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

[mvymvy]

What's the effect of this? Isn't it still winner of each state takes all the EV's. Now, in theory, the electors could be awarded to a candidate who didn't win the popular vote. In 2000, it's very possible Gore actually won the vote, but as matter of statistical probability it was a tie. Anyone want to doubt the Fla legislature wouldn't award the EVs to their governonr's big brother?

What I'd like to see is all states awarding EV's by proportion of vote, and no winner take all. but, perhaps I didn't understand the proposal in this.

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.

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. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.

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."

A fuller response about proportional method issues has already been posted.

The proportional method could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide.

If the whole-number proportional approach, the only proportional option available to an individual state on its own, had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every voter equal.

It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

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]

The electoral college functions way differently than it did at the country's founding. We didnt have the mass media then as we do now and there was more regionalism...instead of the mass advertising we have now(and the massive amounts of money and fundraising that requires).......

That being said, eliminating it would create chaos...imagine a Florida style vote count snafu, only involving 10 or 15 states....or 50. Or the tragedy that such a large count would hide any such voting irregularities.

National Popular Vote does not eliminate the Electoral College.

States enacting National Popular Vote replace their state or district winner-take-all laws to guarantee every vote, everywhere, in every election matters to the candidates, is equal and counts, and the candidate with the most votes in the country wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

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 current state-by-state winner-take-all system has been a constant source of “chaos, litigation and confusion.” In the current system, there are 51 separate opportunities for recounts in every presidential election. Recounts would be far less likely in a National Popular Vote system than in the current system. In the United States' 57 total presidential elections, there have been 5 litigated state counts which were totally unnecessary and an artificial crisis created by the current state-by-state winner-take-all system. Based on U.S. election history, a national popular vote would reduce the probability of a recount to once in 640 years.

 

[mvymvy]

EVERYONE is trying to game the system for their party's advantage.

From 1932-2008 the combined popular vote for Presidential candidates added up to Democrats: 745,407,082 and Republican: 745,297,123 — a virtual tie. Republicans have done very well in the national popular vote.

The National Popular Vote plan is the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the National Popular Vote plan would not help either party over the other. - Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee

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 virtually every state surveyed in recent polls.

By state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:

Alaska (3)- 78% among (Democrats), 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
Arkansas (6)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 79% (Independents).
Arizona - 60% (R), 79% (D), and 57% others
California (55)– 76% (D), 61% (R), and 74% (I)
Colorado (9)- 79% (D), 56% (R), and 70% (I).
Connecticut (7)- 80% (D), 67% (R), and 71% others
Delaware (3)- 79% (D), 69% (R), and 76% (I)
District of Columbia (3)- 80% (D), 48% (R), and 74% of (I)
Florida (29)- 88% (D), 68% (R), and 76% others
Idaho(4) - 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Iowa (6)- 82% (D), 63% (R), and 77% others
Kentucky (8)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 70% (I)
Maine (4) - 85% (D), 70% (R), and 73% others
Massachusetts (11)- 86% (D), 54% (R), and 68% others
Michigan (16)- 78% (D), 68% (R), and 73% (I)
Minnesota (10)- 84% (D), 69% (R), and 68% others
Mississippi (6)- 79% (D), 75% (R), and 75% Others
Montana – 67% (R), 80% (D), and 70% others
Nebraska (5)- 79% (D), 70% (R), and 75% Others
Nevada (5)- 80% (D), 66% (R), and 68% Others
New Hampshire (4)- 80% (D), 57% (R), and 69% (I)
New Mexico (5)- 84% (D), 64% (R), and 68% (I)
New York (29) - 86% (D), 66% (R), 78% Independence Party members, 50% Conservative Party members, 100% Working Families Party members, and 70% Others
North Carolina (15)- 75% liberal (D), 78% moderate (D), 76% conservative (D), 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), and 80% (I)
Ohio (18)- 81% (D), 65% (R), and 61% Others
Oklahoma (7)- 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Oregon (7)- 82% (D), 70% (R), and 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20)- 87% (D), 68% (R), and 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4)- 86% liberal (D), 85% moderate (D), 60% conservative (D), 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), and 78% (I),
South Carolina - 64% (R), 81% (D), and 68% others
South Dakota (3)- 84% (D), 67% (R), and 75% others
Tennessee 73% (R), 78% (D)
Utah (6)- 82% (D), 66% (R), and 75% others
Vermont (3)- 86% (D); 61% (R), and 74% Others
Virginia (13)- 79% liberal (D), 86% moderate (D), 79% conservative (D), 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), and 54% conservative (R), and 79% Others
Washington (12)- 88% (D), 65% (R), and 73% others
West Virginia (5)- 87% (D), 75% (R), and 73% others
Wisconsin (10)- 81% (D), 63% (R), and 67% (I)
Wyoming (3) – 77% (D), 66% (R), and 72% (I)
NationalPopularVote

