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

[mvymvy]

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.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the phenomenon or not--I'm not sure there is a name for it--but when you have a hypothetical such as this non-binding resolution passed by some state, people in the government will vote one way. When there is a real chance that there may be some effect and after some learned reflection, they will likely vote differently.

Put another way, the legislators are aware that their votes do not matter so they, not surprisingly, cast them for the most popular stance

. . .

The National Popular Vote bill is NOT a non-binding resolution.

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.

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”

In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”

The important point is that an interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

The National Popular Vote bill says: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

 

[mvymvy]

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.

. . .
A national popular vote simply allows those seeking the Presidency to campaign only in the most populous areas. Nothing you have written this time (or the last 3 times you cut and pasted the filibuster length diatribe) has changed that fact.

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.

 

[mvymvy]

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).

 

[mvymvy]

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.

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. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

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.

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.

 

[candycorn]

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.

. . .
A national popular vote simply allows those seeking the Presidency to campaign only in the most populous areas. Nothing you have written this time (or the last 3 times you cut and pasted the filibuster length diatribe) has changed that fact.

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.

Which is why I feel that the President Elect should win both the Electoral Vote majority and a plurality of the popular vote.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the phenomenon or not--I'm not sure there is a name for it--but when you have a hypothetical such as this non-binding resolution passed by some state, people in the government will vote one way. When there is a real chance that there may be some effect and after some learned reflection, they will likely vote differently.

Put another way, the legislators are aware that their votes do not matter so they, not surprisingly, cast them for the most popular stance

. . .

The National Popular Vote bill is NOT a non-binding resolution.

Sure it is. Everyone who voted for it knew that when they were casting their vote, the measure had no hope of being considered, much less ratified. If there were actual skin in the game, the deliberations would be much more serious as would the manner in which the legislators cast their ballot.

 

[FA_Q2]

I still think the winning position is to simply make sure the President Elect wins both the Electoral Vote and the Popular Vote. I have heard no effective argument to the contrary.

Again, what do you plan to do when a candidate wins the majority and loses the EC?

 

[candycorn]

I still think the winning position is to simply make sure the President Elect wins both the Electoral Vote and the Popular Vote. I have heard no effective argument to the contrary.

Again, what do you plan to do when a candidate wins the majority and loses the EC?

The same remedy we have now if no candidate gets to 270 Electoral votes.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the phenomenon or not--I'm not sure there is a name for it--but when you have a hypothetical such as this non-binding resolution passed by some state, people in the government will vote one way. When there is a real chance that there may be some effect and after some learned reflection, they will likely vote differently.

Put another way, the legislators are aware that their votes do not matter so they, not surprisingly, cast them for the most popular stance

A national popular vote simply allows those seeking the Presidency to campaign only in the most populous areas. Nothing you have written this time (or the last 3 times you cut and pasted the filibuster length diatribe)has changed that fact.

Again you assert this and again I have to point out that such is NOT the case in existing battleground states. What makes you so sure that it suddenly becomes true when taken nation wide?

 

[FA_Q2]

I still think the winning position is to simply make sure the President Elect wins both the Electoral Vote and the Popular Vote. I have heard no effective argument to the contrary.

Again, what do you plan to do when a candidate wins the majority and loses the EC?

The same remedy we have now if no candidate gets to 270 Electoral votes.

Which is have the legislators decide - a markedly WORSE 'solution.'

That fixes exactly nothing.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the phenomenon or not--I'm not sure there is a name for it--but when you have a hypothetical such as this non-binding resolution passed by some state, people in the government will vote one way. When there is a real chance that there may be some effect and after some learned reflection, they will likely vote differently.

Put another way, the legislators are aware that their votes do not matter so they, not surprisingly, cast them for the most popular stance

A national popular vote simply allows those seeking the Presidency to campaign only in the most populous areas. Nothing you have written this time (or the last 3 times you cut and pasted the filibuster length diatribe)has changed that fact.

Again you assert this and again I have to point out that such is NOT the case in existing battleground states. What makes you so sure that it suddenly becomes true when taken nation wide?

I'll buy into what you're saying when the candidates visit Carson City and Grand Junction multiple times in an election cycle.

 

[candycorn]

I still think the winning position is to simply make sure the President Elect wins both the Electoral Vote and the Popular Vote. I have heard no effective argument to the contrary.

Again, what do you plan to do when a candidate wins the majority and loses the EC?

The same remedy we have now if no candidate gets to 270 Electoral votes.

Which is have the legislators decide - a markedly WORSE 'solution.'

That fixes exactly nothing.

