How the electoral college ruins everything

[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.

A President cannot be "divided" proportionally.

Precisely. Therefore all votes for the losing candidate were "wasted"

 

[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.

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

You've proven my point twice now.

 

[mvymvy]

ON this point, you're right.

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

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

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.

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.

2012 Presidential Candidates
Barack Obama - Democratic Party - Running Mate: Joe Biden
Ballot-qualified in 50 States.

Gary Johnson - Libertarian Party - Running Mate: Jim Gray
Ballot-qualified in 48 States.

Mitt Romney - Republican Party - Running Mate: Paul Ryan
Ballot-qualified in 50 States.

Jill Stein - Green Party - Running Mate: Cheri Honkala
Ballot-qualified in 37 States.

Rocky Anderson - Justice Party - Running Mate: Luis Rodriguez
Ballot-qualified in 15 States.

Roseanne Barr - Peace & Freedom Party - Running Mate: Cindy Sheehan
Ballot-qualified in 3 States.

Virgil Goode - Constitution Party - Running Mate: Jim Clymer
Ballot-qualified in 21 States.

Stewart Alexander - Socialist Party - Running Mate: Alex Mendoza
Ballot-access in 3 States.

Tom Hoefling - America's Party - Running Mate: J.D. Ellis
Ballot-qualified in 3 States.

Andre Barnett - Reform Party - Running Mate: Kenneth Cross
Ballot-qualified in 2 States.

Merlin Miller - American Third Position - Running Mate: Virginia Abernethy
Ballot-qualified in 3 States.

Ed Noonan - American Independent Party - Running Mate:
Ballot-qualified in 0 States.

James Harris - Socialist Workers Party - Running Mate: Maura DeLuca
Ballot-qualified in 6 States.

Jerry White - Socialist Equality Party - Running Mate: Phyllis Scherrer
Ballot-qualified in 2 States.

 

[mvymvy]

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to decide how they award their electoral votes for president.

The National Popular Vote bill is state legislatures choosing to replace their 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).

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!

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

 

[mvymvy]

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).

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.

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.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

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

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

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.

 

[imawhosure]

Could very well be true........but you leave an avenue to screw the American people, just because you do not close it. That is ridiculous.

Here is what you are basically saying...........lets allow someone with 20, 30, or 40% of the popular vote to win, so we can insure that someone who has 47, 48, or 49% of the vote doesn't, over someone who has 51, 52, or 53%. How ridiculous of an argument is that?

Your premise is soooooooooo obfuscated, that you are willing to allow someone with far less than 40% to win, to protect someone with less than 53% from losing!

So, why don't you tell everyone on here what your REAL DEAL is! It can't be this one, because the numbers don't add up.

 

[candycorn]

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

Opinion.

Ohio went red twice this century which is 4 elections old. Care to explain?

Florida swings twice as well. Care to explain?

There are rural swing states that will be totally ignored in a PV only scenario. Care to explain?

You still have not addressed what would haven with more than two candidates and a third or fourth peeling away 10-20% except to wail that it won't happen. Care to explain?

I admit that some voters today are ignored. I admit that there are pockets of the nation not in play. No elections I have witnessed saw all 50 states in play. Your plan does nothing other than shift the focus to populated areas and away from lesser populated areas

 

[Rustic]

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.

The country needs to enforce the 10th amendment to be just...

 

[Rustic]

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

Opinion.

Ohio went red twice this century which is 4 elections old. Care to explain?

Florida swings twice as well. Care to explain?

There are rural swing states that will be totally ignored in a PV only scenario. Care to explain?

You still have not addressed what would haven with more than two candidates and a third or fourth peeling away 10-20% except to wail that it won't happen. Care to explain?

I admit that some voters today are ignored. I admit that there are pockets of the nation not in play. No elections I have witnessed saw all 50 states in play. Your plan does nothing other than shift the focus to populated areas and away from lesser populated areas

In a PV only scenario say, the greater Minneapolis area would off-set like five rural states - population wise, how is that fair??
You can't have urban areas telling rural areas what to do with their land and call it fair.

 

[mvymvy]

Could very well be true........but you leave an avenue to screw the American people, just because you do not close it. That is ridiculous.

Here is what you are basically saying...........lets allow someone with 20, 30, or 40% of the popular vote to win, so we can insure that someone who has 47, 48, or 49% of the vote doesn't, over someone who has 51, 52, or 53%. How ridiculous of an argument is that?

Your premise is soooooooooo obfuscated, that you are willing to allow someone with far less than 40% to win, to protect someone with less than 53% from losing!

So, why don't you tell everyone on here what your REAL DEAL is! It can't be this one, because the numbers don't add up.

With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes.

Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

Americans do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.

And, FYI, with the current system of awarding electoral votes by state winner-take-all (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a plurality of the popular vote 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.

 

[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

Opinion.

Ohio went red twice this century which is 4 elections old. Care to explain?

