'Hacking the Constitution': States Quietly Plan to Ditch Electoral College

[PaintMyHouse]

No but stupidity does which is what this idea is.

The president being elected by a popular vote is stupid? Interesting...

Yes, it is a stupid idea, because it completely ends the concept of soverign states. A concept that modern/liberal socialists have never really understood. We are not a nation with 50 political sub-divisions, we are 50 soverign states united to form a union that benefits all.

We fight wars as one nation, we bury our dead soldiers under one flag, we travel the world using one passport, we think of our people killed or imprisoned in foreign lands as Americans above all else, and we elected one President to lead the nation. There's a not a reason in the world why the President shouldn't be elected by popular vote.

 

[Erand7899]

Stirewalt pointed out that this plan is part of a larger trend on the part of "frustrated" liberals who haven't been able to bring about the changes they want.

Ignorant partisan nonsense.

Having won four of the last six presidential elections, ‘liberals’ aren’t ‘frustrated’ about anything.

He has a point. Bush being elected by the Supreme Court once and the people a second time still pisses me off.

If you were not so ignorant about the Constitution, you would know that Bush was going to become the President regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled.

BTW, the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2, that the Florida recount was unconstitutional. That stopped the patently illegal recount. Then the Court ruled 5 to 4, that time had run out and the Florida Supreme Court did not have time to conduct a legal recount.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ignorant partisan nonsense.

Having won four of the last six presidential elections, ‘liberals’ aren’t ‘frustrated’ about anything.

He has a point. Bush being elected by the Supreme Court once and the people a second time still pisses me off.

If you were not so ignorant about the Constitution, you would know that Bush was going to become the President regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled.

BTW, the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2, that the Florida recount was unconstitutional. That stopped the patently illegal recount. Then the Court ruled 5 to 4, that time had run out and the Florida Supreme Court did not have time to conduct a legal recount.

Yes I know, the court gave him the election. He lost the Popular vote.

 

[Erand7899]

States Quietly Sign Onto Plan to Change Election System | Fox News Insider


Guess which party rules these states.

Rather than getting your talking points from FOX NEWS, why not debate the particulars? The reason given by Cuomo was that presidential candidates over-weight states with high population counts, or they just focus on the states "in play" while ignoring states with small electoral counts. With this law, they would be "aligning the Electoral College with the voice of the nation’s voters, we are ensuring the equality of votes and encouraging candidates to appeal to voters in all states, instead of disproportionately focusing on early contests and swing states."

You may ultimately decide that you disagree (I know I do), but it would be nice if for once people like you formulated thoughts and arguments on your own. Let's discuss all the details. Let's argue for/against every single reason these States are giving for seeking to legally change election law. Rather than just being a Republican lemming and repeating talking points, why not enlighten us about election law and the Constitution by citing actual statutes and actual language from the Constitution? Prove to us - just once - that you understand these issues rather than merely repeating the words of "Dear Leader".

Here is what I'm getting at. It's not clear that you are thinking for yourself. For instance, George Bush and the Republican Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling 4 times. Your side had 100% control over government and you raised the debt ceiling multiple times. But people like you didn't complain because you didn't know about it. You didn't know about it because FOX didn't cover it. This suggests that you are getting all your information - not just the data but the actual interpretation of the data - from a political movement, from government. This is not only scary, it is the greatest irony in the history of US politics.

You lost your argument with your last paragraph. You don't have the slightest idea of what people knew or did not know, or where they got their information from. All you do know is that people disagree with you, and since you are so brilliant, they can only disagree with you out of ignorance or misinformation. What a smuck!

Individual states legislatures have the right and the responsibility to determine how their state's slate of electors is selected. They also have the right to determine how those electors are allocated. However, this all has to take place before the election takes place. Individual states do not have the authority to change the process during or after the election.

If the state of New York decides to allocate their electors in accordance with the popular vote in New York state, they can do so, but then they dilute the impact their vote has on the election. New York usually puts forth about 29 electoral votes for the Democrat candidate. If New York allocates those electors, then a sizable portion of those electors would have to vote Republican.

 

[rightwinger]

States Quietly Sign Onto Plan to Change Election System | Fox News Insider


Guess which party rules these states.

