How the electoral college ruins everything

[mvymvy]

You have 2 stocked lakes and 2 gals decide to have a fishing contest.

Lake one is 5 sq miles and has been stocked with 60,000 fish. Lake 2 is 500 sq miles and has 12,000 fish.

Now the gals decide that their friends want to take part so now each team has 2 boats. They can decide where to put the boats to be most effective. Since 5 out of every 6 fish are in lake one, lake two remains untouched. Besides, lake two has weeds, submerged hazards and a lot of places fish can't live and boats can't reach. Lake one is custom made for boats and fish are every where.

The gals would have to be idiots to waste one of their very two boats in the large lake where there are very few fish. As would any politician and her/his running mate's precious time in the less populated state.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. 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.

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

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).

There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.

With National Popular Vote, candidates would have a reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, and care about the voters in every state.

In a nationwide election for President, candidates would campaign everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas—in proportion to the number of votes, just as they now do in only the handful of battleground states.

In the 2012 general-election campaign

Florida (29 electoral votes) had 40 events
Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes) had 5
Michigan (16 electoral votes) had 1

Ohio (18 electoral votes) — had 73 (and a similar fraction of advertising expenditures).
The candidates campaigned in various parts of the state essentially in proportion to its population.

● The 4 biggest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Ohio have 53.9% of the state’s population and received 52.1% of the state’s 73 campaign events in 2012—slightly less than their share of the population (but very close to their percentage of the population). They voted 54% Democratic.

● The 7 medium-sized metro areas have 23.6% of the state’s population and received 23.3% of the campaign events—almost exactly in proportion of their population. They voted 52% Democratic.

● The 53 remaining counties (that is, the rural counties lying outside the state’s 11 MSAs) have 22% of the state’s population and received 25% of the campaign events—slightly more than their share of the population (but very close to their percentage of the population). They voted 58% Republican

In a nationwide election for President, candidates would campaign everywhere—small states, medium states, big states, big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas—in proportion to the number of votes, just as they now do in only the handful of battleground states.

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

 

[Flopper]

How long would small states be loyal to the United States if they never had a say in who would be President?

The current system may be slightly unfair to the large states, but the large states still have more power in the Electoral College than the small states.

The popular vote gives the same weight to everyone's vote; that is no vote is more important than any other vote regardless of what state the voter resides.

The Electoral College makes votes from some state more important because the ratio of voters to electors varies between states. However, that was not the major concern of the founders. They were simply afraid of the good old boys loosing control of the government. In those days, voters were basically older white male property holders. What might happen if a state gave non-property owners the right to vote, or young voters, or women, or god forbid blacks. The electoral college would help keep that state from electing a president.

If you want your vote for president to carry the most weight, then you should live in Wyoming where each elector is represented only 182,000 voters. Now if you really don't care how important your vote is for president, then you maybe should live in California where 692,000 voters are represented by just 1 elector. Thus the Wyoming voter's vote is 3.62 times as powerful as the Californian's vote.

List of U.S. states by population - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The guy is an idiot. He says small states have more voting power, and then uses Wyoming vs. California as an example.

When's the last time you heard of an election being decided by Wyoming? When's the last time you heard of anyone giving a flying fuck how Wyoming voted?

As for what the outcome of every election would have been:

1. Grover Cleveland would have served two consecutive terms instead of his two terms being separated by Benjamin Harrison's one term.

2. Andrew Jackson would have become President in 1824 instead of 1832.

3. Samuel Tilden would have been our 19th President.

4. Al Gore would have been our 43 President.

5. Adolf Hitler would have died in a nasty paper factory accident.

6. Kim Basinger would have been my second wife.

Al Gore would NOT have won.....If the EC votes were apportioned by the number of precincts for each candidate, Bush would have won by a fairly sizable margin.

Gore had more popular votes than Dubya. Simple fact.

If we didn't have the EC system, Gore would have been number 43.

No one is claiming the EC system should be tossed out. The EC voting system of winner take all is the issue.

I guess you didn't read the OP:

"I wonder what the outcome of every election WOULD have been if the EC wasn't a factor."

The answer to that pondering is that Gore would have been number 43.

Are we all caught up now?