 

[mvymvy]

No one is saying that the GOP cannot win the popular vote. What I'm saying is their is a foul ODOR anytime the Blue States try to change the rules.

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28–18 margin.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers, in 22 rural, small, medium-small, medium, and large population states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. -- NationalPopularVote

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressmen John Buchanan (R–Alabama), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).

Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)

The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson, supports NPV.

Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State

Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:"A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College."

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote" .:: Every Vote Equal ::. include:

Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

Dean Murray was a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

 

[peach174]

It's so hilarious, the right wing crazies want to repeal the 17th so they can load the senate full of GOP senators, but are against going to a popular vote for president cause they think they can't win the popular vote.

Getting rid of the 17th that the lefty Progressives put in and having the Senators representing their States rather than their party. That was the original reason for having the States elect their Senators.
Progressives changed it so that they had the advantage of their political ideology and party.
Getting rid of bad progressive policies is good.
Now the progressives want to complete it with getting rid of the electoral collage that represent all of the people not just the majority.
You need to start thinking in terms of completely changing the Constitution over long periods of time, so that the people can't put it all together, unless they really study and know U. S .History, which many don't do.
In 1913 Progressives changed the meaning of how our Senate was suppose to work.
Now 101 years later they are completing it by wanting to change it to the popular vote.
It's all for their political ideology and advantages by (getting rid of conservative votes in rural areas) and not for the people, by the people. Where all are represented.

 

[The T]

It's so hilarious, the right wing crazies want to repeal the 17th so they can load the senate full of GOP senators, but are against going to a popular vote for president cause they think they can't win the popular vote.

Getting rid of the 17th that the lefty Progressives put in and having the Senators representing their States rather than their party. That was the original reason for having the States elect their Senators.
Progressives changed it so that they had the advantage of their political ideology and party.
Getting rid of bad progressive policies is good.
Now the progressives want to complete it with getting rid of the electoral collage that represent all of the people not just the majority.
You need to start thinking in terms of completely changing the Constitution over long periods of time, so that the people can't put it all together, unless they really study and know U. S .History, which many don't do.
In 1913 Progressives changed the meaning of how our Senate was suppose to work.
Now 101 years later they are completing it by wanting to change it to the popular vote.
It's all for their political ideology and advantages by (getting rid of conservative votes in rural areas) and not for the people, by the people. Where all are represented.

And it's ALL for tyranny, and the DEATH of Liberty. These assholes have a giant fight on their hands.

 

[Erand7899]

What does having California and New York in the Dem column have anything to do with the GOP winning the popular vote?

The EC was supposed to be an equalizer on the voice of smaller populated states, yet it the number of votes per state are based on population anyway. Yet I do believe it allows the voice of the smaller states to have more of an impact than it would by switching to a popular vote completely.

Either way, the large populated States rule the roost either way, which is exactly why the Founding Fathers created the Senate, which was supposed to be the voice of the State legislatures, but Wilson ensured that ended.

The Senate still undeniably favors small states, the 17th did nothing to affect how many Senators small states get. It just took away the state legislature's ability to hand out senate seats as party favors. That has nothing to do with how much of a voice small states get in the Senate.

The HOR is also tilted to favor small states, but to a much smaller margin. Basically the biggest five states lose seats to the smaller 3-4 rep states.

Ignorance is the biggest argument against pure democracy. Obviously, none of you have ever wondered why we have both a senate and a house of representatives? Legislation would be a whole lot easier with just one legislative body.

The senate was established to represent the views of the state legislatures. Consequently, the design included the concept that the state legislatures would select the senators. It had nothing to do with handing out political favors.

Ignorance, coupled with a whole lot of false propaganda got both the 16th and 17th amendments ratified, and ignorance of the destruction those amendments have had on our federal government still exists today.

