Electoral College. Just why?

[Kosh]

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.

The "electoral college" is part of the Constitution.

The amendment in the Constitution would have to be repealed.

Note: Although the United States Constitution refers to "Electors" and "electors", neither the phrase "Electoral College" nor any other name is used to describe the electors collectively. It was not until the early 19th century that the name "Electoral College" came into general usage as the collective designation for the electors selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into federal law in 1845 and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. § 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."

The electoral college was designed to handle more than the two party system we have now.

Even bill Clinton did not get 50% of the votes in 1996 elections.

So do you want to be like many European nations that have multiple parties and the 13% gets to speak for 100% of the people?

 

[mvymvy]

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?

National Popular Vote does not kick the EC out.
The EC would still elect the President.
National Popular Vote requires winning both the EC and the plurality of the Popular Vote.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates.
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
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).
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).

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.

& &

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

& &

You think 80% of states and voters should be content to be taken for granted in presidential elections and beyond?

In 2004, “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

State-by-state winner-take-all laws adversely affect governance. Sitting Presidents (whether contemplating their own re-election or the election of their preferred successor) pay inordinate attention to the interests of “battleground” states.
** “Battleground” states receive over 7% more grants than other states.
** “Battleground” states receive 5% more grant dollars.
** A “battleground” state can expect to receive twice as many presidential disaster declarations as an uncompetitive state.
** The locations of Superfund enforcement actions also reflect a state’s battleground status.
** Federal exemptions from the No Child Left Behind law have been characterized as “‘no swing state left behind.”

The effect of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system on governance is discussed at length in Presidential Pork by Dr. John Hudak of the Brookings Institution.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

& &

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.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

National Popular Vote does not kick the EC out.
The EC would still elect the President.
National Popular Vote requires winning both the EC and the plurality of the Popular Vote.

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.

 

[mvymvy]

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.

The "electoral college" is part of the Constitution.

The amendment in the Constitution would have to be repealed.

Note: Although the United States Constitution refers to "Electors" and "electors", neither the phrase "Electoral College" nor any other name is used to describe the electors collectively. It was not until the early 19th century that the name "Electoral College" came into general usage as the collective designation for the electors selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into federal law in 1845 and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. § 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."

The electoral college was designed to handle more than the two party system we have now.

Even bill Clinton did not get 50% of the votes in 1996 elections.

So do you want to be like many European nations that have multiple parties and the 13% gets to speak for 100% of the people?

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.

The United States would continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states.

There is nothing in the Constitution that would have to be repealed.

With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes.

Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.

Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

And, FYI, with the current system of awarding electoral votes by state winner-take-all (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a plurality of the popular vote in 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.

 

[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.

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).

I never said one word about a pure Democracy.
Getting rid of the electoral college vote cancels out the rural minority votes in our nation and makes just the larger cities voices heard, which is a form of democracy and not a representative republic.

 

[mvymvy]

National Popular Vote does not kick the EC out.
The EC would still elect the President.
National Popular Vote requires winning both the EC and the plurality of the Popular Vote.

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.

You seem to be the one that can't get past that the National Popular Vote would change the system so that the popular vote and the EC would, in the future, always agree on the winner.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it 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.

 

[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).

I never said one word about a pure Democracy.
Getting rid of the electoral college vote cancels out the rural minority votes in our nation and makes just the larger cities voices heard, which is a form of democracy and not a representative republic.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
Rural America 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.

If big cities always controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

There are numerous examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

 

[M14 Shooter]

National Popular Vote does not kick the EC out.
The EC would still elect the President.
National Popular Vote requires winning both the EC and the plurality of the Popular Vote.

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.

You seem to be the one that can't get past that the National Popular Vote would change the system so that the popular vote and the EC would, in the future, always agree on the winner.

I am fully aware of what you seek to accomplish with your idea.
Your entire idea is based upon a false premise, that the popular vote and the EC must always agree on the winner
You understand that you cannot get past this false premise, which is why you refuse to address it.

 

[candycorn]

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.

It's like talking to a word processor.

Would you Consider Texas a pretty safe Red state? Most would. Yet as recently as 1992, Carter won it in 1976. As recently as 1988, the GOP won California.
Clinton won MO and LA, states that are considered red now.

You're measuring the weather; not really the climate.

 

[hadit]

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).

I never said one word about a pure Democracy.
Getting rid of the electoral college vote cancels out the rural minority votes in our nation and makes just the larger cities voices heard, which is a form of democracy and not a representative republic.

This is true. The concentration of voters in a smaller area makes campaigning a lot easier for candidates, and with less incentive to reach the rural voter, we would see much greater attention paid to the urban centers. They would, in effect, elect the president, every time.

 

[mvymvy]

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).

I never said one word about a pure Democracy.
Getting rid of the electoral college vote cancels out the rural minority votes in our nation and makes just the larger cities voices heard, which is a form of democracy and not a representative republic.

This is true. The concentration of voters in a smaller area makes campaigning a lot easier for candidates, and with less incentive to reach the rural voter, we would see much greater attention paid to the urban centers. They would, in effect, elect the president, every time.

No. One more time:

With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
Rural America 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.

If big cities always controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

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.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't poll, organize, buy ads, and visit just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just as important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

With National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states or (gerrymandered) districts would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.

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.

 

[mvymvy]

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.

It's like talking to a word processor.

Would you Consider Texas a pretty safe Red state? Most would. Yet as recently as 1992, Carter won it in 1976. As recently as 1988, the GOP won California.
Clinton won MO and LA, states that are considered red now.

You're measuring the weather; not really the climate.

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.

In 1960, presidential campaigns paid attention to 35 states.
In 2008, Obama only campaigned in 14 states after being nominated.
In 2012, the presidential campaigns only cared about 9 swing states.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

Paul Ryan said, "If there's a thing I learned from being involved in the 2012 election, it's that we can't have this Electoral College strategy with the margin of error of one state." (August 21, 2014)

States' partisanship is hardening.

Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable, to the point that only ten states were considered competitive in the 2012 election.

From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242 electoral votes) voted Democratic every time

If this pattern continues,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29 electoral votes), they would lose.

Some states have not been been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.

· 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
· 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
· 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
· 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
· 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
· 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

 

[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).

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?

Because every voter, everywhere would be equal and matter to each candidate.

The political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows, is that when and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

 

[mvymvy]

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.

OF COURSE the game is broken.

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- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

Where you live determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states’ votes were conceded by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

In 2004 “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out . . . that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.”

There were only 10 battleground states in 2012.

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

 

[hadit]

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?

Because every voter, everywhere would be equal and matter to each candidate.

The political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows, is that when and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

That ignores reality. When millions of voters are gathered in one place, it's a heck of a lot easier to campaign to them then when they are spread out over large areas. Take away the EC and all the campaigning goes to the big cities.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Because every voter, everywhere would be equal and matter to each candidate.

The political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows, is that when and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

That ignores reality. When millions of voters are gathered in one place, it's a heck of a lot easier to campaign to them then when they are spread out over large areas. Take away the EC and all the campaigning goes to the big cities.

I lived in rural places in large states (Texas). Its not as if the governor spent a lot of time in Odessa or Amarillo.

The reality is that they already appeal to the masses when they can

 

[hadit]

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?

Because every voter, everywhere would be equal and matter to each candidate.

The political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows, is that when and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

That ignores reality. When millions of voters are gathered in one place, it's a heck of a lot easier to campaign to them then when they are spread out over large areas. Take away the EC and all the campaigning goes to the big cities.

I lived in rural places in large states (Texas). Its not as if the governor spent a lot of time in Odessa or Amarillo.

The reality is that they already appeal to the masses when they can

That is true. In a presidential election, however, candidates can't simply ignore smaller, lesser populated states because those states have EC votes that matter. Remove that, and I believe you remove even what little incentive they have to pay attention to them at all.

 

[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.

OF COURSE the game is broken.

You say this and then only demonstrate that the players know how to play the game.
This does not demonstrate that the game is broken.

 

[mvymvy]

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?

Because every voter, everywhere would be equal and matter to each candidate.

The political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows, is that when and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

That ignores reality. When millions of voters are gathered in one place, it's a heck of a lot easier to campaign to them then when they are spread out over large areas. Take away the EC and all the campaigning goes to the big cities.

I lived in rural places in large states (Texas). Its not as if the governor spent a lot of time in Odessa or Amarillo.

The reality is that they already appeal to the masses when they can

That is true. In a presidential election, however, candidates can't simply ignore smaller, lesser populated states because those states have EC votes that matter. Remove that, and I believe you remove even what little incentive they have to pay attention to them at all.

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

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.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections.
6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and
6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

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). Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

 

[Kosh]

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?

Because every voter, everywhere would be equal and matter to each candidate.

The political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows, is that when and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

That ignores reality. When millions of voters are gathered in one place, it's a heck of a lot easier to campaign to them then when they are spread out over large areas. Take away the EC and all the campaigning goes to the big cities.

I lived in rural places in large states (Texas). Its not as if the governor spent a lot of time in Odessa or Amarillo.

The reality is that they already appeal to the masses when they can

That is true. In a presidential election, however, candidates can't simply ignore smaller, lesser populated states because those states have EC votes that matter. Remove that, and I believe you remove even what little incentive they have to pay attention to them at all.

The far left candidates do it all the time, they only appeal to the large cities that under far left control.