Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
When that system was established voting was not a protected right and could only be exercised by a select few.
Not only that but it took weeks to gather all the votes from the rural areas. Today the vote totals are nearly instant.
Using the popular vote to elect the President is still part of a Republic frame. It's not like we're asking for National Referendum votes or anything.
Its the only think that makes sense. We essentially do that already.When that system was established voting was not a protected right and could only be exercised by a select few.
Not only that but it took weeks to gather all the votes from the rural areas. Today the vote totals are nearly instant.
Using the popular vote to elect the President is still part of a Republic frame. It's not like we're asking for National Referendum votes or anything.
The problem is that there are a few times when the system does something wonky and it would be easily eliminated with a PV. I think there is enough support behind it to make it happen but the parties are going to be opposed to it as it changes everything they know about running elections.
When that system was established voting was not a protected right and could only be exercised by a select few.
Not only that but it took weeks to gather all the votes from the rural areas. Today the vote totals are nearly instant.
Using the popular vote to elect the President is still part of a Republic frame. It's not like we're asking for National Referendum votes or anything.
There would be no need to collect the votes from the rural areas. All campaigning would be done in the top 20-30 population centers. There would be zero need to waste time and money in the flyover states.
Its the only think that makes sense. We essentially do that already.When that system was established voting was not a protected right and could only be exercised by a select few.
Not only that but it took weeks to gather all the votes from the rural areas. Today the vote totals are nearly instant.
Using the popular vote to elect the President is still part of a Republic frame. It's not like we're asking for National Referendum votes or anything.
The problem is that there are a few times when the system does something wonky and it would be easily eliminated with a PV. I think there is enough support behind it to make it happen but the parties are going to be opposed to it as it changes everything they know about running elections.
When that system was established voting was not a protected right and could only be exercised by a select few.
Not only that but it took weeks to gather all the votes from the rural areas. Today the vote totals are nearly instant.
Using the popular vote to elect the President is still part of a Republic frame. It's not like we're asking for National Referendum votes or anything.
There would be no need to collect the votes from the rural areas. All campaigning would be done in the top 20-30 population centers. There would be zero need to waste time and money in the flyover states.
We can't even draw fair districts for the House, why try to bring it to the presidency?
Small states do not need to if the larger states wanted to pass it. All that needs to happen is states representing 270 EC votes to pass state law declaring that their representation goes to the candidate with the largest popular vote. It could happen with as little as 11 states. That is all that is required. Not that it is likely to happen - TX particularly is unlikely to do such a thing but it is possible without a single small state. The top 11:Its the only think that makes sense. We essentially do that already.When that system was established voting was not a protected right and could only be exercised by a select few.
Not only that but it took weeks to gather all the votes from the rural areas. Today the vote totals are nearly instant.
Using the popular vote to elect the President is still part of a Republic frame. It's not like we're asking for National Referendum votes or anything.
The problem is that there are a few times when the system does something wonky and it would be easily eliminated with a PV. I think there is enough support behind it to make it happen but the parties are going to be opposed to it as it changes everything they know about running elections.
Small states would never agree to it
Small states do not need to if the larger states wanted to pass it. All that needs to happen is states representing 270 EC votes to pass state law declaring that their representation goes to the candidate with the largest popular vote. It could happen with as little as 11 states. That is all that is required. Not that it is likely to happen - TX particularly is unlikely to do such a thing but it is possible without a single small state. The top 11:Its the only think that makes sense. We essentially do that already.When that system was established voting was not a protected right and could only be exercised by a select few.
Not only that but it took weeks to gather all the votes from the rural areas. Today the vote totals are nearly instant.
Using the popular vote to elect the President is still part of a Republic frame. It's not like we're asking for National Referendum votes or anything.
The problem is that there are a few times when the system does something wonky and it would be easily eliminated with a PV. I think there is enough support behind it to make it happen but the parties are going to be opposed to it as it changes everything they know about running elections.
Small states would never agree to it
California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey
Those 11 represent exactly enough EC votes to elect a president. Really, even if the majority of those passed such a law the path to the presidency would be nigh impossible without the popular vote. I don't think it is going to happen because, as I said, the parties do not really want it to. It would mean chaining how they do things now and they have a lock on the political system. Upsetting the apple cart would not benefit them.
no. see, this is the problem with states' righters.... you have this blind eye for the fact that we no longer live under the articles of confederation.
The Articles were indeed very very pro states rights. But the Constitution that replaced it is is also pro states rights, just not as much.