Which is why it is a secondary system. The mandate to get both the plurality of the Popular Vote and the majority of the EV will satisfy the need that some have to make sure our President is the choice of the people who vote and not the electors.

It's a superior system to the nationwide popular vote by head and shoulders. The current remedy for no person getting to 270 EVs is fine as well in terms of it being a backstop.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Want to know the OP's motivation?

In 2012, Obama won the popular vote by 5 million votes

In 2012, Obama won the electoral vote by 126 votes

In 2012, Obama LOST the vote by Congressional district, 209 to Romney's 226.

Once again, all you have here is some RW'er trying to concoct cockeyed election method that would tip elections towards the Republicans.

http://cookpolitical.com/file/2013-04-50.pdf

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the phenomenon or not--I'm not sure there is a name for it--but when you have a hypothetical such as this non-binding resolution passed by some state, people in the government will vote one way. When there is a real chance that there may be some effect and after some learned reflection, they will likely vote differently.

Put another way, the legislators are aware that their votes do not matter so they, not surprisingly, cast them for the most popular stance

A national popular vote simply allows those seeking the Presidency to campaign only in the most populous areas. Nothing you have written this time (or the last 3 times you cut and pasted the filibuster length diatribe)has changed that fact.

Again you assert this and again I have to point out that such is NOT the case in existing battleground states. What makes you so sure that it suddenly becomes true when taken nation wide?

I'll buy into what you're saying when the candidates visit Carson City and Grand Junction multiple times in an election cycle.

Politicians visiting small rural arias in states that have major metropolitan cities in them is a fact plain and simple. You pulling 2 random places out of thin air does not change that fact.

The question remains - your conjecture that politicians would not visit anything but a few metropolitan areas is not based on anything more than that.

 

[FA_Q2]

I still think the winning position is to simply make sure the President Elect wins both the Electoral Vote and the Popular Vote. I have heard no effective argument to the contrary.

Again, what do you plan to do when a candidate wins the majority and loses the EC?

The same remedy we have now if no candidate gets to 270 Electoral votes.

Which is have the legislators decide - a markedly WORSE 'solution.'

That fixes exactly nothing.

Which is why it is a secondary system. The mandate to get both the plurality of the Popular Vote and the majority of the EV will satisfy the need that some have to make sure our President is the choice of the people who vote and not the electors.

It's a superior system to the nationwide popular vote by head and shoulders. The current remedy for no person getting to 270 EVs is fine as well in terms of it being a backstop.

No, it isn't and simply saying it is so does not make it so. Throwing the election to the legislator is moving BACKWARD and also continues to allow those that do not gain the popular vote are still able to gain the presidency. Had your system been in place during Bush we would have ended up with the same outcome and a worse attitude about it. Essentially, including the popular vote solves nothing at all if you rely on the EC as well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The small states get an equal number of senators which is in reality unfair to the larger states. That's more than enough undue compensation.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the phenomenon or not--I'm not sure there is a name for it--but when you have a hypothetical such as this non-binding resolution passed by some state, people in the government will vote one way. When there is a real chance that there may be some effect and after some learned reflection, they will likely vote differently.

Put another way, the legislators are aware that their votes do not matter so they, not surprisingly, cast them for the most popular stance

A national popular vote simply allows those seeking the Presidency to campaign only in the most populous areas. Nothing you have written this time (or the last 3 times you cut and pasted the filibuster length diatribe)has changed that fact.

Again you assert this and again I have to point out that such is NOT the case in existing battleground states. What makes you so sure that it suddenly becomes true when taken nation wide?

I'll buy into what you're saying when the candidates visit Carson City and Grand Junction multiple times in an election cycle.

Politicians visiting small rural arias in states that have major metropolitan cities in them is a fact plain and simple. You pulling 2 random places out of thin air does not change that fact.

Some examples, please. And remember, we're talking about multiple visits as they make to Chicago, Columbus, Philly, Pittsburgh, etc... My guess is that you'll now try to paint some suburb as the boonies.

The question remains - your conjecture that politicians would not visit anything but a few metropolitan areas is not based on anything more than that.

No, your statement is conjecture. Mine is rooted in fact.

Trump will be in:

Toledo Over a quarter of a million in the city alone.
Chester Twnship, PA in 1/2 million person Delaware County
Roanoke, population near 100,000.
This week according to his website.

Not exactly small town America...

I will admit that the Roanoke trip has me (and I'm sure GOP strategists) confused. He's down by 3-8 points in VA and there is nothing to indicate he's going to win it. Holding an event there makes no sense. This is how you shoot yourself in the foot. And he's announced he's going dark in VA.

Hillary has the following dates on her website (it includes her army of surrogates).