I am not concerned with the opinion of one person.
I am looking at this from a common sense point of view. Winner take all is no more democratic ( under the design of our government) than an absolute democracy.

Imagine a national election based on just the popular vote that came down to less than 1000 votes. How long would it take to recount 50 states and the District of Columbia?

In 2000, they battled almost until Christmas over the electoral votes from FL. Imagine that nationwide!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legit
How does it do that? The EC I mean.

By giving the smaller states the same number of reps as large states.

The smaller states do not have the same number of electors as large states. California has 55. Wyoming 3.

California has a population of 39 million, and 55 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents about 700,000 people.

Wyoming has a population of just under 600,000 people, and 3 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents 200,000 people.

In that sense, one vote in Wyoming is the same as 3.5 votes in California.

Without the electoral college the small states might as well not even vote.
We can't have the high population states telling the small states what to do... hence the electoral college.

Yes. With one caveat. The current system disenfranchises the votes of non urban precincts by virtue of the winner take all system in all but one state.

Two states. Maine and Nebraska.[/QUOTE]

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So instead you would have candidates ignoring the small states instead of the big ones.

One fix would be to eliminate "all or nothing" voting in the EC, with each house EC vote being based on districts, and the two senate EC votes based on the State results.

So 100 EV's equally distributed among the States, and 435 by congressional district (plus the 3 for DC).

Wouldn't that make it subject to State gerrymandering?

Just like the House is subject to the same thing. What it would do is let the urban areas of Red States and the Rural areas of Blue States to actually have a say, without scrapping the EC entirely, AND preserving a small advantage for smaller States through the winner take all +2 EV's from Senators.

So California would give mostly Blue, but some Red, Texas mostly Red but some Blue.

If an amendment would be passed forcing the States to do this (only way it would be fair) some formula for population vs district size would have to be included.

The National Popular Vote bill would not "scrap" the Electoral College at all.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

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

California has enacted the National Popular Vote bill.

Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide

77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

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.

In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . 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 equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

It's still just an end run around the constitution. If you want to change how electors are selected, you need to go with an amendment.

The States who don't want this can easily sue, and they would have standing to stop any of this.

No. Obviously an amendment is not needed to change how electors are selected.

Maine changed how their electors were selected by a state law in 1969 and Nebraska changed how their electors were selected by a state law in 1992. Since then, they have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.

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.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

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

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.

The reason states do not do this now, on their own, is the power they give up. That is the only possible explanation, because if it gave them increased influence, they would have done so already.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legit
How does it do that? The EC I mean.

By giving the smaller states the same number of reps as large states.

No....Another hysterical reaction.
The EC votes should be apportioned by the number of precincts going to each candidate. Not winner take all.
I distinctly remember the left wing screeching about the EC after the 2000 election.

ON this point, you're right.

This is why the only modification I've endorsed is to make the President-elect win BOTH the EC and the popular vote. To date; I have not heard many sane arguments against the provision.

There are only 538 electors in the country, not enough to award them by precinct winners.

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.

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.

What is wrong with requiring the President Elect get 270 (Majority) of EVs along with the plurality (more than anyone else) of the Pop vote?

What happens when they don't, like 2000?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Just like the House is subject to the same thing. What it would do is let the urban areas of Red States and the Rural areas of Blue States to actually have a say, without scrapping the EC entirely, AND preserving a small advantage for smaller States through the winner take all +2 EV's from Senators.

So California would give mostly Blue, but some Red, Texas mostly Red but some Blue.

If an amendment would be passed forcing the States to do this (only way it would be fair) some formula for population vs district size would have to be included.

The National Popular Vote bill would not "scrap" the Electoral College at all.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

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

California has enacted the National Popular Vote bill.

Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide

77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

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.

In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . 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 equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Pfft....this is going to sound degrading and I don't mean for it to be....

Did you notice that in President Obama's first term, the GOP could not pass enough bills to repeal Obama Care? In his second term starting in 2012, these guys went out of their way to pass even more bills for the new members who didn't get to vote on it the first time. And, if I recall, in some cases there were unsettled elections that prevented even more members from having the opportunity to cast a vote against it so they staged yet more votes to repeal it. After they got control of the Congress in 2014; they have done it once.

Do you know why?

