Electoral College. Just why?

[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Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country?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.

Because we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy - and thankfully so.

Because the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government.

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).

 

[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.

It isn't ever going away, so just learn to live with it.

National Popular Vote lives with the Electoral College.

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.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

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.

NationalPopularVote.com

 

[mvymvy]

Another product of our failed education system. Another American who is clueless about his own country's founding principles.

Why the electoral college? So that we don't become a mobocracy. So that presidential candidates don't spend all their time and resources in heavily populated areas. So that people who live in less populated areas don't become irrelevant in the election process.

This may come as a shock to you, but the last thing the founding fathers wanted was pure majority rule. They knew from their extensive study of history that the majority can be just as tyrannical as a king. They also knew that dictators often come to power by appealing to the ignorant masses with promises of getting other people's money.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

Analysts already say that only the same 7 or 8 states will matter in the 2016 presidential general election. -- Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

Where you live determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.

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), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.

10 of the original 13 states are ignored now.

80% of states are 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.

Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election.

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual.

About 80% of the country was ignored --including 24 of the 27 lowest population and medium-small states, and 13 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

mikegriffiths is proof that a clock is accurate twice a day.

 

[mvymvy]

Doing it by district (representatives) and state (senators) winners would reflect the people, demography, and geography better, in my opinion. Pure vote is not what the Founders would recommend, though that is not really important to me.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson argued that Virginia should switch from its then-existing district system of electing presidential electors.

Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts. In 2012, the Democratic candidate would have needed to win the national popular vote by more than 7 percentage points in order to win the barest majority of congressional districts.In 2014, Democrats would have needed to win the national popular vote by a margin of about nine percentage points in order to win a majority of districts.

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Nationwide, there are now only 35 "battleground" districts that were competitive in the 2012 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 92% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any district or state or throughout the country.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

 

[mvymvy]

Those who don't get the EC do not understand American history or the Constitution.

Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 80% of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.

Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

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

With National Popular Vote, with every voter equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.

Wrong it is in the Constitution and the 12th Amendment
The method for selecting the President of the United States is laid out in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Two amendments also deal with the Electoral College; the 12th in 1804- the person having the greatest number of votes, which fixed an embarrassing flaw in the original Constitution that had allowed Thomas Jefferson to tie in the College with his running mate, Aaron Burr, and the 23rd Amendment, which gives Washington D.C. electoral votes (three, the same as the least populous state, Wyoming).

Most of the founders was still alive in 1804.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President,

If this is not winner take all then I don't know what is and was done in 1804.

Amendment 12 is NOT describing the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.
The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

Amendment 12 is saying the winner of the majority of Electoral College votes, from among all the states, is the winner of the Presidency. That would be the case with the National Popular Vote bill, too.

 

[mvymvy]

Yes, but the electoral college does not have to follow the popular vote.....

Correct.

Bingo, we have a winner.

There is absolutely no directive in the US Constitution where it is written that the electors of any given state must cast their elector-ballots based on the popular vote results of their state. But the tradition, a good one, I might add, has been so strong since it started in part of the country in 1824, that I doubt that any state would ever try to go against it.

That Elector would come up dead if he voted for anybody other than the one who won the popular vote IN THAT STATE.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2

NationalPopularVote.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

dimocraps are some stupid motherfuckers

period

Given this and all your other posts, you're in no position to call anyone 'stupid.'

 

[mvymvy]

Since the idea of electing a presidential ticket per electors is enshrined in the US Constitution, the only way to get rid of it is either per amendment, or a brand new Constitution per Constitutional Convention.

The interstate compact is the best idea out there to neutralize the EC without having to actually undo it per amendment.

I am not for abolishing the EC, but I am for mending it.

And were the USA to some day decide to do away with the EC, then I would hope they would use an electoral jungle system like, Louisiana's, where if on election night, the winner doesn't get to 50% +1 vote, then a runoff between the top-two vote getters would be mandated. In this way, the winner would always end up with a clear majority.

Never mind a liberal state can drop out of the compact if a conservative looks like they could win. Another bullshit run around the constitution. Even a democrat governor said "fuck you" when they tried to pass that in Iowa.

Uhm, no. Your facts are not in order.

I covered all of this about 17 months ago:

Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(posting no. 3 pertains to the Presidency)

. I don't give a shit what you say, a liberal state can opt out of the compact if a conservative looks like they could win the EC votes. I read the Bill being considered.

