How the electoral college ruins everything

[Blackrook]

Why should a state deliberately throw out the votes of its own people, in favor of voters in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago?

 

[mvymvy]

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.

I just explained:
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.

At that point the states enacting the National Popular Vote definitively would add the official totals of all the states to determine their slate of electors

 

[mvymvy]

Why should a state deliberately throw out the votes of its own people, in favor of voters in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago?

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority partyvoters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the presidential candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to presidential candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

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.

No state would be throwing out any votes.

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

In 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.

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

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

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

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

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

I just explained:
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.

At that point the states enacting the National Popular Vote definitively would add the official totals of all the states to determine their slate of electors

How? Are they just going to post them on the Internet for everyone to see so the states can select their slate of electors?

You still aren't thinking this through! Those results sent to Congress are sealed!

 

[mvymvy]

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.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.

In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.

Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire (with 86 electoral votes among them) is not a foregone conclusion. So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.

9 states determined the 2012 election.

10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. They aren’t polled or visited.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

The National Popular Vote compact does not abolish the office of presidential elector or 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.
Thus, there would be no change in whatever protection the current Electoral College system might provide in terms of preventing a demagogue from coming to power in the United States.
However, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent a demagogue from being elected President of the United States, regardless of whether presidential electors are elected on the basis of the state-by-state winner-take-all rule or the nationwide popular vote

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

I just explained:
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.

At that point the states enacting the National Popular Vote definitively would add the official totals of all the states to determine their slate of electors

As I have asked previously, where do they get these official results?

 

[mvymvy]

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.

I just explained:
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.

At that point the states enacting the National Popular Vote definitively would add the official totals of all the states to determine their slate of electors

How? Are they just going to post them on the Internet for everyone to see so the states can select their slate of electors?

You still aren't thinking this through! Those results sent to Congress are sealed!

Anyone 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 at
U. S. Electoral College 2008 Election
U. S. Electoral College 2012 Election

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

The Founding Fathers didn't intend for the President to be elected by popular vote anyway. This didn't change for a long time.

In 1796 only a few states decided to allow their people to vote.

Here's an election map that was on TV in 1796.

In 1800 the election night TV coverage looked a little different.

1804

1836 was getting close.

1872 saw Florida give people the vote, just some parts of the country didn't have it.

1892 saw almost all of the states give the right to vote, except parts of Texas and South Dakota by the looks of it.

1920 seems to be the first year that all electoral college members were chosen by the vote (This might be wrong, I don't know what was going on with those counties in Texas that didn't get the vote), though even through to the 1950s, I believe, electoral college voters did what they wanted to do instead of following the voice of the voters.

 

[mvymvy]

. . . electoral college voters did what they wanted to do instead of following the voice of the voters.

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"

“Doubtless it was supposed that the electors would exercise a reasonable independence and fair judgment in the selection of the chief executive, but experience soon demonstrated that, whether chosen by the legislatures or by popular suffrage on general ticket or in districts, they were so chosen simply to register the will of the appointing power in respect of a particular candidate. In relation, then, to the independence of the electors, the original expectation may be said to have been frustrated.”

There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

 

[Blackrook]

The smaller states don't want the election to be "fair."

Nevada has 6 electoral votes. Neighboring California has 55 votes.

You are asking small states like Nevada to render itself completely irrelevant.

All our votes would be decided by voters in California.

 

[mvymvy]

All our votes would be decided by voters in California.

The political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

 

[mvymvy]

All our votes would be decided by voters in California.

In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.

Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire (with 86 electoral votes among them) is not a foregone conclusion. So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.

The only states that received any attention in the 2012 general election campaign for President were states within 3% of the national outcome.

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).

 

[mvymvy]

The smaller states don't want the election to be "fair."

Nevada has 6 electoral votes. Neighboring California has 55 votes.

You are asking small states like Nevada to render itself completely irrelevant.
.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

With the current system 38 states were politically irrelevant in 2012.
Voters in 38 states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

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.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

The 25 smallest states voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

With the National Popular Vote bill, no state would be irrelevant.

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.

 

[Blackrook]

The Democrat party is pushing this, because it would make voter fraud much easier if they could it do it all in one very high population city. Chicago probably, because Chicago is the most corrupt of American cities and it is completely controlled by Democrats.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

I just explained:
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.

At that point the states enacting the National Popular Vote definitively would add the official totals of all the states to determine their slate of electors

How? Are they just going to post them on the Internet for everyone to see so the states can select their slate of electors?