Florida swings twice as well. Care to explain?

There are rural swing states that will be totally ignored in a PV only scenario. Care to explain?

You still have not addressed what would haven with more than two candidates and a third or fourth peeling away 10-20% except to wail that it won't happen. Care to explain?

I admit that some voters today are ignored. I admit that there are pockets of the nation not in play. No elections I have witnessed saw all 50 states in play. Your plan does nothing other than shift the focus to populated areas and away from lesser populated areas

In a PV only scenario say, the greater Minneapolis area would off-set like five rural states - population wise, how is that fair??
You can't have urban areas telling rural areas what to do with their land and call it fair.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not 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.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of the 10 most 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

Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S,Total Agricultural Receipts Ranked by State from StuffAboutStates.comwhich were surveyed recently, support for a national popular vote was CA - 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA - 75%, NE - 67%, MN - 75%, IL (enacted), NC - 74%, WI - 71%, and FL - 78%.

 

[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

Opinion.

Ohio went red twice this century which is 4 elections old. Care to explain?

Florida swings twice as well. Care to explain?

There are rural swing states that will be totally ignored in a PV only scenario. Care to explain?

You still have not addressed what would haven with more than two candidates and a third or fourth peeling away 10-20% except to wail that it won't happen. Care to explain?

I admit that some voters today are ignored. I admit that there are pockets of the nation not in play. No elections I have witnessed saw all 50 states in play. Your plan does nothing other than shift the focus to populated areas and away from lesser populated areas

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.

Ohio and Florida remain swing states.

All the 10 most rural states are ignored with the current system.
The most rural state is Vermont, with 82.6 percent of its population living in either rural areas or small cities. Vermont has enacted the National Popular Vote bill.

Of the 7 remaining swing states, it appears that Iowa is 35% Rural and New Hampshire is 49% Rural

The National Popular Vote bill clearly guarantees the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country. That's what happens.

In 1960, presidential campaigns paid attention to 35 states.

In 2008, Obama only campaigned in 14 states after being nominated.

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).
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 predictability of the winner of the state you live in, not the size of the population of where you live, determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.

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.

 

[candycorn]

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

Opinion.

Ohio went red twice this century which is 4 elections old. Care to explain?

Florida swings twice as well. Care to explain?

There are rural swing states that will be totally ignored in a PV only scenario. Care to explain?

You still have not addressed what would haven with more than two candidates and a third or fourth peeling away 10-20% except to wail that it won't happen. Care to explain?

I admit that some voters today are ignored. I admit that there are pockets of the nation not in play. No elections I have witnessed saw all 50 states in play. Your plan does nothing other than shift the focus to populated areas and away from lesser populated areas

In a PV only scenario say, the greater Minneapolis area would off-set like five rural states - population wise, how is that fair??
You can't have urban areas telling rural areas what to do with their land and call it fair.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not 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.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of the 10 most 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

Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S,Total Agricultural Receipts Ranked by State from StuffAboutStates.comwhich were surveyed recently, support for a national popular vote was CA - 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA - 75%, NE - 67%, MN - 75%, IL (enacted), NC - 74%, WI - 71%, and FL - 78%.

It's like talking to a bill board. How about addressing the issues that are brought up?

Secondly, Here is what you just said:
One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities
The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs,


Suburbs are not that far outside of the cities--meaning that (according to YOUR MATH) 5/6 of the population live in cities and suburbs all dominated by a single newspaper, 3-7 TV stations and 10 or so Radio stations.

Then you say, unbelievably that:

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not control the outcome.



Which directly contradicts everything else in your monologue

Seriously, you're not making any sense.

 

[candycorn]

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

Opinion.

Ohio went red twice this century which is 4 elections old. Care to explain?

Florida swings twice as well. Care to explain?

There are rural swing states that will be totally ignored in a PV only scenario. Care to explain?

You still have not addressed what would haven with more than two candidates and a third or fourth peeling away 10-20% except to wail that it won't happen. Care to explain?

I admit that some voters today are ignored. I admit that there are pockets of the nation not in play. No elections I have witnessed saw all 50 states in play. Your plan does nothing other than shift the focus to populated areas and away from lesser populated areas

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.

Ohio and Florida remain swing states.

All the 10 most rural states are ignored with the current system.
The most rural state is Vermont, with 82.6 percent of its population living in either rural areas or small cities. Vermont has enacted the National Popular Vote bill.

Of the 7 remaining swing states, it appears that Iowa is 35% Rural and New Hampshire is 49% Rural

The National Popular Vote bill clearly guarantees the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country. That's what happens.

In 1960, presidential campaigns paid attention to 35 states.

In 2008, Obama only campaigned in 14 states after being nominated.

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).
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 predictability of the winner of the state you live in, not the size of the population of where you live, determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.

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.

 

[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.