The National Popular Vote bill says: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."


This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”

In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”

The important point is that an interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

 

[westwall]

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.

To make it as hard as possible for a wealthy ruling elite to take over this country. That's why.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Then you just might as well go to popular vote.

Well, no.

The small states like colloquially Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, all the way up to Virginia, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina like having the candidates campaign there. It means revenue for their media outlets, hotels, restaurants, etc... and attention for their issues. There is no way they are going to give that up so it's not even worth having the conversation.
.

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, 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.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

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

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

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.

NationalPopularVote.com

I think the Electoral College is the poster boy for what the founders got wrong. Its an incredibly anti-democratic system that long outlived it's usefulness when voting was done by sharpened lead instrument and counting was done by people in powdered wigs.

I'm just telling you that the small states will never go for a change in the system and, regardless of what they tell you in some polling, the Democrats love going into the contests with such massive advantages.

It's sort of the karmic outcome of our founders. Today's GOP got the antiquated second Amendment (the founders never envisioned guns that could kill so efficiently) and the Democrats got the Electoral College. Its strange how neither party thought to ensure privacy. Different times I suppose.

 

[mvymvy]

At the time of the founding the discrepancies in the electoral college were not so stark, that is, there were not such differences in population, The problem isnt the electoral college really its the winner take all that gives all the electoral votes from one state to the winner.

A national popular vote would be subject to real chaos if there was a close vote and the desire for a recount. Plus I think there are legal problems with the National Popular Vote idea.

The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

No recount, much less a nationwide recount, would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 57 presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state by-state winner-take-all methods.

The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

 

[mvymvy]

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?

Then you just might as well go to popular vote.

Well, no.

The small states like colloquially Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, all the way up to Virginia, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina like having the candidates campaign there. It means revenue for their media outlets, hotels, restaurants, etc... and attention for their issues. There is no way they are going to give that up so it's not even worth having the conversation.
.

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, 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.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

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

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

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.

NationalPopularVote.com

I think the Electoral College is the poster boy for what the founders got wrong. Its an incredibly anti-democratic system that long outlived it's usefulness when voting was done by sharpened lead instrument and counting was done by people in powdered wigs.

I'm just telling you that the small states will never go for a change in the system and, regardless of what they tell you in some polling, the Democrats love going into the contests with such massive advantages.

It's sort of the karmic outcome of our founders. Today's GOP got the antiquated second Amendment (the founders never envisioned guns that could kill so efficiently) and the Democrats got the Electoral College. Its strange how neither party thought to ensure privacy. Different times I suppose.

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

 

[candycorn]

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?

Then you just might as well go to popular vote.

Well, no.

The small states like colloquially Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, all the way up to Virginia, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina like having the candidates campaign there. It means revenue for their media outlets, hotels, restaurants, etc... and attention for their issues. There is no way they are going to give that up so it's not even worth having the conversation.
.

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, 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.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

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

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

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.

NationalPopularVote.com

I think the Electoral College is the poster boy for what the founders got wrong. Its an incredibly anti-democratic system that long outlived it's usefulness when voting was done by sharpened lead instrument and counting was done by people in powdered wigs.

I'm just telling you that the small states will never go for a change in the system and, regardless of what they tell you in some polling, the Democrats love going into the contests with such massive advantages.

It's sort of the karmic outcome of our founders. Today's GOP got the antiquated second Amendment (the founders never envisioned guns that could kill so efficiently) and the Democrats got the Electoral College. Its strange how neither party thought to ensure privacy. Different times I suppose.

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

Really? So this is the law in nine states or four states? As far as I know, only two states (NE and ME) use proportional awarding of electoral votes.

Please enlighten me.

 

[Statistikhengst]

.....With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

Correct, but statistically very unlikely:

1.) CA 55
2.) TX 38
3.) NY 29
4.) FL 29 (subtotal: 151)
5.) IL 20
6.) PA 20
7.) OH 18
8.) MI 16
9.)GA 16 (subtotal: 241)
10.) NC 15
11.) NJ 14 (subtotal: 270)

However, this statement would not be true:

"containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!"

For even if this were the scenario, in the 39 states plus DC that that candidate would have lost, he or she would still have gotten votes.

In 2008, Obama won 9 of those 11 states. In 2012, he won 8 of them. He who wins the majority of the big 10 has the far better chances of winning the WH, plain and simple. Win big where the majority of people live.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Then you just might as well go to popular vote.

