How the electoral college ruins everything

[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.

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.

Is your aim to try to influence the discussion by repeating the same tired verbose arguments? Those agreements are bogus and would not stand up to any court scrutiny if one or more states decided to back out. Then where would we be? Even more conflated than we are now!

 

[mvymvy]

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).

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.

"interstate compacts are unique in that they empower one state legislature—namely the one that enacted the agreement—to bind all future legislatures to certain principles governing the subject matter of the compact. "(Broun on Compacts, supra, § 1.2.2, p. 17.)

If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Once a state enters into an interstate compact, the state—like an individual, corporation, or any other legal entity—is bound by the compact’s terms. The contractual obligations undertaken by a state in an interstate compact bind all state officials. In addition, an interstate compact binds the state legislature because a legislature may not enact any law impairing a contract. Thus, after a state enters into an interstate compact, the state is bound by all the terms of the compact until the state withdraws from the compact in accordance with the compact’s terms for withdrawal, until the compact is terminated in accordance with the compact’s terms for termination, or until the compact ends in accordance with the compact’s stated duration.

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

 

[Blackrook]

Sounds like a dumb idea. If this idea gets enacted in every state, than there will be unanimous decision in every Electoral College.

 

[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.

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.

Is your aim to try to influence the discussion by repeating the same tired verbose arguments? Those agreements are bogus and would not stand up to any court scrutiny if one or more states decided to back out. Then where would we be? Even more conflated than we are now!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mvymvy]

Sounds like a dumb idea. If this idea gets enacted in every state, than there will be unanimous decision in every Electoral College.

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

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.

 

[mvymvy]

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.

States are enacting the National Popular Vote bill, without any constitutional issues.

The bottom line is that there is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

 

[Blackrook]

I believe the Founding Fathers had a very good reason to enact the Electoral College rather than allowing the popular vote decide. I am inclined to believe in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers than modern day Democrats, who doubtless have suspicious motives. It would be a lot easier for Democrats to win through voter fraud if the popular vote decided the election. All they would need to do is steal votes in one state. As it is, they need to have separate voter fraud efforts in the swing states.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

States are enacting the National Popular Vote bill, without any constitutional issues.

The bottom line is that there is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

Except for the fact there is no constitutional method for determining who wins the national popular vote. You forgot that! how are the states going to know until the results have been certified by every state, which often takes days and may take weeks if a recall is involved.

 

[Blackrook]

It doesn't matter what people think, the Electoral College is in the Constitution. if you want to get rid of the Electoral College, than you can amend the Constitution to repeal the Electoral College. Try doing that instead of work arounds at the state level.

 

[mvymvy]

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.

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.

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 National Popular Vote bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections

Every state would not have to recount every vote. Mississippi, for example, doesn't have any recount provision. Neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day). National Popular Vote is based on the same legal mechanisms and standards that have governed presidential elections since 1880.

 

[mvymvy]

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.

States are enacting the National Popular Vote bill, without any constitutional issues.

The bottom line is that there is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

Except for the fact there is no constitutional method for determining who wins the national popular vote. You forgot that! how are the states going to know until the results have been certified by every state, which often takes days and may take weeks if a recall is involved.

Of Course there is a constitutional method for determining who wins the national popular vote.
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each. The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site. You simply add the totals together.

The U.S. Constitution, existing federal statutes, and independent state statutes guarantee "finality" in presidential elections long before the inauguration day in January.

The U.S. Constitution requires the Electoral College to meet on the same day throughout the U.S. (mid-December). This sets a final deadline for vote counts from all states. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court has interpreted the federal "safe harbor" statute to mean that the deadline for the state to finalize their vote count is 6 days before the meeting of the Electoral College.

With both the current system and National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for 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 on the day set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

 

[mvymvy]

It doesn't matter what people think, the Electoral College is in the Constitution. if you want to get rid of the Electoral College, than you can amend the Constitution to repeal the Electoral College. Try doing that instead of work arounds at the state level.

One more time. The National Popular Vote bill does not get rid of or repeal the Electoral College.

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 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.

