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?
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.
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.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, 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 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.
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.
You are missing the point, small states do not want to be dictated to by large states like California which is full of a bunch of freaks and traitors or hilariously corrupt states like New York.
Good point. Then allow every state that has a non-partisan districting group to give EV by districts.
In a vacuum, I think it would be the most democratic way of awarding EVs. Except that the States have gotten so brazenly partisan about the way they draw the districts, you do not get a true representation of the voter’s intent.
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.
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.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, 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 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.
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.
You are missing the point, small states do not want to be dictated to by large states like California which is full of a bunch of freaks and traitors or hilariously corrupt states like New York.
I am not missing any point. And neither are voters in small states who support the National Popular Vote bill.
The point is that NOW, with the current system (not mentioned in the Constitution), a candidate could lose in the 39 "smallest" states and win the Presidency.
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states are politically divided, as are the small states, and do not ALL vote 100% for either party.
Voters in California and New York would not overwhelm the votes of the 48 other states.
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.
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.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, 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 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.
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.
You are missing the point, small states do not want to be dictated to by large states like California which is full of a bunch of freaks and traitors or hilariously corrupt states like New York.
I am not missing any point. And neither are voters in small states who support the National Popular Vote bill.
The point is that NOW, with the current system (not mentioned in the Constitution), a candidate could lose in the 39 "smallest" states and win the Presidency.
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states are politically divided, as are the small states, and do not ALL vote 100% for either party.
Voters in California and New York would not overwhelm the votes of the 48 other states.
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
You and your one horse town.
Doesn't matter. I don't think the electoral vote should be based on districts but on the nation as a whole. We are no longer a majority of rural farming communities living in the 18th century.
You and your one horse town.
Doesn't matter. I don't think the electoral vote should be based on districts but on the nation as a whole. We are no longer a majority of rural farming communities living in the 18th century.
WTF are you talking about? Try addressing my point. This is like the fourth time in a row you couldn't. You a mutt or a pussy?
Democrats Gerrymandered for 50 years. What is wrong with you that you don't even grasp that's what I'm saying? I mean duh, what does it take for you to process a point?
You and your one horse town.
Doesn't matter. I don't think the electoral vote should be based on districts but on the nation as a whole. We are no longer a majority of rural farming communities living in the 18th century.
WTF are you talking about? Try addressing my point. This is like the fourth time in a row you couldn't. You a mutt or a pussy?
Democrats Gerrymandered for 50 years. What is wrong with you that you don't even grasp that's what I'm saying? I mean duh, what does it take for you to process a point?
You and your one horse town.
Doesn't matter. I don't think the electoral vote should be based on districts but on the nation as a whole. We are no longer a majority of rural farming communities living in the 18th century.
WTF are you talking about? Try addressing my point. This is like the fourth time in a row you couldn't. You a mutt or a pussy?
Democrats Gerrymandered for 50 years. What is wrong with you that you don't even grasp that's what I'm saying? I mean duh, what does it take for you to process a point?
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.
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.You and your one horse town.
Doesn't matter. I don't think the electoral vote should be based on districts but on the nation as a whole. We are no longer a majority of rural farming communities living in the 18th century.
WTF are you talking about? Try addressing my point. This is like the fourth time in a row you couldn't. You a mutt or a pussy?
Democrats Gerrymandered for 50 years. What is wrong with you that you don't even grasp that's what I'm saying? I mean duh, what does it take for you to process a point?
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 ...
The states destroyed those rights in the Civil War.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.
And it would destroy the idea of states rights - something our founding fathers fervently believed in. THINK
Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?
Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?
Using Single Transfer Vote..... Simple and would stop half the messing...
That would involve a Constitutional Amendment and the arrest or death of all DC insiders.
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.
And it would destroy the idea of states rights - something our founding fathers fervently believed in. THINK