Well, no.

The small states like colloquially Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, all the way up to Virginia, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina like having the candidates campaign there. It means revenue for their media outlets, hotels, restaurants, etc... and attention for their issues. There is no way they are going to give that up so it's not even worth having the conversation.
.

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, 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.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

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

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

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.

NationalPopularVote.com

I think the Electoral College is the poster boy for what the founders got wrong. Its an incredibly anti-democratic system that long outlived it's usefulness when voting was done by sharpened lead instrument and counting was done by people in powdered wigs.

I'm just telling you that the small states will never go for a change in the system and, regardless of what they tell you in some polling, the Democrats love going into the contests with such massive advantages.

It's sort of the karmic outcome of our founders. Today's GOP got the antiquated second Amendment (the founders never envisioned guns that could kill so efficiently) and the Democrats got the Electoral College. Its strange how neither party thought to ensure privacy. Different times I suppose.

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

Really? So this is the law in nine states or four states? As far as I know, only two states (NE and ME) use proportional awarding of electoral votes.

Please enlighten me.

Correct: ME and NE do elector-splitting, per law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Because we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy - and thankfully so.

Because the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government.

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.

 

[candycorn]

It's basically every post you make:

"I'm smart and every one else is stupid."

mixed with....

"We're doomed."

It's a way the lesser lights among us claim to be intelligent but then offer excuses for being ineffective.

WOW .. another cute one .. you're good ..... a very quick mind ... I like that ..... yes, you're talented for sure.... Hey, just curious, can you dispute what I have said? Or, is throwing your cute little slams and slurs all you have?

Sure.

It's as simple as the elections we have every 2 years. The people elect the President and their representative. Candidates decide whether they get on the ballot; not the rich.

You abandoned the other thread when I kicked your ass on the subject--you remember.

Now your cartoonish fantasy about some rich guy picking your representative and them voting his whim is hilarious but it's still wrong.

Getting on the ballot and getting elected are two different animals. Nice try tho.

His point was that the rich decide who get on the ballot....I showed him otherwise and he abandoned the thread.

You showed me absolutely nothing, and I abandoned absolutely nothing. You have never disputed what I have said with any facts to back up your argument, never.

You no longer post on the thread....that equals abandonment.
I've shown you to either be woefully mis-informed or a liar when you say that the rich and the powerful pick who goes on the ballot. I'll point it out here once more:

This is a picture of the Florida Butterfly Ballot from 2000:

Your claim that the rich and the powerful appointed every name above is bizarre when you consider John Hagelin and Nate Goldhaber are on the ballot, that Monica Moore Head and Gloria La Riva are on the ballot, etc...

As for being childish, look in the mirror Sonny-boy. Your next post will be 4 paragraphs of either nuancing your position (i.e. moving the goal posts) or claiming that you have to be favored by the rich and famous to get on the ballot.

Here is a picture of the 2008 ballot used, apparently, in one Florida County:

Charles Jay and John Wayne Smith ring any bells? Didn't think so. And to show you it's not only a Florida thang...here is the ballot in Cali that features such luminaries as Cynthia McKinney, Thomas Hoefling, etc...

 

[candycorn]

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?

Duel when there is a tie?

No, the 12th Amenment takes over; House decides the President, Senate decides the Vice President.

 

[candycorn]

Well, no.

The small states like colloquially Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, all the way up to Virginia, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina like having the candidates campaign there. It means revenue for their media outlets, hotels, restaurants, etc... and attention for their issues. There is no way they are going to give that up so it's not even worth having the conversation.
.

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, 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.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

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

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

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.

NationalPopularVote.com

I think the Electoral College is the poster boy for what the founders got wrong. Its an incredibly anti-democratic system that long outlived it's usefulness when voting was done by sharpened lead instrument and counting was done by people in powdered wigs.

I'm just telling you that the small states will never go for a change in the system and, regardless of what they tell you in some polling, the Democrats love going into the contests with such massive advantages.

It's sort of the karmic outcome of our founders. Today's GOP got the antiquated second Amendment (the founders never envisioned guns that could kill so efficiently) and the Democrats got the Electoral College. Its strange how neither party thought to ensure privacy. Different times I suppose.

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

Really? So this is the law in nine states or four states? As far as I know, only two states (NE and ME) use proportional awarding of electoral votes.

Please enlighten me.

Correct: ME and NE do elector-splitting, per law.

Any idea what he was talking about?