It's easy to play with blanks. They knew that there would be no downside to their actions so they went crazy and staged as many pointless votes as possible. Now that they have some actual influence, they're being much more careful about how they cast their votes. The People will expect them to come up with something better and they have nothing.

Not to disparage your research and you obviously have put a lot of thought into it but the "so many states have done X" argument is not really something you want to hang your hat on since this is something that had zero chance of going any further up the ladder.

There is no "up the ladder" action needed if/when states with 270 electoral votes enact the National Popular Vote bill.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

In total, the bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes (20 votes short), 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).

Just like the House is subject to the same thing. What it would do is let the urban areas of Red States and the Rural areas of Blue States to actually have a say, without scrapping the EC entirely, AND preserving a small advantage for smaller States through the winner take all +2 EV's from Senators.

So California would give mostly Blue, but some Red, Texas mostly Red but some Blue.

If an amendment would be passed forcing the States to do this (only way it would be fair) some formula for population vs district size would have to be included.

The National Popular Vote bill would not "scrap" the Electoral College at all.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

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

California has enacted the National Popular Vote bill.

Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide

77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

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.

In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . 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 equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Pfft....this is going to sound degrading and I don't mean for it to be....

Did you notice that in President Obama's first term, the GOP could not pass enough bills to repeal Obama Care? In his second term starting in 2012, these guys went out of their way to pass even more bills for the new members who didn't get to vote on it the first time. And, if I recall, in some cases there were unsettled elections that prevented even more members from having the opportunity to cast a vote against it so they staged yet more votes to repeal it. After they got control of the Congress in 2014; they have done it once.

Do you know why?

It's easy to play with blanks. They knew that there would be no downside to their actions so they went crazy and staged as many pointless votes as possible. Now that they have some actual influence, they're being much more careful about how they cast their votes. The People will expect them to come up with something better and they have nothing.

Not to disparage your research and you obviously have put a lot of thought into it but the "so many states have done X" argument is not really something you want to hang your hat on since this is something that had zero chance of going any further up the ladder.

There is no "up the ladder" action needed if/when states with 270 electoral votes enact the National Popular Vote bill.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

In total, the bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes (20 votes short), 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).

Yeah..the fact that it hasn't happened is an indication of "up the ladder" action being needed. Again, it's easy to argue in theory and academia. It's a much more serious matter if there was some real consequences to this.

Since its origination in 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in legislatures in all 50 states.
More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.
It is a state law. It can only be enacted by states. There is no other scenario for it to go into effect.

It's not theoretical or academic. When states with 270 electoral votes enact it, there will be real consequences.
The bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
That's what most Americans want.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate, as in virtually every other election in the country.

National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea.

If my state legislature were to enact it, and nothing was ever done to make it go into effect, it is null and void. Legislation not enacted is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD! It cannot carry over from one legislative term to the next. One legislative session cannot hand-cuff another.

 

[jillian]

Wow...I wonder what the outcome of every election WOULD have been if the EC wasn't a factor.

bush wouldn't have been president. as for the others, i think they've been consistent.

 

[Flopper]

Al Gore would NOT have won.....If the EC votes were apportioned by the number of precincts for each candidate, Bush would have won by a fairly sizable margin.

Gore had more popular votes than Dubya. Simple fact.

If we didn't have the EC system, Gore would have been number 43.

No one is claiming the EC system should be tossed out. The EC voting system of winner take all is the issue.

I guess you didn't read the OP:

"I wonder what the outcome of every election WOULD have been if the EC wasn't a factor."

The answer to that pondering is that Gore would have been number 43.

Are we all caught up now?

I am not concerned with the opinion of one person.
I am looking at this from a common sense point of view. Winner take all is no more democratic ( under the design of our government) than an absolute democracy.

Imagine a national election based on just the popular vote that came down to less than 1000 votes. How long would it take to recount 50 states and the District of Columbia?

In 2000, they battled almost until Christmas over the electoral votes from FL. Imagine that nationwide!

If we had the popular vote, the election process on election day would be the same as it is now. The chance of there being only 1,000 vote difference nationally would be a lot less. I would think the state recount recount laws would still kick in if the percent difference in votes exceeded some percentage.

