Electoral College. Just why?

[mvymvy]

Eliminating the electoral college would mean that New York, LA, and the rest of the big cities would elect every president. The interests of the rest of the country would be ignored. This country is a lot more than big cities.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.

Yeah, but it strips the state of control of the method of selection of electors. Something a bill couldn't do. You'd have to have a constitutional amendment to make such a change.

National Popular Vote IS state control of the method of selection of electors!
OF COURSE states can and have made changes without constitutional amendments.

The Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Massachusetts, for example
● In 1789, Massachusetts had a two-step system in which the voters cast ballots indicating their preference for presidential elector by district, and the legislature chose from the top two vote-getters in each district (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors).

● In 1792, the voters were allowed to choose presidential electors in four multi-member regional districts (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors).

● In 1796, the voters elected presidential electors by congressional districts (with the legislature choosing only the state’s remaining two electors).

● In 1800, the legislature took back the power to pick all of the state’s presidential electors (entirely excluding the voters).

● In 1804, the voters were allowed to elect 17 presidential electors by district and two on a statewide basis.

● In 1808, the legislature decided to pick the electors itself.

● In 1812, the voters elected six presidential electors from one district, five electors from another district, four electors from another, three electors from each of two districts, and one elector from a sixth district.

● In 1816, Massachusetts again returned to state legislative choice.

● In 1820, the voters were allowed to elect 13 presidential electors by district and two on a statewide basis.

● Then, in 1824, Massachusetts adopted its 10th method of awarding electoral votes, namely the statewide winner-take-all rule that is in effect today.

● In 2010, Massachusetts enacted the National Popular Vote interstate compact.

 

[mvymvy]

Eliminating the electoral college would mean that New York, LA, and the rest of the big cities would elect every president. The interests of the rest of the country would be ignored. This country is a lot more than big cities.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

False premise, that the popular vote and the EC vote must both have the same winner.
The people do not elect the President, and so the total popular vote has no procedural meaning.

National Popular Vote would guarantee that the winner of the national popular vote would win the Electoral College.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

 

[mvymvy]

No one ever said the EC 'makes' the United States a Constitutional Republic; the United States is a Constitutional Republic because that was the Framers' intent, to wisely eschew a direct democracy and referenda and opt for representative democracy where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...” Article VI, Section 4, US Constitution.

The EC, therefore, reflects the Framers' intent to create a Republic, where the EC is consistent with a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Wow, this is very coherent and well-stated.

Did someone hack your account?

no it isnt...California is way way more equal than the rest based on the way things are done....and the small eastern states have relatively too much power also...it means the fly-over states get screwed.

And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?

The EC does not ensure the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

Again, I don't think you'd be able to do that with a bill. As what you're describing with your bill is a procedural change to the constitution. And bills can't do that.

National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Eliminating the electoral college would mean that New York, LA, and the rest of the big cities would elect every president. The interests of the rest of the country would be ignored. This country is a lot more than big cities.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

False premise, that the popular vote and the EC vote must both have the same winner.
The people do not elect the President, and so the total popular vote has no procedural meaning.

National Popular Vote would guarantee that the winner of the national popular vote would win the Electoral College.

Repeating your false premise accomplishes nothing.

 

[Skylar]

Eliminating the electoral college would mean that New York, LA, and the rest of the big cities would elect every president. The interests of the rest of the country would be ignored. This country is a lot more than big cities.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.

Yeah, but it strips the state of control of the method of selection of electors. Something a bill couldn't do. You'd have to have a constitutional amendment to make such a change.

National Popular Vote IS state control of the method of selection of electors!

You're replacing the State's method with that of the bill. You said so right here:

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

If you're replacing the State's system, you're taking that authority away from the States. And the States can use any method of selecting electors as they wish per the constitution. You're proposing replacing the method selected by the state with the method mandated by the National Popular Vote Bill.

That's a procedural change constitutionally. A bill can't do that.

OF COURSE states can and have made changes without constitutional amendments.

But this isn't a change made by the state. This is a change imposed upon the State on a power that by your own admission the state holds exclusive power over. That would require a constitutional amendment.

 

[mvymvy]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well, it's a pipe dream that the small states would ever agree to give up their power in the Electoral college. Outside of denying their citizens of water or oxygen, there is no stick big enough to cajole them into giving it up.

So the next best thing would be to get a constitutional amendment forcing the President Elect to BOTH win the majority of the Electoral College (currently at 270 votes) and the plurality of the popular vote.

