fundamental component of American federalism; promotes political stability; preserves the Constitutional role of the states in presidential elections; and fosters a broad-based, enduring, and generally moderate political party system.[1] Critics argue that the Electoral College is less democratic than a national direct popular vote and that a candidate can win the national popular vote but not the electoral vote; individual citizens in less populous states have proportionately more voting power than those in more populous states; and that candidates focus their resources on just a few swing states.[9]

I am prepared to discuss each segment I excised. CapnZapp (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. The lead/lede/Introduction is now four paragraphs. SMP0328. (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you but not any longer. My first step is to invite User:TheVirginiaHistorian to this talk page. Not only is the topic under current debate, the article is tagged {{Controversial}}. I am prepared to assume good faith and believe this user simply didn't see the discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Four paragraphs work for me. There should be paragraph #1 structure. #2 mechanics, #3 proponents, #4 opponents, leaving the majority of those polled this century 2000-2020 with the last word before the reader launches into the more detailed 'Procedure' narrative. The first step is done here, the second will trim the top half of the "Opponent topic" paragraph #4. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What are the Electors Mentioned in the 17th Amendment?

Hey all. The word 'elector' appears twice in the 17th Amendment ("The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."), but the word 'elector' never appears anywhere in the body of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Wikipedia article. That fact seems unusual. Furthermore, I am actually having difficulty understanding what the sentence means at all. What electors are we talking about? What are the qualifications being referred to? Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a source for this but I think "elector" means "voter" in this instance. It means anyone who can vote in an election for the lower house (most numerous branch) of a state legislature can vote in an election for US Senator. Lev!vich 03:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, electors in this case are normal citizen voters. Same for there use in Article I with respect to House of Representative elections. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

and, just to try to make this very clear, this has nothing whatever to do with the United States Electoral College. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

And today normal qualifications are things like age and residency, but back when the 17th was adopted also in some states: sex, poll tax, literacy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Original Research in Background Section

The background section is almost entirely sourced to primary documents: transcripts of debates at the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers. That means that it's basically original research. I'll try to introduce some good secondary sourcing into the section when I have time, but I'd appreciate help. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I hope to join in after an article line-edit is completed elsewhere. Lots out there with scholarly sourcing, imo.

Flip side of the coin: lots of newspaper, magazine, and advocacy websites need to be replaced. Lots out there with scholarly sourcing imo, to upgrade the quality of the article as an NPOV encyclopedic entry. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to create a new section under 7. Contemporary issues

7.3 Effects to the 2020 Electoral college Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic

 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 Electoral College is set to face many new challenges before making their final decision on who will be the President of the United States. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the bulk of the votes were done on Election Day and in person. Because of the Pandemic, voting has changed to where 100 million people voted early, only 35 million people voted in person, and 65 million people voted by mail. The first two major legal challenge will be can votes be received after the election that isn't considered absentee ballots and can absentee ballots be sent to people who do not request them. With a tight deadline of December 8th, The Supreme Court will have a challenging time to make a ruling on time. The next big hurdle will be with the votes from the Electoral College itself. If President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden receive almost the same number of votes from the state's popular vote, it could cause delegates to split from their states popular vote and vote on who they feel is the better candidate. Depending on the outcome of what the courts rule, it could totally change how the Electoral College votes on January 6th. If the COVID-19 pandemic never happened, the results of this election could have been different.

 With the amounting list of concerns from the nation such as: is it safe to vote in person, are there enough people able to staff voting places, will my vote be properly delivered by mail, if I don't vote in person will my absentee ballot get counted properly, will my vote be suppressed, did I fill out my mail-in ballot appropriately, and the list goes on. The COVID-19 pandemic has put our election system to the test. In the end, the results from this Electoral College legitimacy could be called into question. This could push for more people wanting to abolish the Electoral College altogether. This could cause us to move to a system where we no longer vote in person. We could also be seeing the first election where a faithless elector could swing the vote for who will be the President of the United States. 

Sources

MLA Neale, Thomas "The Electoral College a 2020 Presidential Election Timeline" Congressional Research Service. “The Electoral College: A 2020 Presidential Timeline (IF11641)”. (October 2020). crsreports.congress.gov. Retrieved November 12, 2020. This was published by Thomas H. Neale, Specialist in American National Government

MLA N/A (November 11, 2020) National Conference of State Legislatures. “The Electoral College in 2020”ncsl.org. Retrieved November 12, 2020.

