How the electoral college ruins everything

[mvymvy]

If every voter mattered throughout the United States, as it would under a national popular vote, candidates would reallocate their time and the money they raise.

The indefensible allocation of TV ad spending in 2012 in the general-election campaign:
$ 51,423,030 in Iowa
$ 1,162,000 in New Mexico
$175,776,780 in Florida
$148,000,000 in Ohio
$127,000,000 in Virginia
$ 80,000,000 in North Carolina
$ 71,000,000 in Colorado
$ 55,000,000 in Nevada
$ 34,000,000 in New Hampshire
$ 32,000,000 in Wisconsin
$ 31,000,000 in Pennsylvania
$ 15,186,750 in Michigan
$ 8,771,300 in Minnesota
$ 0 in Utah, Wyoming, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, Alaska, Mississippi, Washington, Delaware, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, and DC
from $ 80 - $346,490 in all the other states

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.

 

[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.

Actually, it tends to be Democrats who advocate getting rid of the EC.

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

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.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Actually, it tends to be Democrats who advocate getting rid of the EC.

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

Semantics. It renders it useless.

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.

And yet only heavily Democratic states have passed it. This is all stemming from the butt hurt the left still has over the 2000 election.

 

[mvymvy]

In 2016, if Republicans lose Florida (29), we could know they will lose the Electoral College.

Because of state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, analysts concluded months ago 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, the only 2 states west of Kansas that could be worth waiting for, could be Nevada and Colorado.

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.

Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable.

From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

If this 20 year pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.

 

[mvymvy]

Just because over 50% of the electorate would have cast their ballot by 5:00 PM Pacific Time, doesn't mean we would know then the winner of the National Popular Vote. That's just like assuming the votes of the 11 biggest states now, with the majority of population and electoral votes, determines the winner with the current system. The country is closely divided.

 

[mvymvy]

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support, while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The current system punishes third-party candidates whose support is broadly based.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support, while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The current system punishes third-party candidates whose support is broadly based.

And all of those guys still would have lost.

Electoral votes don't have to be winner take all either. It's up to the states how to distribute them. Maine and Nebraska have a proportional system.

 

[imawhosure]

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

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

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

ON this point, you're right.

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

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

Not sure what that matters since we don't have precincts recognized federally.

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.

Not sure about that...there is considerable math involved but it would be tantamount to saying that the electoral college winner almost always wins the popular vote. I think it hasn't happened something like 4 times in 230 years. Every 1 out of 35 elections or thereabouts is a pretty good system.

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.

Curious; what do you do if we (hopefully) some day end up with 4 or 5 parties and someone gets 36% of the vote while others get less. Do you want the President elected with 36% of the vote? Because unless you're talking about nationwide run-offs that will have a miniscule amount of electorate participation, this is the prospect you're recommending.

I don't agree with CC very often, but this is exactly why popular vote is not a good idea. In theory it works, until you have more than 2 or 3 candidates.

 

[mvymvy]

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support, while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The current system punishes third-party candidates whose support is broadly based.

And all of those guys still would have lost.

Electoral votes don't have to be winner take all either. It's up to the states how to distribute them. Maine and Nebraska have a proportional system.

Maine and Nebraska do not have a proportional system.

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

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

Any state that enacts an actual proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

 

[mvymvy]

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

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

ON this point, you're right.

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

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

Not sure what that matters since we don't have precincts recognized federally.

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.

Not sure about that...there is considerable math involved but it would be tantamount to saying that the electoral college winner almost always wins the popular vote. I think it hasn't happened something like 4 times in 230 years. Every 1 out of 35 elections or thereabouts is a pretty good system.

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.

Curious; what do you do if we (hopefully) some day end up with 4 or 5 parties and someone gets 36% of the vote while others get less. Do you want the President elected with 36% of the vote? Because unless you're talking about nationwide run-offs that will have a miniscule amount of electorate participation, this is the prospect you're recommending.

I don't agree with CC very often, but this is exactly why popular vote is not a good idea. In theory it works, until you have more than 2 or 3 candidates.

Of Course popular voting has worked in virtually every election in the country when we have more than 2 candidates.
National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea

In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.
Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

 

[imawhosure]

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.

Not sure what that matters since we don't have precincts recognized federally.

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.

Not sure about that...there is considerable math involved but it would be tantamount to saying that the electoral college winner almost always wins the popular vote. I think it hasn't happened something like 4 times in 230 years. Every 1 out of 35 elections or thereabouts is a pretty good system.

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.

