It's Time to Award Electoral College Votes by Congressional District

[mvymvy]

I like the back and fourth on this and strange bedfellows are being made as a result.

What it comes down to is simple; do we want the people to decide or do we want a slate of electors to decide who is elected President and Vice President.

Why not have both? Keep the majority of the EVs be the threshold but add one more condition; you also have to win the popular vote. If not, the current remedy of the House picking the POTUS comes into effect.

It is positively crazy that in this day and age, we do not insist that the POTUS be elected by a plurality of the voters.

Instead of being a deliberative body, the Electoral College, in practice, is composed of presidential electors who voted in lockstep to rubberstamp the choices that had been previously made by extra-constitutional bodies (namely, the nominating caucuses of the political parties).

Starting in 1796, political parties began nominating presidential and vice-presidential candidates on a centralized basis and began actively campaigning for their nominees throughout the country. As a result, presidential electors necessarily became rubberstamps for the choices made by the parties. “[W]hether chosen by the legislatures or by popular suffrage on general ticket or in districts, [the presidential electors] were so chosen simply to register the will of the appointing power.”
McPherson v. Blacker. 146 U.S. 1 at 36. 1892.

Presidential electors have been expected to vote for the candidates nominated by their party—that is, “to act, not to think.”

National Popular Vote awards a state’s electoral votes under the authority of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The Electoral College remains in place, with sovereign states determining the manner in which their electoral votes are cast.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Congress would never need to be left with deciding the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

 

[kaz]

Swish. I thought you were older than me, and you still don't get it? Democrats Gerrymandered the majority of my life. You're like WTF, they did? OK, well, now it's the Republicans and you're against it ... all of a sudden ...

GOP have always gerrymandered when possible, just like the Dems. Your bold assertions mean nothing without evidence. I knew both of those thing in my teens.

That's what I said you fucking retard. What does it take for you to grasp a point? My point, Jake, is that when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig and when the Democrats do it you ho hum. But they both do it. Buy a clue

You always squeal when you get caught in your lies. When have I ever not condemned or excused gerrymandering? You put words in other peoples' mouths they did not say because you don't have the truth. You are a mental midget.

What lie? You didn't disagree with anything I said, dumb ass.You have a serious alcohol problem, don't you, Jake?

Personal attacks, bold assertions, lies, etc., shows kaz to be a dull person.

you wrote that when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig but excuse the Dems

Dull Person Kaz, that is a lie.

You're lying Jake, you never criticize Democrats when they and Republicans do the same things, you only criticize Republicans for it

 

[mvymvy]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Federalism.

The National Popular Vote bill retains the Electoral College and state control of elections. It is states again changing the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, 38+ states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

With the Electoral College, and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interest within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution--
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."

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

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]

I was wondering when we’d get our first crybaby thread about the EC.

The winning position is that you make it to where the President-elect would have to win both the majority of EV and the plurality of the PV. We can’t get rid of the EC all together because people would only campaign in the large cities. Congressional districts would also be a stupid idea given how the media is dominant over a region. However, in this day and age of being able to tally votes within days if not hours…it makes no sense to ignore the popular vote any longer.

It's crazy because the EC already favors them. They have multiple states that are just empty land, but still get the minimum 3 EV's even though their population doesn't warrant it.

If it was a national popular vote, small states might as well not even vote. A City like Baltimore would displace the whole of the northern plains states. No fairness in that at all...
This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy.

The small states get displaced anyway. One person one vote is superior to any system concocted to advantage conservatives.

Right now, small states have power far in excess of their population

Just look at Wyoming with 3 EVs for a population of 600,000
That is less than live in my county an we get no electoral votes

So, this is a republic or at least supposed to be one not a shit eating democracy.

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island conducted popular elections for Governor. If popular election of a state’s chief executive meant that these four states were not a “republic,” then all four would have been in immediate violation of the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”). If the states were not “republics,” the delegates from these four states would not have voted for the Constitution at the Convention and these four states would never have ratified the Constitution.

Madison’s definition of a “republic” in Federalist No. 14: “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” Also Federalist No. 10.

The United States would be neither more nor less a “republic” if its chief executive is elected under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state), under a district system (such as used by Maine and Nebraska), or under the proposed national popular vote system (in which the winner would be the candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia).

 

[kaz]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Federalism.

The National Popular Vote bill retains the Electoral College and state control of elections. It is states again changing the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, 38+ states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

With the Electoral College, and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interest within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution--
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."

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

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).

You just want the tyranny of the majority, exactly what the founding fathers didn't want. They were right

 

[kaz]

The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country

Every other election is at the State or partial State level

 

[candycorn]

I like the back and fourth on this and strange bedfellows are being made as a result.

What it comes down to is simple; do we want the people to decide or do we want a slate of electors to decide who is elected President and Vice President.

Why not have both? Keep the majority of the EVs be the threshold but add one more condition; you also have to win the popular vote. If not, the current remedy of the House picking the POTUS comes into effect.

It is positively crazy that in this day and age, we do not insist that the POTUS be elected by a plurality of the voters.

Instead of being a deliberative body, the Electoral College, in practice, is composed of presidential electors who voted in lockstep to rubberstamp the choices that had been previously made by extra-constitutional bodies (namely, the nominating caucuses of the political parties).

Starting in 1796, political parties began nominating presidential and vice-presidential candidates on a centralized basis and began actively campaigning for their nominees throughout the country. As a result, presidential electors necessarily became rubberstamps for the choices made by the parties. “[W]hether chosen by the legislatures or by popular suffrage on general ticket or in districts, [the presidential electors] were so chosen simply to register the will of the appointing power.”
McPherson v. Blacker. 146 U.S. 1 at 36. 1892.

Presidential electors have been expected to vote for the candidates nominated by their party—that is, “to act, not to think.”