Liberal/socialists continually rail against the corruption in the federal government and rail against the monied interests having too much control of our federa government, yet they fail to recognize that this was all brought about by the 16th and 17th amendments.

If a movement existed, today, to repeal either or both the 16th and 17th amendments, guess where the bulk of the opposition would come from? Washington DC and the monied interests who benefit from the current system.

 

[Nyvin]

It's so hilarious, the right wing crazies want to repeal the 17th so they can load the senate full of GOP senators, but are against going to a popular vote for president cause they think they can't win the popular vote.

Getting rid of the 17th that the lefty Progressives put in and having the Senators representing their States rather than their party. That was the original reason for having the States elect their Senators.
Progressives changed it so that they had the advantage of their political ideology and party.
Getting rid of bad progressive policies is good.
Now the progressives want to complete it with getting rid of the electoral collage that represent all of the people not just the majority.
You need to start thinking in terms of completely changing the Constitution over long periods of time, so that the people can't put it all together, unless they really study and know U. S .History, which many don't do.
In 1913 Progressives changed the meaning of how our Senate was suppose to work.
Now 101 years later they are completing it by wanting to change it to the popular vote.
It's all for their political ideology and advantages by (getting rid of conservative votes in rural areas) and not for the people, by the people. Where all are represented.

What is inherently wrong with a candidate who won the national popular vote being elected president?

 

[dcraelin]

The electoral college functions way differently than it did at the country's founding. We didnt have the mass media then as we do now and there was more regionalism...instead of the mass advertising we have now(and the massive amounts of money and fundraising that requires).......
That being said, eliminating it would create chaos...imagine a Florida style vote count snafu, only involving 10 or 15 states....or 50. Or the tragedy that such a large count would hide any such voting irregularities.

National Popular Vote does not eliminate the Electoral College.

That is essentially the effect it would have, tho it would not change that part of constitution.

States enacting National Popular Vote replace their state or district winner-take-all laws to guarantee every vote, everywhere, in every election matters to the candidates, is equal and counts, and the candidate with the most votes in the country wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
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.

It very well needs to be considered. If a vote is close states allow for taxpayer paid recounts. There are also provisions for other recounts if candidates pay for them. This is a policing mechanism that the National Popular vote proposal overlooks, as far as I can tell anyway.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system has been a constant source of “chaos, litigation and confusion.” In the current system, there are 51 separate opportunities for recounts in every presidential election. Recounts would be far less likely in a National Popular Vote system than in the current system. In the United States' 57 total presidential elections, there have been 5 litigated state counts which were totally unnecessary and an artificial crisis created by the current state-by-state winner-take-all system. Based on U.S. election history, a national popular vote would reduce the probability of a recount to once in 640 years.

Yes and those recounts assure a fair count. Lesser recounts is NOT a good thing.

The EC was supposed to be an equalizer on the voice of smaller populated states, yet it the number of votes per state are based on population anyway. Yet I do believe it allows the voice of the smaller states to have more of an impact than it would by switching to a popular vote completely.

Either way, the large populated States rule the roost either way, which is exactly why the Founding Fathers created the Senate, which was supposed to be the voice of the State legislatures, but Wilson ensured that ended.

The Senate still undeniably favors small states, the 17th did nothing to affect how many Senators small states get. It just took away the state legislature's ability to hand out senate seats as party favors. That has nothing to do with how much of a voice small states get in the Senate.

The HOR is also tilted to favor small states, but to a much smaller margin. Basically the biggest five states lose seats to the smaller 3-4 rep states.

Ignorance is the biggest argument against pure democracy. Obviously, none of you have ever wondered why we have both a senate and a house of representatives? Legislation would be a whole lot easier with just one legislative body.

I agree with you on that statement. Benjamin Franklin wanted only a one-house legislature and he also wanted an executive council instead of a president.

The senate was established to represent the views of the state legislatures. Consequently, the design included the concept that the state legislatures would select the senators. It had nothing to do with handing out political favors.

Ignorance, coupled with a whole lot of false propaganda got both the 16th and 17th amendments ratified, and ignorance of the destruction those amendments have had on our federal government still exists today.

Liberal/socialists continually rail against the corruption in the federal government and rail against the monied interests having too much control of our federa government, yet they fail to recognize that this was all brought about by the 16th and 17th amendments.

If a movement existed, today, to repeal either or both the 16th and 17th amendments, guess where the bulk of the opposition would come from? Washington DC and the monied interests who benefit from the current system.