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

Not really. Electoral votes are not distributed according to population. The number of electoral votes is equal to the number in their congressional delegation, 2 for the senators and one for each representative in the House. The House Representatives are based on population but the Senate is not. Therefore, a voter in a smaller state would have a greater impact that voters in larger states.

We have an Electoral College because our founders did not believe in democracy. In fact, they were very afraid of it. What would happen if a state allowed people to vote at age 18 or allow blacks or women to vote. The common folks might be able to elect the president. That would have been unthinkable at that time when voting was restricted to white male property owners.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Not really. Electoral votes are not distributed according to population. Each state has the number electoral votes equal to the number in the congressional delegation, 2 for the senators and one for each representative in the House. The House Representatives are based on population but the Senate is not. Therefore, a voter in a smaller state have a greater impact that voters in larger states.

We have an Electoral College because our founders did not believe in democracy. In fact, they were very afraid of it. What would happen if a state allowed people to vote at age 18 or allow blacks or women to vote. The common folks might be able to elect the president. That would have been unthinkable at that time when voting was restricted to white male property owners.

No, a republic is what we are supposed to be - much better than a "democracy" any day...

 

[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.

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

Not really. Electoral votes are not distributed according to population. Each state has the number electoral votes equal to the number in the congressional delegation, 2 for the senators and one for each representative in the House. The House Representatives are based on population but the Senate is not. Therefore, a voter in a smaller state have a greater impact that voters in larger states.

We have an Electoral College because our founders did not believe in democracy. In fact, they were very afraid of it. What would happen if a state allowed people to vote at age 18 or allow blacks or women to vote. The common folks might be able to elect the president. That would have been unthinkable at that time when voting was restricted to white male property owners.

No, a republic is what we are supposed to be - much better than a "democracy" any day...

I think a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic better describes the US than just a republic. The electoral college is a compromise between a democratic and republican method of selecting leadership, the Senate being a more republican method as they weren't elected by the people, and the House which was a more democratic method, because representatives were elected by the people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Not really. Electoral votes are not distributed according to population. Each state has the number electoral votes equal to the number in the congressional delegation, 2 for the senators and one for each representative in the House. The House Representatives are based on population but the Senate is not. Therefore, a voter in a smaller state have a greater impact that voters in larger states.

We have an Electoral College because our founders did not believe in democracy. In fact, they were very afraid of it. What would happen if a state allowed people to vote at age 18 or allow blacks or women to vote. The common folks might be able to elect the president. That would have been unthinkable at that time when voting was restricted to white male property owners.

No, a republic is what we are supposed to be - much better than a "democracy" any day...

The United States is currently a Constitutional Republic, no 'supposition' involved.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Not really. Electoral votes are not distributed according to population. Each state has the number electoral votes equal to the number in the congressional delegation, 2 for the senators and one for each representative in the House. The House Representatives are based on population but the Senate is not. Therefore, a voter in a smaller state have a greater impact that voters in larger states.

We have an Electoral College because our founders did not believe in democracy. In fact, they were very afraid of it. What would happen if a state allowed people to vote at age 18 or allow blacks or women to vote. The common folks might be able to elect the president. That would have been unthinkable at that time when voting was restricted to white male property owners.

No, a republic is what we are supposed to be - much better than a "democracy" any day...

The United States is currently a Constitutional Republic, no 'supposition' involved.

It's a socialist democracy... The reason why it's failing.
...it never was "supposed" too be

 

[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

Opinion.

Ohio went red twice this century which is 4 elections old. Care to explain?

Florida swings twice as well. Care to explain?

There are rural swing states that will be totally ignored in a PV only scenario. Care to explain?

You still have not addressed what would haven with more than two candidates and a third or fourth peeling away 10-20% except to wail that it won't happen. Care to explain?

I admit that some voters today are ignored. I admit that there are pockets of the nation not in play. No elections I have witnessed saw all 50 states in play. Your plan does nothing other than shift the focus to populated areas and away from lesser populated areas

In a PV only scenario say, the greater Minneapolis area would off-set like five rural states - population wise, how is that fair??
You can't have urban areas telling rural areas what to do with their land and call it fair.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not 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.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of the 10 most 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

Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S,Total Agricultural Receipts Ranked by State from StuffAboutStates.comwhich were surveyed recently, support for a national popular vote was CA - 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA - 75%, NE - 67%, MN - 75%, IL (enacted), NC - 74%, WI - 71%, and FL - 78%.

It's like talking to a bill board. How about addressing the issues that are brought up?

Secondly, Here is what you just said:
One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities
The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs,


Suburbs are not that far outside of the cities--meaning that (according to YOUR MATH) 5/6 of the population live in cities and suburbs all dominated by a single newspaper, 3-7 TV stations and 10 or so Radio stations.

Then you say, unbelievably that:

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not control the outcome.



Which directly contradicts everything else in your monologue

Seriously, you're not making any sense.

The size of population of where one lives does not mean all of the voters vote the same way.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally.

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.