Rather than getting your talking points from FOX NEWS, why not debate the particulars? The reason given by Cuomo was that presidential candidates over-weight states with high population counts, or they just focus on the states "in play" while ignoring states with small electoral counts. With this law, they would be "aligning the Electoral College with the voice of the nation’s voters, we are ensuring the equality of votes and encouraging candidates to appeal to voters in all states, instead of disproportionately focusing on early contests and swing states."

You may ultimately decide that you disagree (I know I do), but it would be nice if for once people like you formulated thoughts and arguments on your own. Let's discuss all the details. Let's argue for/against every single reason these States are giving for seeking to legally change election law. Rather than just being a Republican lemming and repeating talking points, why not enlighten us about election law and the Constitution by citing actual statutes and actual language from the Constitution? Prove to us - just once - that you understand these issues rather than merely repeating the words of "Dear Leader".

Here is what I'm getting at. It's not clear that you are thinking for yourself. For instance, George Bush and the Republican Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling 4 times. Your side had 100% control over government and you raised the debt ceiling multiple times. But people like you didn't complain because you didn't know about it. You didn't know about it because FOX didn't cover it. This suggests that you are getting all your information - not just the data but the actual interpretation of the data - from a political movement, from government. This is not only scary, it is the greatest irony in the history of US politics.

You lost your argument with your last paragraph. You don't have the slightest idea of what people knew or did not know, or where they got their information from. All you do know is that people disagree with you, and since you are so brilliant, they can only disagree with you out of ignorance or misinformation. What a smuck!

Individual states legislatures have the right and the responsibility to determine how their state's slate of electors is selected. They also have the right to determine how those electors are allocated. However, this all has to take place before the election takes place. Individual states do not have the authority to change the process during or after the election.

If the state of New York decides to allocate their electors in accordance with the popular vote in New York state, they can do so, but then they dilute the impact their vote has on the election. New York usually puts forth about 29 electoral votes for the Democrat candidate. If New York allocates those electors, then a sizable portion of those electors would have to vote Republican.

They are changing the process before the election

The process will be electors voting for who wins the US popular vote

 

[Erand7899]

That is putting it down to the individual, not the state.... big difference.. the state as an entity matters in a union of states

I know it does

And those states are deciding on how they want to distribute their electoral vote

If it is based on state results or results of counties or parishes within the state, I have no problem with it... if it is based on something OUTSIDE the state like the popular vote of the rest of the country, I have a problem with it

If all of the blue states go the route of the popular vote, and the red states hold to the winner take all formula, a Democrat will have a hard time getting elected.

 

[nodoginnafight]

States Quietly Sign Onto Plan to Change Election System | Fox News Insider


Guess which party rules these states.

Rather than getting your talking points from FOX NEWS, why not debate the particulars? The reason given by Cuomo was that presidential candidates over-weight states with high population counts, or they just focus on the states "in play" while ignoring states with small electoral counts. With this law, they would be "aligning the Electoral College with the voice of the nation’s voters, we are ensuring the equality of votes and encouraging candidates to appeal to voters in all states, instead of disproportionately focusing on early contests and swing states."

You may ultimately decide that you disagree (I know I do), but it would be nice if for once people like you formulated thoughts and arguments on your own. Let's discuss all the details. Let's argue for/against every single reason these States are giving for seeking to legally change election law. Rather than just being a Republican lemming and repeating talking points, why not enlighten us about election law and the Constitution by citing actual statutes and actual language from the Constitution? Prove to us - just once - that you understand these issues rather than merely repeating the words of "Dear Leader".

Here is what I'm getting at. It's not clear that you are thinking for yourself. For instance, George Bush and the Republican Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling 4 times. Your side had 100% control over government and you raised the debt ceiling multiple times. But people like you didn't complain because you didn't know about it. You didn't know about it because FOX didn't cover it. This suggests that you are getting all your information - not just the data but the actual interpretation of the data - from a political movement, from government. This is not only scary, it is the greatest irony in the history of US politics.

It is abundantly clear that there is an element of the far right that is being poorly served by their choice of information source(s).

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

He said the “plan is to subvert the will of the Constitution and the founders.”

