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.
Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?
For the reason we didn't do it in the first place. To avoid tyranny of the majority
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.
In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.
One analyst is predicting two million voters in seven counties are going to determine who wins the presidency in 2016.
Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes, 2 have district winner laws. Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 15 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
If a candidate wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent that candidate from being elected President of the United 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 only 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 while winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.
You and the author obviously don't understand the purpose of the electoral college.
The FF believed in states rights. That's why they set up the EC.
And why would any state willingly volunteer to go first?
For instance- why would either Texas or California volunteer to change their systems- while knowing that the other state will still go winner take all- which favors the party in power in the state?
.
That's a good point but if the public demanded it, it could be done by the individual states. Most people have never thought of this.
The people are not demanding it though.
I have watched the suggestion happen here in California- yes a contingent from the GOP made this suggestion to California- and California- correctly pointed out why should we dilute our votes, while Texas remains solidly GOP- winner take all.
This never benefits the majority in power- only the minority.
Personally, I would be fine with California passing a proportional law, but that only went into effect after two GOP majority states voted in such a law for themselves.
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.
Except that the states were considered meaningful in this process. Preserving their "identities" to a certain extent is the reason we have the electoral college.
In theory you can still win the presidency with 33.4% of the popular vote.
I like that.
The popular vote is the better idea, then no one can claim their vote doesn't count.
You don't understand the concept of states rights. You've been brainwashed into thinking the federal govt is above the states just like the states are above counties. The FF did NOT think like that. They thought of the federal govt as existing alongside the states and a little below them, Washington and jefferson considered themselves virginians first and americans second just like people in france think of themselves as frenchmen first and europeans second.
Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?
Because the founders decided that was a really stupid idea.
And why would any state willingly volunteer to go first?
For instance- why would either Texas or California volunteer to change their systems- while knowing that the other state will still go winner take all- which favors the party in power in the state?
.
That's a good point but if the public demanded it, it could be done by the individual states. Most people have never thought of this.
The electoral college is just an antiquated leftover from the days of yore when the states still saw themselves as little countries.
exactly. As long as we believe in states rights, we have to have something like an electoral college.
Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?
Because the constitution is founded on states rights and even federal elections have to be held at the state level. THINK
If the National Vote does become law, the GOP better understand, that if it does not move to straddle the center, it will not win the presidency ever again.A national vote ignores the geography and demography of particular regions and violates the concept of federalism.
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.
Although the procedures vary from state to state, representatives of the candidates, political parties, proponents and opponents of ballot measures, civic groups, and the media typically all have the ability to immediately obtain the vote count from every precinct for local, statewide, and national elections. Indeed, the almost-instant availability of precinct-level vote tallies provides the basis for the vote tallies that are posted on government web sites and broadcast by the media on Election Night.
Existing state laws also require rapid transmission of official documentation of vote tallies to some designated central location (e.g., the secretary of state).
Shortly after Election Day, local authorities make official determinations on the eligibility to vote of provisional ballots that were cast on Election Day, and the additional official documents are created at the local level to reflect the results of including eligible provisional ballots in the precinct totals. In addition, in the process of rechecking local vote tallies, local authorities sometimes notice and correct administrative errors that may have occurred on Election Night (e.g., transposing digits, accidentally double-counting a precinct).
Within a few weeks after Election Day (long before the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December), “official returns” consisting of the precinct-level vote tallies for President exist in at least two separate places in every state.
● at the level of the precinct or unit of local government where the votes were actually counted, and
● at the state office to which the local vote counts were transmitted.
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site
I see that you have abandoned your National Popular Vote scheme. That's a good start.
Now if you could just get over the fact that Bush won Florida...
A national vote ignores the geography and demography of particular regions and violates the concept of federalism.
Wow...ummm...yeah.....what else possibly needs to be added...By gerrymandered congressional districts? Are you mental?
And why would any state willingly volunteer to go first?
For instance- why would either Texas or California volunteer to change their systems- while knowing that the other state will still go winner take all- which favors the party in power in the state?
.
That's a good point but if the public demanded it, it could be done by the individual states. Most people have never thought of this.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, 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.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
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
Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?
For the reason we didn't do it in the first place. To avoid tyranny of the majority
It's one third of the government. States have Senate. Jerrymandered districts get the House. The people get the Presidency Not going to happen of course, just a topic to counter the district electors idea.
How many times did you whine about Gerrymandered districts when they benefited Democrats, which was most of my life? BTW, it's "Gerrymandered," Gerry was a former governor of Massachussetts
I specifically didn't mention Democrats or Republicans at all. Just the manipulated districts as a reality of today.
Exactly. You object to the ones of today which benefits Republicans. You don't care about the ones that for 50 years befitted Democrats
Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?
Because the founders decided that was a really stupid idea.
The founders didn't have planes or telephones. For them it could take weeks for the results of an election to be known.
>>>>
Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?
Because the founders decided that was a really stupid idea.
The founders didn't have planes or telephones. For them it could take weeks for the results of an election to be known.
>>>>
The founders intended to protect the rights and voice of small states hence no national popular vote. Same reason all states have 2 senators. Besides, we need to avoid another civil war the left would be destroyed.
