Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
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 passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legitThe Electoral College is why we have a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
The left has never liked that the less inhabited States have a voice as well as the majority.
How does it do that? The EC I mean.The EC has nothing to do with being a const republic. I was a tool put in place by the founding elite to keep us from electing a King or Tyrant. The SENATE is what protects the smaller states.The Electoral College is why we have a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
The left has never liked that the less inhabited States have a voice as well as the majority.
By giving the smaller states the same number of reps as large states.
The smaller states do not have the same number of electors as large states. California has 55. Wyoming 3.
Yes, exactly so. When I lived in Wyoming, even Reagan came to visit us once. The he sent the surrogates. And the held true pretty much for all candidates. Reagan was familiar with western concerns, but even JFK paid a visit (before my time). But it gives smaller states a chance to air their concerns.I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legitThe Electoral College is why we have a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
The left has never liked that the less inhabited States have a voice as well as the majority.
How does it do that? The EC I mean.The EC has nothing to do with being a const republic. I was a tool put in place by the founding elite to keep us from electing a King or Tyrant. The SENATE is what protects the smaller states.The Electoral College is why we have a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
The left has never liked that the less inhabited States have a voice as well as the majority.
By giving the smaller states the same number of reps as large states.
The smaller states do not have the same number of electors as large states. California has 55. Wyoming 3.
California has a population of 39 million, and 55 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents about 700,000 people.
Wyoming has a population of just under 600,000 people, and 3 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents 200,000 people.
In that sense, one vote in Wyoming is the same as 3.5 votes in California.
I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legitThe Electoral College is why we have a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
The left has never liked that the less inhabited States have a voice as well as the majority.
How does it do that? The EC I mean.The EC has nothing to do with being a const republic. I was a tool put in place by the founding elite to keep us from electing a King or Tyrant. The SENATE is what protects the smaller states.The Electoral College is why we have a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
The left has never liked that the less inhabited States have a voice as well as the majority.
By giving the smaller states the same number of reps as large states.
The smaller states do not have the same number of electors as large states. California has 55. Wyoming 3.
California has a population of 39 million, and 55 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents about 700,000 people.
Wyoming has a population of just under 600,000 people, and 3 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents 200,000 people.
In that sense, one vote in Wyoming is the same as 3.5 votes in California.
Hmmm, but isn't the requirement that each state count each citizen's vote in the state equally? (this concept was made a mockery in O'Conner's Bush v. Gore op, btw. Not that W wasn't going to win even without the scotus weighing in)I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legitThe Electoral College is why we have a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
The left has never liked that the less inhabited States have a voice as well as the majority.
How does it do that? The EC I mean.The EC has nothing to do with being a const republic. I was a tool put in place by the founding elite to keep us from electing a King or Tyrant. The SENATE is what protects the smaller states.
By giving the smaller states the same number of reps as large states.
The smaller states do not have the same number of electors as large states. California has 55. Wyoming 3.
California has a population of 39 million, and 55 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents about 700,000 people.
Wyoming has a population of just under 600,000 people, and 3 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents 200,000 people.
In that sense, one vote in Wyoming is the same as 3.5 votes in California.
Which is how the system was set up originally, people in Virginia has less vote equivalents than those in Rhode Island.
Ironically "one person, one vote" as a standard is only applied to the States, as the 14th amendment only forces the States to apply equal protection under the law.
Hmmm, but isn't the requirement that each state count each citizen's vote in the state equally? (this concept was made a mockery in O'Conner's Bush v. Gore op, btw. Not that W wasn't going to win even without the scotus weighing in)I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legit
How does it do that? The EC I mean.
By giving the smaller states the same number of reps as large states.
The smaller states do not have the same number of electors as large states. California has 55. Wyoming 3.
California has a population of 39 million, and 55 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents about 700,000 people.
Wyoming has a population of just under 600,000 people, and 3 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents 200,000 people.
In that sense, one vote in Wyoming is the same as 3.5 votes in California.
Which is how the system was set up originally, people in Virginia has less vote equivalents than those in Rhode Island.
Ironically "one person, one vote" as a standard is only applied to the States, as the 14th amendment only forces the States to apply equal protection under the law.
Without the electoral college the small states might as well not even vote.I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legitThe Electoral College is why we have a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
The left has never liked that the less inhabited States have a voice as well as the majority.
How does it do that? The EC I mean.The EC has nothing to do with being a const republic. I was a tool put in place by the founding elite to keep us from electing a King or Tyrant. The SENATE is what protects the smaller states.The Electoral College is why we have a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
The left has never liked that the less inhabited States have a voice as well as the majority.
By giving the smaller states the same number of reps as large states.
The smaller states do not have the same number of electors as large states. California has 55. Wyoming 3.
California has a population of 39 million, and 55 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents about 700,000 people.
Wyoming has a population of just under 600,000 people, and 3 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents 200,000 people.
In that sense, one vote in Wyoming is the same as 3.5 votes in California.