Curious; what do you do if we (hopefully) some day end up with 4 or 5 parties and someone gets 36% of the vote while others get less. Do you want the President elected with 36% of the vote? Because unless you're talking about nationwide run-offs that will have a miniscule amount of electorate participation, this is the prospect you're recommending.

I don't agree with CC very often, but this is exactly why popular vote is not a good idea. In theory it works, until you have more than 2 or 3 candidates.

Of Course popular voting has worked in virtually every election in the country when we have more than 2 candidates.
National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea

In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.
Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

Don't care Your idea could get us a President with less than 10% of the vote if enough candidates ran. That is ridiculous, especially with the power it seems the President can wield today.

Also, your ideas basically to hose the thought of states rights in the constitution. The right for the state legislature to appoint senators has already been taken away, and now you want to remove from the states the ability to apportion its electors in a way it seems fit.

And actually, while I may be mistaken but I think I am correct, was not every state given 2 electoral votes to start with, just like senators, regardless of size, so that the large populous states would have much harder time becoming dictators to the less populous states?

What you pointy heads do not understand is..................we never would have been a country had these provisions not been put in place. The states were very cynical of a centralized government, and wanted to retain much of its autonomy. Now, you people want to strip from the states their power, and dump it all in Washington. I don't think so! The idea is to return the power to the states, and by taking away the power the less populated states have by this little sleight of hand, just isn't going to fly.

 

[candycorn]

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

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

Do you know why?

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

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

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

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

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

In total, the bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes (20 votes short), including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

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

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

Do you know why?

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

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

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

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

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

In total, the bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes (20 votes short), including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

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

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

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

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

Yes, again, when the vote was taken, there was no downside since its not going to be enacted. Its like trying your jump serve in the first match of a best 2-3 VBall. If you ace it, great. If it's a netter; you haven't risked anything except the side-out. If you told most of the people that the vote they cast would likely result in a total tsunami of political spending (which it would do), marginalize any State that doesn't have a large population (which it will) and force any serious candidate to pander as never before (which is hard to believe but would be the result) , they'd think twice about it.

I agree, having it is not scary. What is scary is the environment you're endorsing hasn't been thought out in 2016 realities. I discuss that in another post. I welcome your rebuttal.

Presidential candidates currently do everything within their power to raise as much money as they possibly can from donors throughout the country. They then allocate their time and the money that they raise nationally to places where it will do the most good toward their goal of winning the election.

Money doesn't grow on trees. The fact that candidates would spend their money more broadly (that is, in all 50 states and DC) would not, in itself, loosen up the wallet of a single donor anywhere in the country. Candidates will continue to try to raise as much money as economic considerations permit. Economic considerations by donors determines how much money will be available, not the existence of an increases number of places where the money might be spent.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. That's precisely what they should do in order to get elected with the current system, because the voters of 80% of the states simply don't matter. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the concerns of voters in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Over 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, were 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.

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).

If every voter mattered throughout the United States, as it would under a national popular vote, candidates would reallocate their time and the money they raise.

Actually, politicians turn down quite a bit of money and don't court other pots of money they figure is off limits. The Koch Brothers would be happy to own both candidates instead of one. Its a mystery why this isn't seen by some.

 

[candycorn]

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.

That is almost a criminally unsophisticated view of 2016 politics. Its simple math. If you are at 50% approval and wish to advertise in the newspaper and your choice is a large city with 300,000 people (150,000 like you already and 150,000 do not--according to the polls) and a rural area that has a readership of 10,000 (5,000 like/5,000 dislike), your money is much better spent in the large market. Why? The goal is to get as many voters as possible. One-hundred and fifty thousand people are to be convinced in the large city. To equal the impact of advertising in the rural town, you need to convince only 1 in 30 voters. In the rural town, you need to get 1 out of 1 voters--all 5,000. Not going to happen. One in thirty...possible.

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. 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.

The only thing more moronic than thinking that candidates would spend a cent advertising in Midland is thinking they'd visit Midland personally in the general election. Not only would nobody in a town of less than 50,000 ever see a candidate, they wouldn't see a candidate's family or any of their in laws. In 2016, under your system, they would be lucky to see Obama's Secretary of the Interior stumping for Hillary.

Granted; in the current system, you have your states that are currently ignored by candidates and their political machines. But those states will change over-time. Reagan won 49 States during our lifetimes. Gore lost his home state. Romney lost his (whatever it was). Outside of that, no candidate has lost theirs. Republicans and democrats have won blue and red state houses. Your prescription permanently relegates rural citizens to 2nd class status.