You still aren't thinking this through! Those results sent to Congress are sealed!

Anyone 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 at
U. S. Electoral College 2008 Election
U. S. Electoral College 2012 Election

I guess they are supposed to see them using telepathy or remote viewing while they are awaiting to be unsealed and the electoral votes counted in a joint session of Congress?

You did very good research up to a point and then stopped well short of the goal.

Hypothetically, if my state was part of this coalition, and is won by Donald Trump, but Hillary wins the national popular vote, how will my state know until all of the other states official popular vote results are unsealed that Hillary has in fact won the national vote? They cannot submit their slate of electors to Congress without knowing.

You still have not answered that query. Try again.

 

[Blackrook]

If Al Gore had been President on 9/11, he would not have known what to do because he is a completely stupid man.

Gore Gaffe Videos -- Media Research Center

 

[Flopper]

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.

This bill does not abolish the electoral college. It just obligates the state to cast all of it's electoral votes for the candidate that wins the national popular vote. The law becomes binding on the states that approve it when the bill has passed in enough states to bring the total electoral votes to a majority, 270. Other states that do not pass the bill, will continue to select electors according existing state law. That's the way I understand the bill. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[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.

This bill does not abolish the electoral college. It just obligates the state to cast all of it's electoral votes for the candidate that wins the national popular vote. The law becomes binding on the states that approve it when the bill has passed in enough states to bring the total electoral votes to a majority, 270. Other states that do not pass the bill, will continue to select electors according existing state law. That's the way I understand the bill. Correct me if I am wrong.

You are correct.

 

[mvymvy]

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.

I just explained:
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.

At that point the states enacting the National Popular Vote definitively would add the official totals of all the states to determine their slate of electors

How? Are they just going to post them on the Internet for everyone to see so the states can select their slate of electors?

You still aren't thinking this through! Those results sent to Congress are sealed!

Anyone 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 at
U. S. Electoral College 2008 Election
U. S. Electoral College 2012 Election

I guess they are supposed to see them using telepathy or remote viewing while they are awaiting to be unsealed and the electoral votes counted in a joint session of Congress?

You did very good research up to a point and then stopped well short of the goal.

Hypothetically, if my state was part of this coalition, and is won by Donald Trump, but Hillary wins the national popular vote, how will my state know until all of the other states official popular vote results are unsealed that Hillary has in fact won the national vote? They cannot submit their slate of electors to Congress without knowing.

You still have not answered that query. Try again.

Although the procedures vary from state to state, representatives of the candidates, political parties, proponents and opponents of ballot measures, civic groups, and the media typically all have the ability to immediately obtain the vote count from every precinct for local, statewide, and national elections. Indeed, the almost-instant availability of precinct-level vote tallies provides the basis for the vote tallies that are posted on government web sites and broadcast by the media on Election Night.

Existing state laws also require rapid transmission of official documentation of vote tallies to some designated central location (e.g., the secretary of state).

Shortly after Election Day, local authorities make official determinations on the eligibility to vote of provisional ballots that were cast on Election Day, and the additional official documents are created at the local level to reflect the results of including eligible provisional ballots in the precinct totals. In addition, in the process of rechecking local vote tallies, local authorities sometimes notice and correct administrative errors that may have occurred on Election Night (e.g., transposing digits, accidentally double-counting a precinct).

Within a few weeks after Election Day (long before the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December), “official returns” consisting of the precinct-level vote tallies for President exist in at least two separate places in every state.
● at the level of the precinct or unit of local government where the votes were actually counted, and
● at the state office to which the local vote counts were transmitted.

“Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote”
"Article III–Manner of Appointing Presidential Electors in Member States

Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a “national popular vote total” for each presidential slate.

The chief election official of each member state shall designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the “national popular vote winner.”

The presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment in that official’s own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote winner.

At least six days before the day fixed by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, each member state shall make a final determination of the number of popular votes cast in the state for each presidential slate and shall communicate an official statement of such determination within 24 hours to the chief election official of each other member state.

The chief election official of each member state shall treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate made by the day established by federal law for making a state’s final determination conclusive as to the counting of electoral votes by Congress.

In event of a tie for the national popular vote winner, the presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment of the elector slate nominated in association with the presidential slate receiving the largest number of popular votes within that official’s own state."

National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

 

[candycorn]

Over half of the nation lives in the East and 80% live in or near cities.

States west of the Missisippi won't matter because the winner will be announced at around 5 PM Pacific time