 

[Blackrook]

Democrats want to get rid of the Electoral College because they have no respect for the Founding Fathers ("dead white males") and they have no respect for the U.S. Constitution, which to them is worth less than piece of Kleenex.

 

[mvymvy]

Tough! The EC ain't going away.

Correct. The Electoral College would still elect the President with the National Popular Vote bill.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill retains the Electoral College, while ensuring that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election.

 

[mvymvy]

Democrats want to get rid of the Electoral College because they have no respect for the Founding Fathers ("dead white males") and they have no respect for the U.S. Constitution, which to them is worth less than piece of Kleenex.

The National Popular Vote bill does not get rid of the Electoral.

The bill is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors.Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states:

“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 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.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes

 

[mvymvy]

Gore had more popular votes than Dubya. Simple fact.

If we didn't have the EC system, Gore would have been number 43.

No one is claiming the EC system should be tossed out. The EC voting system of winner take all is the issue.

I guess you didn't read the OP:

"I wonder what the outcome of every election WOULD have been if the EC wasn't a factor."

The answer to that pondering is that Gore would have been number 43.

Are we all caught up now?

I am not concerned with the opinion of one person.
I am looking at this from a common sense point of view. Winner take all is no more democratic ( under the design of our government) than an absolute democracy.

Imagine a national election based on just the popular vote that came down to less than 1000 votes. How long would it take to recount 50 states and the District of Columbia?

In 2000, they battled almost until Christmas over the electoral votes from FL. Imagine that nationwide!

If we had the popular vote, the election process on election day would be the same as it is now. The chance of there being only 1,000 vote difference nationally would be a lot less. I would think the state recount recount laws would still kick in if the percent difference in votes exceeded some percentage.

The current presidential election system makes a repeat of 2000 more likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000, a recount in Florida would not have been an issue.

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]

Democrats want to get rid of the Electoral College because they have no respect for the Founding Fathers ("dead white males") and they have no respect for the U.S. Constitution, which to them is worth less than piece of Kleenex.

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 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% 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.

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

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

On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.

In May 2011, Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in “National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans:” "I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.

It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States [that then existed in 2011].

National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it."

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressman John Buchanan (R–Alabama), 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)

 

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill would not "scrap" the Electoral College at all.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

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

California has enacted the National Popular Vote bill.

Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide

77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

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.

In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . 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 equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Pfft....this is going to sound degrading and I don't mean for it to be....

Did you notice that in President Obama's first term, the GOP could not pass enough bills to repeal Obama Care? In his second term starting in 2012, these guys went out of their way to pass even more bills for the new members who didn't get to vote on it the first time. And, if I recall, in some cases there were unsettled elections that prevented even more members from having the opportunity to cast a vote against it so they staged yet more votes to repeal it. After they got control of the Congress in 2014; they have done it once.

Do you know why?

It's easy to play with blanks. They knew that there would be no downside to their actions so they went crazy and staged as many pointless votes as possible. Now that they have some actual influence, they're being much more careful about how they cast their votes. The People will expect them to come up with something better and they have nothing.

Not to disparage your research and you obviously have put a lot of thought into it but the "so many states have done X" argument is not really something you want to hang your hat on since this is something that had zero chance of going any further up the ladder.

There is no "up the ladder" action needed if/when states with 270 electoral votes enact the National Popular Vote bill.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

In total, the bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes (20 votes short), 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).

The National Popular Vote bill would not "scrap" the Electoral College at all.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

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

California has enacted the National Popular Vote bill.

Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide

77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

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.

In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . 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 equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Pfft....this is going to sound degrading and I don't mean for it to be....

Did you notice that in President Obama's first term, the GOP could not pass enough bills to repeal Obama Care? In his second term starting in 2012, these guys went out of their way to pass even more bills for the new members who didn't get to vote on it the first time. And, if I recall, in some cases there were unsettled elections that prevented even more members from having the opportunity to cast a vote against it so they staged yet more votes to repeal it. After they got control of the Congress in 2014; they have done it once.

Do you know why?

It's easy to play with blanks. They knew that there would be no downside to their actions so they went crazy and staged as many pointless votes as possible. Now that they have some actual influence, they're being much more careful about how they cast their votes. The People will expect them to come up with something better and they have nothing.

