How the electoral college ruins everything

[candycorn]

332-206

Saved the nation

Ruined the nation.....If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
The system disenfranchises and dilutes the non urban vote and you know it!
You libs time is about over. Enjoy it while it lasts. Because it never does.

If the shoe were on the other foot, the guy wearing it was probably throwing it at Bush. 332-206; Dr. Scholls accepts Obamacare.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legit

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.

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.

How does it do that? The EC I mean.

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

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

ON this point, you're right.

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

 

[candycorn]

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.

Nice try....Doesn't wash....The electoral college protects heavily urbanized districts and in turn disenfranchises roughly 75% of the voters across the country.
Hence the concept of "swing states"..That should not exist. It deligitimizes the electoral process.

80% of Americans live in urban areas. Who are these "75%" that you're referring to?

He has a casual relationship with mathematics.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legit

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.

How does it do that? The EC I mean.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Care4all]

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

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

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

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

Wouldn't that make it subject to State gerrymandering?

 

[mvymvy]

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

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

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

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

Wouldn't that make it subject to State gerrymandering?

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.

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

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state.

In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any district or state or throughout the country.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

 

[mvymvy]

The Electoral College 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.

I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legit

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.

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.

How does it do that? The EC I mean.

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

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

ON this point, you're right.

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

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

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

 

[mvymvy]

332-206

Saved the nation

Prosperity is the only thing Obama saved it from.

Speak for yourself you angry little person. 332-206...best news ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Texas and California received little to no attention at all.

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.

I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legit

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legit

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legit

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.

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.

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.

Yes sir, the question was about the Senate protecting smaller states(I thought).

The electoral college seems to be a problem only when democrats lose.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

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 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.

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.

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.

 

[mvymvy]

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.

Nice try....Doesn't wash....The electoral college protects heavily urbanized districts and in turn disenfranchises roughly 75% of the voters across the country.
Hence the concept of "swing states"..That should not exist. It deligitimizes the electoral process.

80% of Americans live in urban areas. Who are these "75%" that you're referring to?

In 2012, more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the then only ten competitive states. 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). 38 states were politically irrelevant. There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.

80% of states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

 

[mvymvy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Al Gore would have been our 43 President.

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

6. Kim Basinger would have been my second wife.

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

Gore had more popular votes than Dubya. Simple fact.

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

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

I guess you didn't read the OP:

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

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

Are we all caught up now?

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

The electoral system is like baseball's World Series. Best 4 out of 7 games. Every once in a great while, the team that scored the most runs will still lose the series.

Like the New York Yankees vs. the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 1960 series. The Yanks obliterated the Pirates in runs scored, but still lost the series.

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]

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.

Nebraska?

If we switched to the popular vote, all of our politicians would campaign solely in cities. They would tell Iowa and New Hampshire (and Wyoming) to fuck off and die.

Wyoming is politically irrelevant with the current system.
Iowa and New Hampshire are the exception among small states.

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 have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

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.

 

[mvymvy]

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

One-sixth lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican.

The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs, which divide almost exactly equally.

Big cities do not always control the outcome of elections. The governors and U.S. Senators are not all Democratic in every state with a significant city.

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

A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

 

[mvymvy]

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.

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.
Two states...New York and Pennsylvania come to mind...
In the 2012 election, Romney took every district in PA except the Philadelphia area. By virtue of a near 100% vote for Obama in the urban precincts, the EC Votes went to Obama...
IN New York, Obama had 80% support in NYC's 5 boroughs, Albany and Buffalo. The rest of the districts went to Romney. Yet The EC votes went to Obama....
These are two classic cases of voters being disenfranchised.
Nebraska has it right. The EC votes are cast proportionately per the popular vote. Not winner take all...
Because of the other 49 states going by the EC winner take all system, most votes do not count.

The "majority" of voting districts doesn't mean anything when we're discussing the popular vote.

332-206

Saved the nation

Ruined the nation.....If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
The system disenfranchises and dilutes the non urban vote and you know it!
You libs time is about over. Enjoy it while it lasts. Because it never does.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in rural states

 

[mvymvy]

A Constitutional Republic does not require having the Electoral College.

Yeah, so? That does nothing to invalidate her point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With a national popular vote, every single vote in every state would be equal.

I'm not arguing for that, by the way.

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.

I am not the left but I also don't see how not having every vote actually count is even close to being legit

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.

How does it do that? The EC I mean.

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

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

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

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

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

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

With 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), 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!

But 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).

 

[Flopper]

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

I think the biggest problem with the electoral college is it distorts the presidential campaign by causing the candidates to grant extra weight to the parochial needs of the swing states. For example if you have to carry Florida to win, candidates will pander to elderly voters, Cuban-Americans, orange-growers and any other group that can deliver a bloc of Floridians. There are usually about 10 swing states, maybe a bit less in some elections. Issues dear to hearts of voters in these states become much more important to candidates that the issues in other 40 states.

 

[Flopper]

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.

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 founders were very fearful of democracy. In fact most people were not allowed to vote. Voting was usually restricted to white male landowners over the age of 21. The EC was built into the constitution so that if a state gave the vote to everyone the masses of poor non-landowners would not be able to elect the president. However, as the country grew, the EC became largely symbolic.

 

[g5000]

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Al Gore would have been our 43 President.

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

6. Kim Basinger would have been my second wife.

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

Gore had more popular votes than Dubya. Simple fact.

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

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

I guess you didn't read the OP:

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

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

Are we all caught up now?

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

It wasn't an opinion. It was a question about what difference not having the EC would have made in our elections.

What is a fact is that Gore would have won the 2000 election if there was no EC.

You are being strangely obtuse about these facts.

 

[Flopper]

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

To change to a popular vote would require a constitution amendment which means 3/4 of the states would have to approve it and that's not going to happen. If 13 states said no, it would not pass. There are about 18 states that would have a bit less influence going to a popular vote. Some are small swing states and other have lower voter turn out than other states, and a few are disproportionately represented in the EC.

 

[Rustic]

Solely popular vote would mean, mob rule.

 

[SwimExpert]

A Constitutional Republic does not require having the Electoral College.

Yeah, so? That does nothing to invalidate her point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

With a national popular vote, every single vote in every state would be equal.

I'm not arguing for that, by the way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With 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), 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!

But 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).

Yeah, so?