MLA Povich, Elaine S. (August 28, 2020). Pew. “Fearing Delays and Chaos, Swing States Weigh Early Counting of Mail-In Ballots”. pewtrust.org. Retrieved October 25, 2020.

MLA The Washington Post (June 10, 2020) The Washington Post. “Republicans are engineering an electoral disaster this fall: The GOP is exploiting the pandemic to surpress the vote”mnpals.net. Retrieved November 12, 2020.

MLA Gurley, Gabrielle (March 20, 2020) The American Prospect Blogs. "Lessons From the Pandemic Primaries" mnpals.net. Retrieved November 12, 2020.

MLA Petrella, Dan; Smith Kelli (October 12, 2020) “Election officials tackle challenges of panedmic: Counties battle worker shortage with pay raises, outreach to new generation” mnpales.net. Retrieved November 12, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cougra (talk • contribs) 09:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Per the discussion at #Original Research in Background Section, --- Best sourcing for the encyclopedia article is from known scholars in the field, including those published at RS institutional sites. In this case:

(a) Neale, Thomas "The Electoral College a 2020 Presidential Election Timeline" Congressional Research Service. "The Electoral College: A 2020 Presidential Timeline (IF11641)". (October 2020). crsreports.congress.gov;

(b) Povich, Elaine S. (August 28, 2020). Pew. "Fearing Delays and Chaos, Swing States Weigh Early Counting of Mail-In Ballots". pewtrust.org;

(c) National Conference of State Legislatures. "The Electoral College in 2020" (November 11, 2020) ncsl.org.

(d) others. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

LEAD length

PLEASE do not hash out every argument for/against the EC in the lead, it keeps ballooning to unreasonable length. Per WP:LEAD

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.

In other words, feel free to detail all of this in the article proper.

Then, as a separate second step, editors can and will look at our article and summarize its contents in the lead. That your argument might not make it to the lead does not mean our article ignores it.

Also:

Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

In other words, do not add arguments only to the lead!

You must first edit the article proper, adding your argument. And only then edit the lead, adding the argument there only if you feel it is essential to the summary of the article. Editors should start mercilessly prune away facts that exist only in the lead at least until editors understand and comply with the above. Thank you for understanding, CapnZapp (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

At the Intro, paragraph #3 'Supporters', there are also article references made to the ill effect of winner-take-all at #Congressional district method sourcing Larry Sabato and Robert Levy, and at #Disadvantage for third parties sourcing Jerry Fresia. Guelzo notes only two D big-states, but a more complete analysis should include R-states FL and TX, with combined 65 electoral votes. In the meantime, I suggest with only Guelzo at hand, "In California and Illinois 40% of the voters can have no say in the presidential election, together as many as nine million citizens in those two states alone."

The Introduction represents an E.C. defense in paragraph#3 showing one-man-one-vote as percent variances by a direct popular vote from the the total presidential vote in the E.C. are, to a substantial degree, produced by state-made systems that are not inherent to the Electoral College. But the Intro now uses wp:WEASEL words to say that winner-take-all systems “may stray” from the one-man-one-vote standard of democracy, as though that result were an aberration under multiple big-states with winner-take-all.

If that were so, there could be no democratic argument for any another system of election than the status quo, a status quo which Guelzo objects to in the state "winner-take-all" portion of the "federal" system selecting a president. --- However, the difference is not just a "stray". Two states alone “wasted” state minority votes amounting to 1/5 of the total entities casting presidential votes. California and Illinois alone equaled the total numbers voting in the smallest 18 states and the District of Columbia.

With two (2) more lines, that would give the total #3 SUPPORTERS = 11 lines, total #4 CRITICS = 17 lines on my browser. A forthright sentence encompassing RS Guelzo can be admitted to show disadvantage in a state-made system which is not a part of the Electoral College constitutionally. With two more lines for Guelzo, the Intro would have a proportionate balance, as E.C. supporters number about 40% of Americans (para#3-11 lines), while critics are 60% (para#4-17 lines). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No. Much better to trim one of the para's down, not just bloat more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Not much bloat on either hand imho, but give it a go for the longer Intro para #4 for 'Critics'. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Well done Alanscottwalker ! here, and here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)