Not to disparage your research and you obviously have put a lot of thought into it but the "so many states have done X" argument is not really something you want to hang your hat on since this is something that had zero chance of going any further up the ladder.

There is no "up the ladder" action needed if/when states with 270 electoral votes enact the National Popular Vote bill.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

In total, the bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes (20 votes short), 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).

Yeah..the fact that it hasn't happened is an indication of "up the ladder" action being needed. Again, it's easy to argue in theory and academia. It's a much more serious matter if there was some real consequences to this.

Since its origination in 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in legislatures in all 50 states.
More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.
It is a state law. It can only be enacted by states. There is no other scenario for it to go into effect.

It's not theoretical or academic. When states with 270 electoral votes enact it, there will be real consequences.
The bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
That's what most Americans want.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate, as in virtually every other election in the country.

National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea.

If my state legislature were to enact it, and nothing was ever done to make it go into effect, it is null and void. Legislation not enacted is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD! It cannot carry over from one legislative term to the next. One legislative session cannot hand-cuff another.

The National Popular Vote bill is not dead in any state that has enacted it in a past legislative session.

The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), New York (29), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13). These 11 jurisdictions have 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

 

[mvymvy]

By giving the smaller states the same number of reps as large states.

No....Another hysterical reaction.
The EC votes should be apportioned by the number of precincts going to each candidate. Not winner take all.
I distinctly remember the left wing screeching about the EC after the 2000 election.

ON this point, you're right.

This is why the only modification I've endorsed is to make the President-elect win BOTH the EC and the popular vote. To date; I have not heard many sane arguments against the provision.

There are only 538 electors in the country, not enough to award them by precinct winners.

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.

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.

What is wrong with requiring the President Elect get 270 (Majority) of EVs along with the plurality (more than anyone else) of the Pop vote?

What happens when they don't, like 2000?

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.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Gore had more popular votes than Dubya. Simple fact.

If we didn't have the EC system, Gore would have been number 43.

No one is claiming the EC system should be tossed out. The EC voting system of winner take all is the issue.

I guess you didn't read the OP:

"I wonder what the outcome of every election WOULD have been if the EC wasn't a factor."

The answer to that pondering is that Gore would have been number 43.

Are we all caught up now?

I am not concerned with the opinion of one person.
I am looking at this from a common sense point of view. Winner take all is no more democratic ( under the design of our government) than an absolute democracy.

Imagine a national election based on just the popular vote that came down to less than 1000 votes. How long would it take to recount 50 states and the District of Columbia?

In 2000, they battled almost until Christmas over the electoral votes from FL. Imagine that nationwide!

If we had the popular vote, the election process on election day would be the same as it is now. The chance of there being only 1,000 vote difference nationally would be a lot less. I would think the state recount recount laws would still kick in if the percent difference in votes exceeded some percentage.

How would it be the same? No one ever envisioned a presidential election to hinge on 855 votes in a state with millions of voters. Remember, without it being a state-based election, every state is equal. Every state would have to recount every vote to ensure that their possible errors did not offset the disputed states. If California is off by 10,000 votes, it may completely overshadow the margins in several smaller states.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Pfft....this is going to sound degrading and I don't mean for it to be....

Did you notice that in President Obama's first term, the GOP could not pass enough bills to repeal Obama Care? In his second term starting in 2012, these guys went out of their way to pass even more bills for the new members who didn't get to vote on it the first time. And, if I recall, in some cases there were unsettled elections that prevented even more members from having the opportunity to cast a vote against it so they staged yet more votes to repeal it. After they got control of the Congress in 2014; they have done it once.

Do you know why?

It's easy to play with blanks. They knew that there would be no downside to their actions so they went crazy and staged as many pointless votes as possible. Now that they have some actual influence, they're being much more careful about how they cast their votes. The People will expect them to come up with something better and they have nothing.

Not to disparage your research and you obviously have put a lot of thought into it but the "so many states have done X" argument is not really something you want to hang your hat on since this is something that had zero chance of going any further up the ladder.

There is no "up the ladder" action needed if/when states with 270 electoral votes enact the National Popular Vote bill.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

In total, the bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes (20 votes short), 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).

