Well no state would actually do that of its own free will because it would disadvantage what parties they actually voted for.

If two states with 10 electoral votes each are both currently winner takes all, but one votes green and one votes purple; and if only the green state changes to proportional allocation, you move from a scenario where both parties got 10 votes each to a scenario where the green state went 6/4 for green and the purple state is still all 10 votes purple, basically kneecapping the green party.

But it would benefit the people of that state, because it would force both of the candidates to give the people of that state more of what they want, since that can now make the difference between California's 55 electoral votes going 30 to one candidate and 25 to the other, or 45 to one candidate and 10 to the other. And Presidential elections have been decided by less.

Moreover, both of the parties are a product of the election map. If the map changes, it doesn't destroy one of the parties, it changes both of them, to get the balance back. If Republicans started getting 20 of California's delegates, Democrats would change their policies until they were getting those 20 back somewhere else. They'd stop pussyfooting around on climate change so they can save Florida from ending up underwater and put those 29 in the solid blue column, or dump a big jobs program in Ohio and get those, or start paying attention to the plight of the rural poor.

Or the Republicans would realize they could stand to lose some votes they currently have to get, stop being so inconsistent about at the same time claiming to want smaller government while never actually making it smaller, and actually gore somebody's ox.

You need 270 to win. 300 means you gave somebody something you didn't have to. 240 means you didn't give somebody something you did have to.

It wouldn't really benefit the people of that state.

> If Republicans started getting 20 of California's delegates, Democrats would change their policies until they were getting those 20 back somewhere else.

So what you're saying is they'd change tack to not pay as much attention to California, which is supposedly going to benefit Californians.

>But it would benefit the people of that state

But that doesn't matter because the specific individuals who would have to enact is are just as much if not more beholden to their party than to the the people.

I agree with what you said about changing the parties policies though.

Only within the internal context of that state, though. Apportionment based on factors external to the state is likely unconstitutional, based on the voting rights act and resultant scotus decisions.

The supreme court has said (over-simplifying here) that the right to delegate this legislative power to a popular vote is only constitutional when it adheres to 1 person, 1 vote weighting.

Taking into account votes external to that state likely violates this.

> The supreme court has said (over-simplifying here) that the right to delegate this legislative power to a popular vote is only constitutional when it adheres to 1 person, 1 vote weighting.

> Taking into account votes external to that state likely violates this.

I don't see anything approximating an argument that National Popular Vote violates any rule that has been applied to Presidential elections (“one person, one vote” is a districting rule, which doesn't really apply to elections per se, and arrangements which do not treat all voters in the state equally—such as the 2 for the statewide winner plus one for the winner of each CD method of assigning electors, which more heavily weights votes in Congressional districts with lower turnout in assigning state electors—survive under current law, and NPV doesn't even have that flaw.)

Deciding how to apportion electors falls squarely within the rights of a state legislature. There's no need for proportion of popular vote to correspond to electoral votes.

What the supreme court has said, is that if any decision is delegated to a vote, then that vote must meet constitutional muster.

Using votes cast in another state to determine the results of what is a state election likely violates rights of voters within that state.

And those rights are not wholely the legislature's to delegate away.

It's essentially extrajudicial gerrymandering.

Separately, and coming from another angle- it likely violates the constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government.

> What the supreme court has said, is that if any decision is delegated to a vote, then that vote must meet constitutional muster.

Anything any government in the US does must meet Constitutional muster. I'd like you to cite the specific decision you think indicates that a decision to assign electors based on the national popular vote would not meet such muster.

> Using votes cast in another state to determine the results of what is a state election likely violates rights of voters within that state.

Based on...what? I mean, except that it has survived so far, I can see an argument to the bare Constitution that giving unequal voting power to different voters within the state, which the two to the statewide winner plus one to the winner in each Congressional district method clearly does, violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection rights of the voters so disadvantaged. But I don't even see a Constitutional argument, much less actual voting rights precedent, that negatively impacts on NPV.

> It's essentially extrajudicial gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is drawing legislative districts, which is normally “extrajudicial” (since federal districting is expressly a power of state legislatures, and state-level districting is usually also a power of the state legislature, not the judiciary.) And gerrymandering is often legal and in many cases not even subject to federal review. Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___ (2019).

So saying it's “extradjudicial gerrymandering” is all of false, adding meaningless qualifiers to make it sound significant, and not supporting your argument that it is unconstitutional.

> Separately, and coming from another angle- it likely violates the constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government.

How? Based on what argument and applicable precedent?

Under the principle of "1 person, 1 vote", it would also seem impermissible to assign electors in a "winner takes all" way. Indeed, there is a campaign to test the constitutionality of states doing this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/10/winner-tak...

It is the sovereign State (1 entity) casting its electoral vote, so splitting the vote makes less sense than a single winner. We're not a parliamentary style government.

If a state is one entity, it should have a single vote. Instead, there is a college of electors, and those electors should at least reflect the electoral outcome in the nominal congressional districts that they represent, as in Maine and Nebraska. (I know that's not how elector assignment generally works, but I think it's just as valid an interpretation as your "1 entity" view).

Neither that per-district system, nor my original popular vote proportional system, would require a parliamentary style of government. Indeed, under a parliamentary system, the executive would be chosen by parliament itself and there would be no need for the electoral college or even the presidential vote at all.

The constitution literally says the States shall choose the president.

Not the people.

States are people, my friend.

(Hopefully that's a less controversial statement than Romney's famous line).