What do you think about that?

Not much! If both goals were not met, we would have to pay for another election or three.

A constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections.
6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and
6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
- NationalPopularVote.com

 

[Skylar]

National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

If the states have selected a different method than the one mandated in the 'National Popular Vote' bill, then yes....it does make constitutional changes. As the authority to determine the method of elector selection belongs exclusively to the state. It can't be dictated by a national bill.

 

[mvymvy]

Eliminating the electoral college would mean that New York, LA, and the rest of the big cities would elect every president. The interests of the rest of the country would be ignored. This country is a lot more than big cities.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.

Yeah, but it strips the state of control of the method of selection of electors. Something a bill couldn't do. You'd have to have a constitutional amendment to make such a change.

National Popular Vote IS state control of the method of selection of electors!

You're replacing the State's method with that of the bill. You said so right here:

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

If you're replacing the State's system, you're taking that authority away from the States. And the States can use any method of selecting electors as they wish per the constitution. You're proposing replacing the method selected by the state with the method mandated by the National Popular Vote Bill.

That's a procedural change constitutionally. A bill can't do that.

OF COURSE states can and have made changes without constitutional amendments.

But this isn't a change made by the state. This is a change imposed upon the State on a power that by your own admission the state holds exclusive power over. That would require a constitutional amendment.

National Popular Vote is a change made by the state.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

If the states have selected a different method than the one mandated in the 'National Popular Vote' bill, then yes....it does make constitutional changes. As the authority to determine the method of elector selection belongs exclusively to the state. It can't be dictated by a national bill.

This is true; the federal governmebt cannot pass this into law.
The states, however, can agree to do it themselves..

 

[mvymvy]

National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

If the states have selected a different method than the one mandated in the 'National Popular Vote' bill, then yes....it does make constitutional changes. As the authority to determine the method of elector selection belongs exclusively to the state. It can't be dictated by a national bill.

National Popular Vote is a state bill.

The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

States not enacting the bill can use whatever method they like.

 

[Skylar]

National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

If the states have selected a different method than the one mandated in the 'National Popular Vote' bill, then yes....it does make constitutional changes. As the authority to determine the method of elector selection belongs exclusively to the state. It can't be dictated by a national bill.

This is true; the federal governmebt cannot pass this into law.
The states, however, can agree to do it themselves..

50 of 50 times?

Good luck.

 

[mvymvy]

National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

If the states have selected a different method than the one mandated in the 'National Popular Vote' bill, then yes....it does make constitutional changes. As the authority to determine the method of elector selection belongs exclusively to the state. It can't be dictated by a national bill.

This is true; the federal governmebt cannot pass this into law.
The states, however, can agree to do it themselves..

50 of 50 times?

Good luck.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538).

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

 

[Skylar]

National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

If the states have selected a different method than the one mandated in the 'National Popular Vote' bill, then yes....it does make constitutional changes. As the authority to determine the method of elector selection belongs exclusively to the state. It can't be dictated by a national bill.

National Popular Vote is a state bill.

A 'national' state bill? That makes as much sense as a 'World Series' that involves only the US. A state bill wouldn't be national, by definition. As it doesn't apply nationally but only to the state that passes it.

And you'll have a hard time convincing 50 of 50 states to cede power to the same bill.

 

[M14 Shooter]

National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

If the states have selected a different method than the one mandated in the 'National Popular Vote' bill, then yes....it does make constitutional changes. As the authority to determine the method of elector selection belongs exclusively to the state. It can't be dictated by a national bill.

This is true; the federal governmebt cannot pass this into law.
The states, however, can agree to do it themselves..

50 of 50 times?
Good luck.

As the entire idea is based on a false premise, I don't see it happening -- just saying that the states -can- choose to adopt this method for choosing their electors.

 

[candycorn]

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island conducted popular elections for Governor. If popular election of a state’s chief executive meant that these four states were not a “republic,” then all four would have been in immediate violation of the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”). If the states were not “republics,” the delegates from these four states would not have voted for the Constitution at the Convention and these four states would never have ratified the Constitution.

Madison’s definition of a “republic” in Federalist No. 14: “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” Also Federalist No. 10.

The United States would be neither more nor less a “republic” if its chief executive is elected under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state), under a district system (such as used by Maine and Nebraska), or under the proposed national popular vote system (in which the winner would be the candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia).