Pfft....this is going to sound degrading and I don't mean for it to be....

Did you notice that in President Obama's first term, the GOP could not pass enough bills to repeal Obama Care? In his second term starting in 2012, these guys went out of their way to pass even more bills for the new members who didn't get to vote on it the first time. And, if I recall, in some cases there were unsettled elections that prevented even more members from having the opportunity to cast a vote against it so they staged yet more votes to repeal it. After they got control of the Congress in 2014; they have done it once.

Do you know why?

It's easy to play with blanks. They knew that there would be no downside to their actions so they went crazy and staged as many pointless votes as possible. Now that they have some actual influence, they're being much more careful about how they cast their votes. The People will expect them to come up with something better and they have nothing.

Not to disparage your research and you obviously have put a lot of thought into it but the "so many states have done X" argument is not really something you want to hang your hat on since this is something that had zero chance of going any further up the ladder.

There is no "up the ladder" action needed if/when states with 270 electoral votes enact the National Popular Vote bill.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

In total, the bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes (20 votes short), 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).

Yeah..the fact that it hasn't happened is an indication of "up the ladder" action being needed. Again, it's easy to argue in theory and academia. It's a much more serious matter if there was some real consequences to this.

Since its origination in 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in legislatures in all 50 states.
More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.
It is a state law. It can only be enacted by states. There is no other scenario for it to go into effect.

It's not theoretical or academic. When states with 270 electoral votes enact it, there will be real consequences.
The bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
That's what most Americans want.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate, as in virtually every other election in the country.

National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea.

If my state legislature were to enact it, and nothing was ever done to make it go into effect, it is null and void. Legislation not enacted is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD! It cannot carry over from one legislative term to the next. One legislative session cannot hand-cuff another.

The National Popular Vote bill is not dead in any state that has enacted it in a past legislative session.

The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), New York (29), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13). These 11 jurisdictions have 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

I think you had best have someone check their state constitutions. You cannot base legislation of some possible future event. To do so would be ludicrous and a probable violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[mvymvy]

Wouldn't that make it subject to State gerrymandering?

Just like the House is subject to the same thing. What it would do is let the urban areas of Red States and the Rural areas of Blue States to actually have a say, without scrapping the EC entirely, AND preserving a small advantage for smaller States through the winner take all +2 EV's from Senators.

So California would give mostly Blue, but some Red, Texas mostly Red but some Blue.

If an amendment would be passed forcing the States to do this (only way it would be fair) some formula for population vs district size would have to be included.

The National Popular Vote bill would not "scrap" the Electoral College at all.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

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

California has enacted the National Popular Vote bill.

Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide

77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

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.

In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . 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 equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

It's still just an end run around the constitution. If you want to change how electors are selected, you need to go with an amendment.

The States who don't want this can easily sue, and they would have standing to stop any of this.

No. Obviously an amendment is not needed to change how electors are selected.

Maine changed how their electors were selected by a state law in 1969 and Nebraska changed how their electors were selected by a state law in 1992. Since then, they have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.

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.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

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

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.

The reason states do not do this now, on their own, is the power they give up. That is the only possible explanation, because if it gave them increased influence, they would have done so already.

38 states are politically irrelevant, with no power, with the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes.

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

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).

There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016 -- Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire

In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out . . . that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.”

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground 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

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.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Nationwide, there are now only 10 "battleground" districts that are expected to be competitive in the 2016 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, 98% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally

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

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No....Another hysterical reaction.
The EC votes should be apportioned by the number of precincts going to each candidate. Not winner take all.
I distinctly remember the left wing screeching about the EC after the 2000 election.

ON this point, you're right.

This is why the only modification I've endorsed is to make the President-elect win BOTH the EC and the popular vote. To date; I have not heard many sane arguments against the provision.

There are only 538 electors in the country, not enough to award them by precinct winners.

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.

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.

What is wrong with requiring the President Elect get 270 (Majority) of EVs along with the plurality (more than anyone else) of the Pop vote?

What happens when they don't, like 2000?

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.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

I have seen this cockamamie BS argument repeated on numerous message boards. If states want to change their way of selecting electors, why don't they go ahead and do so? No Constitutional issues would result.