It was only states rights because the states wouldn't ratify it otherwise. Not because some of that shit was a good idea.
no. see, this is the problem with states' righters.... you have this blind eye for the fact that we no longer live under the articles of confederation.
The Articles were indeed very very pro states rights. But the Constitution that replaced it is is also pro states rights, just not as much.
It was only states rights because the states wouldn't ratify it otherwise. Not because some of that shit was a good idea.
regardless... the constitution centralized government. if they wanted to keep things a loose confederation with a weak central government, they wouldn't have changed over to the constitution.
it's so funny how people who claim to love the federalist papers seem very selective in what they accept of those documents.
no. see, this is the problem with states' righters.... you have this blind eye for the fact that we no longer live under the articles of confederation.
The Articles were indeed very very pro states rights. But the Constitution that replaced it is is also pro states rights, just not as much.
It was only states rights because the states wouldn't ratify it otherwise. Not because some of that shit was a good idea.
regardless... the constitution centralized government. if they wanted to keep things a loose confederation with a weak central government, they wouldn't have changed over to the constitution.
it's so funny how people who claim to love the federalist papers seem very selective in what they accept of those documents.
What's funnier is that they don't get that the Federalist papers made the argument FOR a stronger central government.
Small states do not need to if the larger states wanted to pass it. All that needs to happen is states representing 270 EC votes to pass state law declaring that their representation goes to the candidate with the largest popular vote. It could happen with as little as 11 states. That is all that is required. Not that it is likely to happen - TX particularly is unlikely to do such a thing but it is possible without a single small state. The top 11:Its the only think that makes sense. We essentially do that already.When that system was established voting was not a protected right and could only be exercised by a select few.
Not only that but it took weeks to gather all the votes from the rural areas. Today the vote totals are nearly instant.
Using the popular vote to elect the President is still part of a Republic frame. It's not like we're asking for National Referendum votes or anything.
The problem is that there are a few times when the system does something wonky and it would be easily eliminated with a PV. I think there is enough support behind it to make it happen but the parties are going to be opposed to it as it changes everything they know about running elections.
Small states would never agree to it
California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey
Those 11 represent exactly enough EC votes to elect a president. Really, even if the majority of those passed such a law the path to the presidency would be nigh impossible without the popular vote. I don't think it is going to happen because, as I said, the parties do not really want it to. It would mean chaining how they do things now and they have a lock on the political system. Upsetting the apple cart would not benefit them.
Seems unlikely
A state like Texas would be giving its EVs to a Democrat even though the state voted overwhelmingly Republican. Wouldn't be too popular
Its the only think that makes sense. We essentially do that already.When that system was established voting was not a protected right and could only be exercised by a select few.
Not only that but it took weeks to gather all the votes from the rural areas. Today the vote totals are nearly instant.
Using the popular vote to elect the President is still part of a Republic frame. It's not like we're asking for National Referendum votes or anything.
The problem is that there are a few times when the system does something wonky and it would be easily eliminated with a PV. I think there is enough support behind it to make it happen but the parties are going to be opposed to it as it changes everything they know about running elections.
Small states would never agree to it
When that system was established voting was not a protected right and could only be exercised by a select few.
Not only that but it took weeks to gather all the votes from the rural areas. Today the vote totals are nearly instant.
Using the popular vote to elect the President is still part of a Republic frame. It's not like we're asking for National Referendum votes or anything.
There would be no need to collect the votes from the rural areas. All campaigning would be done in the top 20-30 population centers. There would be zero need to waste time and money in the flyover states.
It is virtually impossible to make a rational argument that the leader of a democratic government in a democratic country can rightfully be the candidate who lost the popular vote in the election.
That is easy if you realize we are a Republic.
States are already free to adopt this method of apportioning electoral votes (e.g., Maine and Nebraska).
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts. In 2012, the Democratic candidate would have needed to win the national popular vote by more than 7 percentage points in order to win the barest majority of congressional districts. In 2014, Democrats would have needed to win the national popular vote by a margin of about nine percentage points in order to win a majority of districts.
In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts
Nationwide, there are now only 10 "battleground" districts that are expected to be competitive in the 2016 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 38+ states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 98% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state.
In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President
In 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill
In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President
After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008, the only state in the past century that has split its electoral votes between presidential candidates from two different parties,
Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, andthe leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.
A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any district or state or throughout the country.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
A national popular vote guarantees that candidates would only campaign in the most populous states and ignore the rest.
And the electoral college will remain for all of your life times.