National Popular Vote awards a state’s electoral votes under the authority of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The Electoral College remains in place, with sovereign states determining the manner in which their electoral votes are cast.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Congress would never need to be left with deciding the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

 

[mvymvy]

By gerrymandered congressional districts? Are you mental?

You got a better idea? What makes you so certain there would be gerrymandering. ? THINK

The popular vote is the better idea, then no one can claim their vote doesn't count.

Going by popular vote is just mob rule. Dip shit

If the People are a mob that shouldn't be allowed a voice in government, then you're opting for rule by a few.

Who should that few be?

People in rural America should not be told what to do by urban America…

The biggest cities are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

 

[mvymvy]

The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country

Every other election is at the State or partial State level

And voters in a presidential election are in all 50 states and DC.

 

[kaz]

The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country

Every other election is at the State or partial State level

And voters in a presidential election are in all 50 states and DC.

No shit, what's your point beyond what we were already discussing?

 

[JakeStarkey]

GOP have always gerrymandered when possible, just like the Dems. Your bold assertions mean nothing without evidence. I knew both of those thing in my teens.

That's what I said you fucking retard. What does it take for you to grasp a point? My point, Jake, is that when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig and when the Democrats do it you ho hum. But they both do it. Buy a clue

You always squeal when you get caught in your lies. When have I ever not condemned or excused gerrymandering? You put words in other peoples' mouths they did not say because you don't have the truth. You are a mental midget.

What lie? You didn't disagree with anything I said, dumb ass.You have a serious alcohol problem, don't you, Jake?

Personal attacks, bold assertions, lies, etc., shows kaz to be a dull person.

you wrote that when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig but excuse the Dems

Dull Person Kaz, that is a lie.

You're lying Jake, you never criticize Democrats when they and Republicans do the same things, you only criticize Republicans for it

That's not only a bold assertion, it's a life, and a personal attack. You have expanded your lie from gerrymandering to "when they do the same things." That is a fallacy of argumentum absurdum. Do you have any examples? You are now dubbed Kazcuck.

 

[mvymvy]

I was wondering when we’d get our first crybaby thread about the EC.

The winning position is that you make it to where the President-elect would have to win both the majority of EV and the plurality of the PV. We can’t get rid of the EC all together because people would only campaign in the large cities. Congressional districts would also be a stupid idea given how the media is dominant over a region. However, in this day and age of being able to tally votes within days if not hours…it makes no sense to ignore the popular vote any longer.

It's crazy because the EC already favors them. They have multiple states that are just empty land, but still get the minimum 3 EV's even though their population doesn't warrant it.

If it was a national popular vote, small states might as well not even vote. A City like Baltimore would displace the whole of the northern plains states. No fairness in that at all...
This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

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 less than 22% of the nation's votes!

A presidential candidate could lose with 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
The 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

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.

Voters in states, of all sizes, 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.

Now, minority party voters in each state don't matter to their candidate.


In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to presidential candidates.

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

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

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

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

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

The biggest cities are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

 

[mvymvy]

The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country

Every other election is at the State or partial State level

And voters in a presidential election are in all 50 states and DC.

No shit, what's your point beyond what we were already discussing?

The point is, that most Americans believe presidential elections should be determined by the winner of the national popular vote.

 

[mvymvy]

By gerrymandered congressional districts? Are you mental?

You got a better idea? What makes you so certain there would be gerrymandering. ? THINK

The popular vote is the better idea, then no one can claim their vote doesn't count.

Going by popular vote is just mob rule. Dip shit

Mob rule is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or by mob rule.

Madison’s definition of a “republic” in Federalist No. 14: “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” Also Federalist No. 10.

The United States would be neither more nor less a “republic” if its chief executive is elected under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state), under a district system (such as used by Maine and Nebraska), or under the proposed national popular vote system (in which the winner would be the candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia).

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is mob rule.

 

[JBond]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Because I don't really give a fuck what NY and California want.

 

[mvymvy]

Are you kidding?????

Stupid much?

Could you manage to state something perhaps?

It is a state by state issue and must stay that way.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

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

If a republican was likely to win the majority of votes, Democrat states in the Compact would leave the Compact at the last moment to declare their EC votes go to the Democrat. Didn't know about that loophole did you?

You did not know that they had to do by May 1 of the election year.

I know that the deadline is/was actually July 20th.

The bill says
"This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes."

 

[JBond]

The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country

Every other election is at the State or partial State level

And voters in a presidential election are in all 50 states and DC.

No shit, what's your point beyond what we were already discussing?

The point is, that most Americans believe presidential elections should be determined by the winner of the national popular vote.

Not if they ever had a civics class.

 

[mvymvy]

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

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."

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

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

NationalPopularVote

NPV is a stupid idea and fucks over smaller States. Candidates would only campaign in urban areas and promise most federal spending goes to the urban area. This is a liberal trick to have power for eternity.

Most Americans think state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, is a stupid idea.

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).

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

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.

The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

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

 

[mvymvy]

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of three-quarters of all Americans is now finished for the presidential election.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

In the 2012 general election campaign

38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states..

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

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.

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

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

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

Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from national advertisers who seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. A national advertiser does not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because a competitor makes more sales in those particular states. Moreover, a national advertiser enjoying an edge over its competitors in Indiana or Illinois does not stop trying to make additional sales in those states. National advertisers go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located.

 

[mvymvy]

National Popular Vote is a nonpartisan coalition of legislators, scholars, constitutionalists and grassroots volunteers committed to preserving the Electoral College, while guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who earns the most votes in all fifty states.

Current and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), and Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969).

The night Mitt Romney lost, Donald Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

Current and past presidential candidates with a public record of support for the National Popular Vote bill: Congressman John Anderson (R, I –ILL), Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN).