Electoral College. Just why?

[M14 Shooter]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[mvymvy]

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??

What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.

It's actually very very simple math:

California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote

Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote

Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote

Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote

Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.

informative but it leaves out the winner-take-all effect.....which gives way to much clout to California. texas and NewYork

They have the most people, they should have the biggest voices. As for the losers in those winner take all elections...you simply can never make everyone happy, they chose to be on team California or team Texas. Their tribe has spoken, and it didn't go their way, too bad better luck next time.

I agree they should have the biggest voices...but not outsized voices.....when u figure in the winner-take-all....they have too much power

If 5 big states where considered supreme by popular vote and referendum the rest of the nation would revolt .. and I'd agree with them

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 a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states 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) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone 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).

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

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

 

[mvymvy]

If the states have selected a different method than the one mandated in the 'National Popular Vote' bill, then yes....it does make constitutional changes. As the authority to determine the method of elector selection belongs exclusively to the state. It can't be dictated by a national bill.

This is true; the federal governmebt cannot pass this into law.
The states, however, can agree to do it themselves..

50 of 50 times?
Good luck.

As the entire idea is based on a false premise, I don't see it happening -- just saying that the states -can- choose to adopt this method for choosing their electors.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

This is why I said the federal government cannot force the states to do this; that they each have to choose to do this on their own.

The entire idea is based on a false premise - funny how you refuse to address this.

The federal government has nothing to do with the National Popular Vote bill.
States are enacting the National Popular Vote bill.

 

[mvymvy]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

 

[Kosh]

This is true; the federal governmebt cannot pass this into law.
The states, however, can agree to do it themselves..

50 of 50 times?
Good luck.

As the entire idea is based on a false premise, I don't see it happening -- just saying that the states -can- choose to adopt this method for choosing their electors.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

This is why I said the federal government cannot force the states to do this; that they each have to choose to do this on their own.

The entire idea is based on a false premise - funny how you refuse to address this.

The federal government has nothing to do with the National Popular Vote bill.
States are enacting the National Popular Vote bill.

The electoral college does not affect state elections only national presidential elections..

Just because someone may win the popular vote does not mean they have to give their electoral votes to that person..

 

[candycorn]

Wow, this is very coherent and well-stated.

Did someone hack your account?

no it isnt...California is way way more equal than the rest based on the way things are done....and the small eastern states have relatively too much power also...it means the fly-over states get screwed.

And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?

The EC does not ensure the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

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

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

Let me ask you something. What is the goal of the "National Popular Vote" organization....not from the webpage but in your own words please.

One Person, One Vote.

We have that already.

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

We have that as well. No intrinsic power gives Texas to the GOP every election year. The Party and the voters in the State agree on a broad range of issues so Texas goes red.
As for my vote counting...in the current system, Democrats in Texas are pretty much wasting their votes...right? In the final analysis nationwide, if your person doesn't win, isn't that the same thing? Your voice isn't being heard.

The candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every election in the country.

That almost always happens now. I do not see how tinkering with the system would give us a different set of outcomes.

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

First off, where is that written?

Secondly, if I need only a mass number of votes to win an election, the last place I will campaign is in the rural areas since there is no prize to speaking to a crowd of 3,000 when I could be speaking to a crowd of 10,000 in a larger city.

Nor am I buying advertising time in less populous states/areas when my ad dollars will go further in more populous areas.

If there is a good reason to kick the EC out, you're not presenting a better alternative in terms of empowering all Americans. A better plan seems to be to add another requirement--one that requires winning both the EC and the plurality of the Popular Vote. This would not change many outcomes either but then again, I think America gets it right almost every time.

My follow-up question to you is this; if you're going to make it where the popular vote is the determining factor and not artificially try to empower those in less populous areas, wouldn't it make more sense to simply up the % requirement to 60 or 70 percent as opposed to fifty?

 

[M14 Shooter]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

And now we're back to the false premise upon which this entire idea is based, that the popular vote and the EC vote must agree on the winner.
You understand that you cannot get past this false premise, which is why you refuse to address it.

 

[Kosh]

no it isnt...California is way way more equal than the rest based on the way things are done....and the small eastern states have relatively too much power also...it means the fly-over states get screwed.

And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?

The EC does not ensure the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

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

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

Let me ask you something. What is the goal of the "National Popular Vote" organization....not from the webpage but in your own words please.

One Person, One Vote.

We have that already.

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

We have that as well. No intrinsic power gives Texas to the GOP every election year. The Party and the voters in the State agree on a broad range of issues so Texas goes red.
As for my vote counting...in the current system, Democrats in Texas are pretty much wasting their votes...right? In the final analysis nationwide, if your person doesn't win, isn't that the same thing? Your voice isn't being heard.

The candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every election in the country.

That almost always happens now. I do not see how tinkering with the system would give us a different set of outcomes.

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

First off, where is that written?

Secondly, if I need only a mass number of votes to win an election, the last place I will campaign is in the rural areas since there is no prize to speaking to a crowd of 3,000 when I could be speaking to a crowd of 10,000 in a larger city.

Nor am I buying advertising time in less populous states/areas when my ad dollars will go further in more populous areas.

If there is a good reason to kick the EC out, you're not presenting a better alternative in terms of empowering all Americans. A better plan seems to be to add another requirement--one that requires winning both the EC and the plurality of the Popular Vote. This would not change many outcomes either but then again, I think America gets it right almost every time.