 

[mvymvy]

I believe the Founding Fathers had a very good reason to enact the Electoral College rather than allowing the popular vote decide. I am inclined to believe in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers than modern day Democrats, who doubtless have suspicious motives. It would be a lot easier for Democrats to win through voter fraud if the popular vote decided the election. All they would need to do is steal votes in one state. As it is, they need to have separate voter fraud efforts in the swing states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

 

[Blackrook]

The reason I know that abolishing the Electoral College is a bad idea is because Democrats are supporting the idea. They still haven't stopped whining about the 2000 election. Al Gore, a complete blithering idiot, even called for Bush to concede the election in his favor.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

States are enacting the National Popular Vote bill, without any constitutional issues.

The bottom line is that there is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

Except for the fact there is no constitutional method for determining who wins the national popular vote. You forgot that! how are the states going to know until the results have been certified by every state, which often takes days and may take weeks if a recall is involved.

Of Course there is a constitutional method for determining who wins the national popular vote.
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each. The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site. You simply add the totals together.

The U.S. Constitution, existing federal statutes, and independent state statutes guarantee "finality" in presidential elections long before the inauguration day in January.

The U.S. Constitution requires the Electoral College to meet on the same day throughout the U.S. (mid-December). This sets a final deadline for vote counts from all states. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court has interpreted the federal "safe harbor" statute to mean that the deadline for the state to finalize their vote count is 6 days before the meeting of the Electoral College.

With both the current system and National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for 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 on the day set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

You are not even reading what you write. How will the state know which electors to submit if they do not know the results when submitted to Congress? They cannot possible list their slate of electors when the state has not been told officially who the national vote winner was, because it would not be official until all states had submitted their votes!

Unless we employ a bunch of clairvoyants, they will not know the official results of the national vote until the electoral college meets.

 

[mvymvy]

I believe the Founding Fathers had a very good reason to enact the Electoral College rather than allowing the popular vote decide. I am inclined to believe in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers than modern day Democrats, who doubtless have suspicious motives. It would be a lot easier for Democrats to win through voter fraud if the popular vote decided the election. All they would need to do is steal votes in one state. As it is, they need to have separate voter fraud efforts in the swing states.

The founders did not intend that women, black people, and native Americans vote.
Most of the founders intended that only white men with money could vote.

Prior to arriving at the eventual wording of section 1 of Article II, the Constitutional Convention specifically voted against a number of different methods for selecting the President, including
● having state legislatures choose the President,
● having governors choose the President, and
● a national popular vote.

After these (and other) methods were debated and rejected, the Constitutional Convention decided to leave the entire matter to the states.

State laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The Electoral Collegeis now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

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

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution.

State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

National Popular Vote 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 Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state 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.

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.

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

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

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.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I believe the Founding Fathers had a very good reason to enact the Electoral College rather than allowing the popular vote decide. I am inclined to believe in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers than modern day Democrats, who doubtless have suspicious motives. It would be a lot easier for Democrats to win through voter fraud if the popular vote decided the election. All they would need to do is steal votes in one state. As it is, they need to have separate voter fraud efforts in the swing states.

The founders did not intend that women, black people, and native Americans vote.
Most of the founders intended that only white men with money could vote.

Prior to arriving at the eventual wording of section 1 of Article II, the Constitutional Convention specifically voted against a number of different methods for selecting the President, including
● having state legislatures choose the President,
● having governors choose the President, and
● a national popular vote.

After these (and other) methods were debated and rejected, the Constitutional Convention decided to leave the entire matter to the states.

State laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The Electoral Collegeis now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

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

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution.

State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

National Popular Vote 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 Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state 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.

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.

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

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

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.

How many times are you going to post the exact same post?

 

[mvymvy]

The reason I know that abolishing the Electoral College is a bad idea is because Democrats are supporting the idea. They still haven't stopped whining about the 2000 election. Al Gore, a complete blithering idiot, even called for Bush to concede the election in his favor.

The National Popular Vote bill does NOT abolish the Electoral College.

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.

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), Tom Campbell (R–California), 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)

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as 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.

The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson.

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" include:

Laura Brod who 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 Assemblyfrom 1992 to 1996,California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

Ray Haynes who 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 who 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.

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

 

[Blackrook]

The purpose of the Electoral College is to stand in the way if a man like Donald Trump wins the popular vote. The Founding Fathers did not trust the people with the ultimate say. Yes, that means the Founding Fathers were elitist.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

With PR people would vote differently, so yes, the electoral college and FPTP change it so that the two main parties get an easy ride.