Yeah the Founders thought the masses uneducated and unable to vote for their leaders....how elitist of them...

Well, since that's not the reason the Framers instituted the electoral college it would appear that you can't read . . . the history of your country.

 

[mvymvy]

Yes, it is a stupid idea, because it completely ends the concept of soverign states. A concept that modern/liberal socialists have never really understood. We are not a nation with 50 political sub-divisions, we are 50 soverign states united to form a union that benefits all.

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. The 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.

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. 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.

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.

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

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It 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 be included in the state counts and national count. 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 College 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.

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

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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."

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).

 

[nodoginnafight]

He said the “plan is to subvert the will of the Constitution and the founders.”

Yeah the Founders thought the masses uneducated and unable to vote for their leaders....how elitist of them...

Well, since that's not the reason the Framers instituted the electoral college it would appear that you can't read . . . the history of your country.

In the very first elections, wasn't it just property-owning men who could vote?

So much for the theory of the EC being a check against the "unwashed masses"

 

[mvymvy]

We are guaranteed a republican form of government not a democrat form of government.

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on 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.

 

[Navy1960]

President Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in his first inaugural address, “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."

The idea that a majority vote only would decide the outcome of the President would in fact go against the principles as stated above. It would lead to an election where a candidate would only have to campaign and and focus on the issues for specific areas of the country and neglect large parts of the nation as a whole simply based on the population.

 

[mvymvy]

This would swing power more towards a few states.
This isn't a good idea and should not see the light of day.
We have a balance now...leave it....

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered 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 should not determine 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.
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.
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.

80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

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.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

 

[emilynghiem]

States Quietly Sign Onto Plan to Change Election System | Fox News Insider


Guess which party rules these states.

Simple.

Just require Presidents to win BOTH the popular AND the electoral vote.
Then everyone is happy that their criteria are met. Require BOTH
to ENSURE the Candidate(s) represent the people on both counts.

NOTE: a better solution to stop the split between parties as 50/50 dividing the nation in half, is to nominate and elect candidates on mixed tickets representing more than just one party.

Only candidates who can successfully work with reps of diverse parties would get elected.

We need to start valuing those kind of abilities in leaders and candidates to represent the greater population, instead of just abusing elections, parties, office, govt and laws
to push one party agenda at the expense of all other people parties and interests.

 

[mvymvy]

If it is based on state results or results of counties or parishes within the state, I have no problem with it... if it is based on something OUTSIDE the state like the popular vote of the rest of the country, I have a problem with it

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The NPV states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
- Vikram David Amar - professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law (King Hall). Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.


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

 

[mvymvy]

2) Dropping the EC will hurt conservatives (that why Democrats are talking about wanting to do it). It's been spelled out pretty clearly here how the EC benefits the more rural voters. Those voters tend to vote conservative.

National Popular Vote does not "drop" the Electoral College.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%. - NationalPopularVote

The bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

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

 

[nodoginnafight]

2) Dropping the EC will hurt conservatives (that why Democrats are talking about wanting to do it). It's been spelled out pretty clearly here how the EC benefits the more rural voters. Those voters tend to vote conservative.

National Popular Vote does not "drop" the Electoral College.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%. - NationalPopularVote

The bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

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

There are a couple of purple states in your list.

But it's simple mathematics, winner-take-all and the proportional over-representation enhances the rural vote.

 

[mvymvy]

And the libs are accusing republicans of wanting to disenfranchise voters. This plan could disenfranchise whole states, not just individuals.

It has nothing to do with distrust for the masses.

The electoral college gives more weight to rural voters because throughout American history, rural Americans have feared that urban voters would railroad them.

That still holds true today.

With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of Americans live in rural areas. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

 

[mvymvy]

Considering that states with small populations would be basically ignored yes it is. I believe that was the reason for the electoral college.

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 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 campaigns and 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.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money 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. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

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%.

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 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!

 

[mvymvy]

The idea that a majority vote only would decide the outcome of the President would in fact go against the principles as stated above. It would lead to an election where a candidate would only have to campaign and and focus on the issues for specific areas of the country and neglect large parts of the nation as a whole simply based on the population.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012. Two-thirds of the general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).