Without the electoral college the small states might as well not even vote.I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legitThe Electoral College is why we have a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
The left has never liked that the less inhabited States have a voice as well as the majority.
How does it do that? The EC I mean.The EC has nothing to do with being a const republic. I was a tool put in place by the founding elite to keep us from electing a King or Tyrant. The SENATE is what protects the smaller states.
By giving the smaller states the same number of reps as large states.
The smaller states do not have the same number of electors as large states. California has 55. Wyoming 3.
California has a population of 39 million, and 55 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents about 700,000 people.
Wyoming has a population of just under 600,000 people, and 3 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents 200,000 people.
In that sense, one vote in Wyoming is the same as 3.5 votes in California.
We can't have the high population states telling the small states what to do... hence the electoral college.
A Constitutional Republic does not require having the Electoral College.
Well, in theory, at least till bush v. gore, and even under the voting rights act, the only role of equal protection was that each state had to count votes uniformly in all counties for fed elections. That is, they couldn't use a really crappy system in Detroit but a really good one in gross point.Hmmm, but isn't the requirement that each state count each citizen's vote in the state equally? (this concept was made a mockery in O'Conner's Bush v. Gore op, btw. Not that W wasn't going to win even without the scotus weighing in)By giving the smaller states the same number of reps as large states.
The smaller states do not have the same number of electors as large states. California has 55. Wyoming 3.
California has a population of 39 million, and 55 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents about 700,000 people.
Wyoming has a population of just under 600,000 people, and 3 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents 200,000 people.
In that sense, one vote in Wyoming is the same as 3.5 votes in California.
Which is how the system was set up originally, people in Virginia has less vote equivalents than those in Rhode Island.
Ironically "one person, one vote" as a standard is only applied to the States, as the 14th amendment only forces the States to apply equal protection under the law.
Only when it comes to in State Elections. The cases that covered "one person, one vote" were always about State Elections for State Offices, not Federal offices. So NYC had to get rid of the Board Of Estimates, but States can keep their two senators, even though a California Senator "represents" millions more people that a Delaware Senator.
Well, in theory, at least till bush v. gore, and even under the voting rights act, the only role of equal protection was that each state had to count votes uniformly in all counties for fed elections. That is, they couldn't use a really crappy system in Detroit but a really good one in gross point.Hmmm, but isn't the requirement that each state count each citizen's vote in the state equally? (this concept was made a mockery in O'Conner's Bush v. Gore op, btw. Not that W wasn't going to win even without the scotus weighing in)The smaller states do not have the same number of electors as large states. California has 55. Wyoming 3.
California has a population of 39 million, and 55 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents about 700,000 people.
Wyoming has a population of just under 600,000 people, and 3 electoral votes. In other words, each electoral vote represents 200,000 people.
In that sense, one vote in Wyoming is the same as 3.5 votes in California.
Which is how the system was set up originally, people in Virginia has less vote equivalents than those in Rhode Island.
Ironically "one person, one vote" as a standard is only applied to the States, as the 14th amendment only forces the States to apply equal protection under the law.
Only when it comes to in State Elections. The cases that covered "one person, one vote" were always about State Elections for State Offices, not Federal offices. So NYC had to get rid of the Board Of Estimates, but States can keep their two senators, even though a California Senator "represents" millions more people that a Delaware Senator.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Wow...I wonder what the outcome of every election WOULD have been if the EC wasn't a factor.
If the president had always been chosen by popular vote?
The United States would have become a liberal cesspool faster than it did.
Wow...I wonder what the outcome of every election WOULD have been if the EC wasn't a factor.
This sort of contempt for our Republican form of government by many on the right is disturbing.
Gore would have been potus instead of W. Whether that would have been better, I don't know. If not for 9-11, W would have been a one termer. I wouldn't even dare to guess what Gore would have done with 9-11. Hell, he might even have been impeached.
332-206
Saved the nation
Gore would have been potus instead of W. Whether that would have been better, I don't know. If not for 9-11, W would have been a one termer. I wouldn't even dare to guess what Gore would have done with 9-11. Hell, he might even have been impeached.
A Gore administration might have stopped 9-11 from happening.
The EC has nothing to do with being a const republic. I was a tool put in place by the founding elite to keep us from electing a King or Tyrant. The SENATE is what protects the smaller states.The Electoral College is why we have a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
The left has never liked that the less inhabited States have a voice as well as the majority.
It has everything to do with us being a Republic.
The SENATE is suppose to represent their individual states not protect them and it has nothing to do with our general elections.
That went out the window when we got the Sixteenth Amendment.
That is SO wrong.....In states with vast rural areas with just one or two high density urban areas. democrats LOSE the majority of voting disctricts, yet by virtue of the winner take all system, are at a distinct advantage.In the vast majority of cases the EC vote has always fallen with the same outcome as the majority/plurality vote. Your objection is dismissed.
Ruined the nation.....If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be screaming bloody murder.332-206
Saved the nation