No one ever said the EC 'makes' the United States a Constitutional Republic; the United States is a Constitutional Republic because that was the Framers' intent, to wisely eschew a direct democracy and referenda and opt for representative democracy where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...” Article VI, Section 4, US Constitution.

The EC, therefore, reflects the Framers' intent to create a Republic, where the EC is consistent with a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Wow, this is very coherent and well-stated.

Did someone hack your account?

no it isnt...California is way way more equal than the rest based on the way things are done....and the small eastern states have relatively too much power also...it means the fly-over states get screwed.

And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?

The EC does not ensure the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

Let me ask you something. What is the goal of the "National Popular Vote" organization....not from the webpage but in your own words please.

 

[mvymvy]

Well, I guess you'd have to ask if you think direct election of senators was a good idea. Or if the State's electing them was better. If you think direct election of senators was the way to go, then fuck the electoral college. If you thought the States were foolish to give up that authority, then stick with it.

He said major topics, not politicians.

I'm directly addressing the topics. The electoral college is an expression of State power. The State legislatures used to select their electors directly. Just as they use do elect senators directly. They've given up the power to elect senators to the people. If you like the consequences of the states ceding power to the electorate, then it would make sense to continue this trend with more of the same: getting rid of the electoral college. As its an expression of state power.

If however you don't think the state ceding power to the electorate is a good idea, or you haven't liked the consequences of it so far......you may want to avoid doing more of the same by getting rid of the electoral college.

This has nothing to do with 'politicians'. But state power.

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states’ votes were conceded by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It again changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

 

[mvymvy]

No one ever said the EC 'makes' the United States a Constitutional Republic; the United States is a Constitutional Republic because that was the Framers' intent, to wisely eschew a direct democracy and referenda and opt for representative democracy where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...” Article VI, Section 4, US Constitution.

The EC, therefore, reflects the Framers' intent to create a Republic, where the EC is consistent with a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Wow, this is very coherent and well-stated.

Did someone hack your account?

no it isnt...California is way way more equal than the rest based on the way things are done....and the small eastern states have relatively too much power also...it means the fly-over states get screwed.

And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?

The EC does not ensure the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

Let me ask you something. What is the goal of the "National Popular Vote" organization....not from the webpage but in your own words please.

One Person, One Vote.
Every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
The candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every election in the country.

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

 

[mvymvy]

National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

If the states have selected a different method than the one mandated in the 'National Popular Vote' bill, then yes....it does make constitutional changes. As the authority to determine the method of elector selection belongs exclusively to the state. It can't be dictated by a national bill.

This is true; the federal governmebt cannot pass this into law.
The states, however, can agree to do it themselves..

50 of 50 times?
Good luck.

As the entire idea is based on a false premise, I don't see it happening -- just saying that the states -can- choose to adopt this method for choosing their electors.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

 

[Skylar]

National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

If the states have selected a different method than the one mandated in the 'National Popular Vote' bill, then yes....it does make constitutional changes. As the authority to determine the method of elector selection belongs exclusively to the state. It can't be dictated by a national bill.

This is true; the federal governmebt cannot pass this into law.
The states, however, can agree to do it themselves..

50 of 50 times?

Good luck.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538).

What do you mean by 'take effect'? It clearly wouldn't apply to any state that doesn't pass it. Which means that you'd have a mishmash of different standard. Exactly like we do right now.

And currently there are only 165 electors that have voted this in. Most left leaning states, and most in response to the 2000 election. The states that wanted it have passed it. And there's little indication of its approval in other states.

Though I agree, if it passed a sufficient number of state legislatures it would have the effect you've described. And would be completely constitutional. With the understanding that the State legislatures could simply change their mind at any time before the electors are actually seated. It would thus be a non-binding agreement. As there is no constitutional authority for any state to enforce the compact upon another.

 

[M14 Shooter]

National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

If the states have selected a different method than the one mandated in the 'National Popular Vote' bill, then yes....it does make constitutional changes. As the authority to determine the method of elector selection belongs exclusively to the state. It can't be dictated by a national bill.

This is true; the federal governmebt cannot pass this into law.
The states, however, can agree to do it themselves..

50 of 50 times?
Good luck.

As the entire idea is based on a false premise, I don't see it happening -- just saying that the states -can- choose to adopt this method for choosing their electors.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

This is why I said the federal government cannot force the states to do this; that they each have to choose to do this on their own.

The entire idea is based on a false premise - funny how you refuse to address this.