September 21, 2016 Orlando, Florida Rally Hillary Clinton
September 21, 2016 San Francisco, California Fundraiser Tim Kaine
September 22, 2016 Reno, Nevada Rally Tim Kaine
September 22, 2016 Toledo, Ohio Organizing Event Chelsea Clinton
September 22, 2016 Grand Rapids, Michigan Women for Hillary Event Chelsea Clinton
September 22, 2016 Lansing, Michigan Students for Hillary Event Chelsea Clinton
September 22, 2016 Vienna, Austria Fundraiser for American Citizens William C. Eacho
September 24, 2016 Nashua, New Hampshire Canvass Launch Senator Elizabeth Warren
September 24, 2016 Manchester, New Hampshire Canvass Launch Senator Elizabeth Warren
September 24, 2016 Durham, New Hampshire Organizing Event Senator Elizabeth Warren
September 25, 2016 New York City, New York Fundraiser Amy Poehler and Ana Gasteyer
September 26, 2016 Hempstead, New York Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
September 26, 2016 Chicago, Illinois Debate Watch Party Fundraiser LGBT for the Hillary Victory Fund
September 26, 2016 Austin, Texas Debate Watch Party Fundraiser Hillary Victory Fund
September 26, 2016 New York City, New York Debate Watch Party Fundraiser Uzo Aduba
September 26, 2016 Brookline, Massachusetts Fundraiser Boston for45
September 27, 2016 New York City, New York Fundraiser Amanda Renteria
September 28, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Rally First Lady Michelle Obama
September 28, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Rally First Lady Michelle Obama
September 30, 2016 Brooklyn, New York Fundraiser Scott M. Stringer
October 2, 2016 Atlanta, Georgia Fundraiser Senator Cory Booker
October 3, 2016 Brussels, Belgium Fundraiser for American Citizens Stephen Rapp
October 4, 2016 Farmville, Virginia Vice-Presidential Debate Tim Kaine
October 5, 2016 Washington, DC Fundraiser Hillary Clinton
October 5, 2016 London, England Fundraiser for American Citizens Melanne Verveer
October 9, 2016 St. Louis, Missouri Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
October 15, 2016 Chicago, Illinois Fundraiser Chicago for Hillary
October 17, 2016 Dallas, Texas Fundraiser LGBT and Allies
October 19, 2016 Las Vegas, Nevada Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
October 19, 2016 Newton, Massachusetts Debate Watch Party Fundraiser Jewish Community for Hillary

Large city after large city.

You simply have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

 

[candycorn]

I still think the winning position is to simply make sure the President Elect wins both the Electoral Vote and the Popular Vote. I have heard no effective argument to the contrary.

Again, what do you plan to do when a candidate wins the majority and loses the EC?

The same remedy we have now if no candidate gets to 270 Electoral votes.

Which is have the legislators decide - a markedly WORSE 'solution.'

That fixes exactly nothing.

Which is why it is a secondary system. The mandate to get both the plurality of the Popular Vote and the majority of the EV will satisfy the need that some have to make sure our President is the choice of the people who vote and not the electors.

It's a superior system to the nationwide popular vote by head and shoulders. The current remedy for no person getting to 270 EVs is fine as well in terms of it being a backstop.

No, it isn't and simply saying it is so does not make it so. Throwing the election to the legislator is moving BACKWARD and also continues to allow those that do not gain the popular vote are still able to gain the presidency. Had your system been in place during Bush we would have ended up with the same outcome and a worse attitude about it. Essentially, including the popular vote solves nothing at all if you rely on the EC as well.

I never contended that we would have a different out come to the 2000 election. But if there was a majority of Democrats in the House at the time, it would have still been the will of the people since, you may not be aware of this, people actually elect those that serve in the House. You seem to think it is staffed by Martians or something....
.

 

[owebo]

Want to know the OP's motivation?

In 2012, Obama won the popular vote by 5 million votes

In 2012, Obama won the electoral vote by 126 votes

In 2012, Obama LOST the vote by Congressional district, 209 to Romney's 226.

Once again, all you have here is some RW'er trying to concoct cockeyed election method that would tip elections towards the Republicans.

http://cookpolitical.com/file/2013-04-50.pdf

No...the motivation is to break up your democrat plantation....our founding fathers never envisioned democrats enslaving people in faucet cities indenturing them to manufacture democrat votes for food......

 

[AvgGuyIA]

By gerrymandered congressional districts? Are you mental?

,True. Make it by county. The majority of counties in the State determines who wins the State's electoral votes. That way the big urban cities don't overly influence the desires by the rest of the State.