The 17th I think did have a modest, perhaps temporary, beneficial effect against corruption. Repealing it would not improve the situation. Your arguments on this tho probably do show it would be legal to restrict donations to Senators to those coming from in-state residents only.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you want to change the Constitution, then get your votes together and amend it. I don't support an end-run around the Constitution.

Secondly, our electoral system has produced 225 years of peaceful transitions of power (save one). Tread very carefully before you start messing with it.

That's MHO

 

[mvymvy]

If you want to change the Constitution, then get your votes together and amend it. I don't support an end-run around the Constitution.

Secondly, our electoral system has produced 225 years of peaceful transitions of power (save one).

National Popular Vote does not change the Constitution.

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

The current statewide winner-take-all rule (used by 48 of the 50 states) is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founders’ choice (having been used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789). It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, and it was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. ) 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 Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became prevalent.

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 virtually every state surveyed in recent polls

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

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

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

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), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

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

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would 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 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.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Again - lot of words that all boil down to an end-run around the Constitution by eliminating the impact of the EC. "Oh we aren't doing away with it ..." Nope - just undoing it's impact.

Don't be lazy. Don't be dishonest. Get your votes together and amend the Constitution.

 

[mvymvy]

NPV will resolve the problems it’s intended to resolve – it will ensure that every voter is equal, and politically relevant to the candidates, everywhere, in every presidential election, and the candidate who received the most popular votes will become president.

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

National Popular Vote has proposed an effective federal recount law for presidential elections in Chapter 9, Section 9.15.7 of "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote."

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states.

 

[mvymvy]

Again - lot of words that all boil down to an end-run around the Constitution by eliminating the impact of the EC. "Oh we aren't doing away with it ..." Nope - just undoing it's impact.

Don't be lazy. Don't be dishonest. Get your votes together and amend the Constitution.

It was not lazy and dishonest for states to make the major changes in the method of electing the President that have come about by state legislative action.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

The NPV states . . . 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.

 

[bendog]

First, this would only have affected four elections in history. One was the infamous corrupt bargain in which there were four candidates who attracted sizeable votes, and frankly this would have probably helped the country, given the divide the bargain between Adams and Clay. The second in 1876 was an historical oddity in that a dem won the popular vote after the civil war (or War of Northern Aggression as we more properly refer to the dispute). 1888 is more well known as Grover Cleveland lost the EV, but came back to win four years later, becoming the only two termer without consecutive terms.

And that brings us to Bush v. Gore.

Second, I don't buy at all the notion that this somehow diminishes the rural vote. If you're a dem in Utah is sucks no less or more than if you're a goper in NJ. If anything increases voter participation, who could logically be against it?

 

[Pop23]

Yep. The flyover doesn't matter a damn, it never did.

Eat much?

Do you think they will all become iPhone coders? Not concerned since there is no reason to be.

We can import but they can't export. See how that works?

Food, the ultimate power. You don't import unless we choose to export. See how that works. 30 days, 60 tops, the cities are emptying for the places with the food.

 

[mvymvy]

Food, the ultimate power. You don't import unless we choose to export. See how that works. 30 days, 60 tops, the cities are emptying for the places with the food.

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%.

Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S, Total Agricultural Receipts Ranked by State from StuffAboutStates.com which were surveyed recently, support for a national popular vote was CA - 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA - 75%, NE - 67%, MN - 75%, IL (enacted), NC - 74%, WI - 71%, and FL - 78%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

Hey, SCOTUS Said

 

[Spoonman]

if nothing else candidates could get a percent of the EC vote based on the percent of the popular vote they get in those states. the system today isn't working. it actually stiffles peoples will to vote. many peopel say, why bother, my state is going red of blue regardless of my votes. and thats true. for example NY will go blue. so a conservative voter will say why should i even bother? same with texas for a liberal voter. we need a system where every vote counts. today, votes only matter in the swing states.

 

[bendog]

Again - lot of words that all boil down to an end-run around the Constitution by eliminating the impact of the EC. "Oh we aren't doing away with it ..." Nope - just undoing it's impact.

Don't be lazy. Don't be dishonest. Get your votes together and amend the Constitution.

I can't totally agree. I don't think one can assume the founders foresaw a well entrenched two party system. Washington certainly decried it. Further, the constitution leaves it up to the states to elect their electors as they see fit. So, I don't see how it could be unconstitutional.