That is the mathematical reality of the situation; romantic and fanciful feelings of fairness aside.

 

[candycorn]

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 only 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).

Wasted votes....the stark reality is that if your candidate doesn't win, your vote was wasted. Our entire system counts on votes being wasted. Why not just do like they do in some areas and give 30% of the government to the loser party/parties and 70% to the winning/winner parties? If the goal is to get "every vote to count", this is what would make sense.

 

[Flopper]

Solely popular vote would mean, mob rule.

Solely popular vote would mean, mob rule.

If that were the case then we would have seen a lot of disagreement between the popular vote and the electoral college vote. However only 4 times has the electoral college picked a president different from the popular vote.

Whether you favor the popular vote or the electoral college depends whether you think the power should reside with the states or the people.

 

[candycorn]

Solely popular vote would mean, mob rule.

Solely popular vote would mean, mob rule.

If that were the case then we would have seen a lot of disagreement between the popular vote and the electoral college vote. However only 4 times has the electoral college picked a president different from the popular vote.

Whether you favor the popular vote or the electoral college depends whether you think the power should reside with the states or the people.

It would seem as though in both cases it rests with the people.

 

[mvymvy]

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 only 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).

Wasted votes....the stark reality is that if your candidate doesn't win, your vote was wasted. Our entire system counts on votes being wasted. Why not just do like they do in some areas and give 30% of the government to the loser party/parties and 70% to the winning/winner parties? If the goal is to get "every vote to count", this is what would make sense.

A President cannot be "divided" proportionally.

 

[mvymvy]

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.

That is almost a criminally unsophisticated view of 2016 politics. Its simple math. If you are at 50% approval and wish to advertise in the newspaper and your choice is a large city with 300,000 people (150,000 like you already and 150,000 do not--according to the polls) and a rural area that has a readership of 10,000 (5,000 like/5,000 dislike), your money is much better spent in the large market. Why? The goal is to get as many voters as possible. One-hundred and fifty thousand people are to be convinced in the large city. To equal the impact of advertising in the rural town, you need to convince only 1 in 30 voters. In the rural town, you need to get 1 out of 1 voters--all 5,000. Not going to happen. One in thirty...possible.

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. 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.

The only thing more moronic than thinking that candidates would spend a cent advertising in Midland is thinking they'd visit Midland personally in the general election. Not only would nobody in a town of less than 50,000 ever see a candidate, they wouldn't see a candidate's family or any of their in laws. In 2016, under your system, they would be lucky to see Obama's Secretary of the Interior stumping for Hillary.

Granted; in the current system, you have your states that are currently ignored by candidates and their political machines. But those states will change over-time. Reagan won 49 States during our lifetimes. Gore lost his home state. Romney lost his (whatever it was). Outside of that, no candidate has lost theirs. Republicans and democrats have won blue and red state houses. Your prescription permanently relegates rural citizens to 2nd class status.

That is the mathematical reality of the situation; romantic and fanciful feelings of fairness aside.

Many people don’t understand how real-world political campaigns are run.

Candidates for governor and other offices in elections in which every vote is equal, and the winner is the candidate who receives the most popular votes, campaign wherever there are voters.

In a successful nationwide election for President candidates could not afford campaigning only in metropolitan areas, while ignoring any areas.

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.

In Ohio—the single state that received over a quarter (73 of 253) of all of the 2012 general-election campaign events (and a similar fraction of advertising expenditures),

the candidates campaigned in various parts of the state essentially in proportion to its population.

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

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

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

In a nationwide election, as in statewide elections for governor and U.S. Senators, and elections for President in battleground states, candidates would campaign everywhere in proportion to the number of votes.

With National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states or (gerrymandered) districts would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.

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

In the 2012 campaign, “Much of the heaviest spending has not been in big cities with large and expensive media markets, but in small and medium-size metropolitan areas in states with little individual weight in the Electoral College: Cedar Rapids and Des Moines in Iowa (6 votes); Colorado Springs and Grand Junction in Colorado (9 votes); Norfolk and Richmond in Virginia (13 votes). Since the beginning of April, four-fifths of the ads that favored or opposed a presidential candidate have been in television markets of modest size.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/u...in-focus-of-ad-blitz.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

 

[mvymvy]

Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable.

From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

If this 20 year pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.

Population shifts have converted states that were once solidly Republican into closely divided “battleground” states.
There do not appear to be any Democratic states making the transition to voting Republican in presidential races.

Some states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
· 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
· 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
· 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
· 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
· 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
· 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

 

[mvymvy]

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