My follow-up question to you is this; if you're going to make it where the popular vote is the determining factor and not artificially try to empower those in less populous areas, wouldn't it make more sense to simply up the % requirement to 60 or 70 percent as opposed to fifty?

And this far left drone just laid out the far left plan on how they campaign..

 

[peach174]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

 

[Skylar]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Unless a state legislature changed their mind. Remember, any such compact would be unenforceable. As there's no constitutional basis for one state to force another to abide the compact if they choose to do differently.

So it would be a completely voluntary system.

 

[Skylar]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

No more so than any state election that involved a direct vote of the people. It would be simple majority rules.

 

[mvymvy]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy.
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government

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.

9 states determined the 2012 election.

Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states again will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. They aren’t polled or visited.

None of the 10 most rural states matter

24 of the 27 lowest population states, that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

4 out of 5 Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.

Candidates do not bother to advertise or organize in 80% of the states.

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 for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

 

[mvymvy]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

No more so than any state election that involved a direct vote of the people. It would be simple majority rules.

Every voter would be equal.
Every voter would matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

 

[mvymvy]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Unless a state legislature changed their mind. Remember, any such compact would be unenforceable. As there's no constitutional basis for one state to force another to abide the compact if they choose to do differently.

So it would be a completely voluntary system.

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

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

No more so than any state election that involved a direct vote of the people. It would be simple majority rules.

Every voter would be equal.
Every voter would matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

And now we're back to the false premise upon which this entire idea is based, that the popular vote and the EC vote must agree on the winner.
You understand that you cannot get past this false premise, which is why you refuse to address it.

 

[mvymvy]

And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?

The EC does not ensure the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

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

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

Let me ask you something. What is the goal of the "National Popular Vote" organization....not from the webpage but in your own words please.

One Person, One Vote.

We have that already.

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

We have that as well. No intrinsic power gives Texas to the GOP every election year. The Party and the voters in the State agree on a broad range of issues so Texas goes red.
As for my vote counting...in the current system, Democrats in Texas are pretty much wasting their votes...right? In the final analysis nationwide, if your person doesn't win, isn't that the same thing? Your voice isn't being heard.

The candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every election in the country.

That almost always happens now. I do not see how tinkering with the system would give us a different set of outcomes.

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

First off, where is that written?

Secondly, if I need only a mass number of votes to win an election, the last place I will campaign is in the rural areas since there is no prize to speaking to a crowd of 3,000 when I could be speaking to a crowd of 10,000 in a larger city.

Nor am I buying advertising time in less populous states/areas when my ad dollars will go further in more populous areas.

If there is a good reason to kick the EC out, you're not presenting a better alternative in terms of empowering all Americans. A better plan seems to be to add another requirement--one that requires winning both the EC and the plurality of the Popular Vote. This would not change many outcomes either but then again, I think America gets it right almost every time.

My follow-up question to you is this; if you're going to make it where the popular vote is the determining factor and not artificially try to empower those in less populous areas, wouldn't it make more sense to simply up the % requirement to 60 or 70 percent as opposed to fifty?

And this far left drone just laid out the far left plan on how they campaign..

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

And now we're back to the false premise upon which this entire idea is based, that the popular vote and the EC vote must agree on the winner.
You understand that you cannot get past this false premise, which is why you refuse to address it.

The whole point is that the National Popular Vote bill would change the current system, by making the popular vote and the EC vote agree on the winner.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, 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 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . 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 would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state

 

[mvymvy]

50 of 50 times?
Good luck.

As the entire idea is based on a false premise, I don't see it happening -- just saying that the states -can- choose to adopt this method for choosing their electors.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

This is why I said the federal government cannot force the states to do this; that they each have to choose to do this on their own.

The entire idea is based on a false premise - funny how you refuse to address this.

The federal government has nothing to do with the National Popular Vote bill.
States are enacting the National Popular Vote bill.

The electoral college does not affect state elections only national presidential elections..

Just because someone may win the popular vote does not mean they have to give their electoral votes to that person..

Presidential elections are 51 (50 states + DC) separate elections.

States enacting the National Popular Vote bill are agreeing to award their Electoral College votes to the person who wins the national popular vote.

 

[candycorn]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy.
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government

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.

9 states determined the 2012 election.

Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states again will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. They aren’t polled or visited.

None of the 10 most rural states matter

24 of the 27 lowest population states, that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

4 out of 5 Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.

Candidates do not bother to advertise or organize in 80% of the states.

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 for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

Okay...

Here is a map of the travels of the candidates after their parties conventions:

Here is a map of the campaign money spent:

And Romney:

The only thing that seems to be different about your system is that LA, NY, and CHI, and Houston will see advertising dollars instead of Reno, Jacksonville, all of Wisconsin, IA, CO, Nevada, NH, or Maine.

Again, why would you visit Nevada in your system if you're a candidate?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The whole point is that the National Popular Vote bill would change the current system, by making the popular vote and the EC vote agree on the winner.

Yes.
This is your false premise upon which this entire idea is based, that the popular vote and the EC vote must agree on the winner.
You understand that you cannot get past this false premise, which is why you refuse to address it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay...
Here is a map of the travels of the candidates after their parties conventions:

So what?
Knowing how to win the game and playing the game accordingly does not mean the game is broken.